The lived experience and perception of nursing student interpersonal communication in nursing practice rotations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions and lived experiences of nursing students’ interpersonal communication with clients and nurses upon completion of nursing practice rotations of undergraduate nursing education. The study identified the extent to which nursing student participants were aware of the roles, relationships, and statuses in the context of nursing practice rotations, and how this awareness shaped their interpersonal communication with clients and nurses. Ecological Systems Theory and Critical Systems Theory were used as complementary theoretical frameworks to explore the system of layers of roles and relationships and to employ a critical lens. Hermeneutic phenomenological research methodology, specifically the approach of Max van Manen (1990) was used to gain the essence of the 12 participants’ lived experiences of interpersonal communication with nurses and clients on nursing practice rotations: feelings of overwhelm, unpreparedness, and powerlessness in their roles, relationships, and status in communicating with nurses and clients. The principle themes of Holding on to the Traditional Student Role (role stagnation), Learning to Become a Professional Nurse within a Community of Nurses (role transformation), and Experiencing Disempowerment as Learners (role oppression) within the ecosystem were deconstructed to make recommendations for nursing education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".