An integrative review of threshold concepts in doctoral education: Implications for PhD nursing programs

Student Reflections on Learning in a Doctoral-Level Writing Course

BACKGROUND

Programs to improve student writing have been deployed widely in nursing graduate education, but few operational indicators exist for measuring their value.

PROBLEM

The challenge of measuring outcomes reflects the complexity of what transpires when graduate students write. Better understanding is needed of what it means to students to "learn" from writing support.

APPROACH

A full-semester writing course was implemented in a nursing science PhD program. In formative course assessment activities, students identified problems in early drafts of their work, which they subsequently learned to detect and resolve. In this article, students report what was learned.

CONCLUSION

Writing skills, like clinical skills, are intertwined with intellectual maturation and sense of professional identity. Writing, like clinical learning, requires an investment of time and labor far beyond what is typical in didactic approaches to classroom-based graduate education. Our experience suggests a need to reconceptualize writing pedagogy in nursing.

Scientific writing development: Improve DNP student skill and writing efficiency

BACKGROUND

Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) students lack sufficient opportunities to practice writing. Students and faculty require clear expectations and consistent feedback to improve skills.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated a rubric-driven scientific writing development program.

DESIGN

A mixed methods design was used.

SETTING

The study was conducted in a post-Master's DNP Program.

PARTICIPANTS

The sample included DNP students and faculty.

METHODS

The intervention was delivered to 10 students and writing proficiency was assessed over five semesters. Overall doctoral project quality and rigor were assessed at the end of the program and compared to a similar group of students (n = 20). Seven faculty and eight students participated in qualitative interviews.

RESULTS

Performance improved from Semesters 1 to 5; and though quality and rigor did not differ, the intervention group's final papers were more efficiently written with approximately 17 fewer pages and an average review time of eight fewer minutes than the comparison group. Participants identified the rubric, feedback, and scaffolding as helpful program components.

CONCLUSIONS

Scientific writing development is essential to DNP education. The intervention improved skill performance and writing efficiency.