I gave my BSc Nursing Year 1 English class an exam. Every student passed. The last student left the venue well before time. My first instinct was satisfaction that the alignment work had paid off. But leadership saw it differently: students left early, therefore the exam must have been too easy. Make it harder, I was told.
That moment captured a tension I suspect many educators in professional programmes recognise. We equate difficulty with rigour, and early completion with insufficient challenge. But what if the students were not under-challenged? What if they were simply not stressed?
Aligning English with Nursing: the multidisciplinary experiment
In my classes, I deliberately wove English language tasks into the conceptual fabric of nursing. When students studied microbiology, their English reading passages described infection control. When they covered anatomy, their writing prompts asked them to describe a body system. History of Nursing became biographical comprehension; Fundamentals of Nursing became the context for vocabulary and short-answer tasks. The English classroom did not sit apart from their professional discipline. It sat inside it.
The rationale was simple. These students were already building mental models of nursing science. If English tasks drew on those same models, students would process language through familiar conceptual structures, reducing cognitive load and allowing them to demonstrate competence rather than struggle with unfamiliar context.
The result and the pushback
The exam that drew the comment was structured entirely around nursing themes: a passage on patient hygiene from Fundamentals of Nursing, a short text on the history of the profession, vocabulary drawn from anatomy, and a reflective writing prompt on a clinical scenario. Students moved through it with fluency. Their answers were accurate. The result was 100 percent.
The feedback from my line manager was that students had left too early, suggesting the paper lacked rigour. I understand the instinct. In many settings, early exit implies the task did not stretch students. But I believe it is worth disentangling two things: the time a task takes and the cognitive demand it places on a student. A task built on unfamiliar terrain takes longer because students are decoding both the language and the conceptual landscape. A task built on familiar professional knowledge strips away the second challenge, leaving only the linguistic one. The student works faster not because the work is easy, but because one layer of difficulty has been removed.
What multidisciplinary assessment demands of us
If we accept this framing, then the role of the exam changes. It is no longer a gauntlet designed to separate students by speed. It becomes a diagnostic of whether our curriculum integration is working. When students complete a multidisciplinary exam quickly and accurately, it may signal that the alignment between subjects is effective, that the conceptual groundwork laid in other classrooms is solid, and that students are able to transfer knowledge across domains; a skill that lies at the heart of competent nursing practice.
This is not an argument for making exams easier. It is an argument for making them smarter. Difficulty woven through disciplinary irrelevance is not rigour. It is gatekeeping. The rigour worth defending is the rigour that asks students to think critically within the professional contexts they will inhabit, not the rigour that slows them down with arbitrary obstacles.
The teaching approach described in this blog aligns closely with Stephen Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis, which suggests that students learn language more effectively in low-anxiety, meaningful learning environments where motivation and confidence are enhanced. By integrating nursing themes familiar to students from subjects such as microbiology, anatomy and Fundamentals of Nursing, the learning environment became more authentic and less intimidating for learners.
This interdisciplinary approach also reflects principles of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), where language instruction is combined with subject-specific content. Research indicates that CLIL enhances learner motivation, promotes meaningful communication and strengthens both language development and professional competence.
Recent literature in nursing education further supports integrating language teaching with nursing content, particularly for English-as-an-additional-language learners. Studies highlight that collaboration between language educators and nursing specialists can improve both academic English proficiency and professional communication skills required in healthcare settings.
The students’ ability to complete examinations confidently and efficiently may therefore reflect familiarity with authentic disciplinary discourse rather than reduced academic rigor. From a pedagogical perspective, contextualized assessment can support deeper comprehension and quicker retrieval of knowledge because students encounter language in meaningful professional contexts.
A question for colleagues
I am sharing this not as a fixed position but as an open inquiry. Have you encountered similar reactions in your own institutions where a positive assessment outcome is read as a lowering of standards rather than evidence of effective alignment? How do you measure the difference between a genuinely easy exam, and one whose cognitive load has been thoughtfully distributed across a multidisciplinary curriculum?
I would welcome your thoughts, your experiences and your pushback. Because if we are to design assessment that truly serves professional education, we need to ask the hard question together: are we measuring what students know, or simply how long it takes them to prove it?
Mehwish Fatima is an Instructor at the Aga Khan School of Nursing and Midwifery, Karachi, Pakistan, where she teaches English to BSc Nursing Year 1 students. Her work focuses on integrating language instruction with nursing science to create authentic, low-anxiety learning experiences for future healthcare professionals.
Call for papers
We invite healthcare educators in the UK and internationally to submit abstracts for sessions at the forthcoming Healthcare Educators NET Conference 2026: "Practice ready: journeys, transitions, and professional growth".
Find out more
References
Al Shehri, H. (2012). The models of acquisition and teaching in a second language, and the hypothesis of the affective filter of Krashen. Avances en Supervisión Educativa, 16. https://doi.org/10.23824/ase.v0i16.506
Liu, Y., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2025). CLIL in English-medium nursing education: Teacher collaboration via translanguaging–trans-semiotising pedagogy for enabling internally persuasive discourse and professional competencies. Education Sciences, 15(8), 983. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15080983
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2025). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Cambridge University Press.
Lyu, P. (2022). How does Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) influence university students’ English acquisition? A systematic literature review. Research and Advances in Education, 1(6), 28–37.
Dzulkurnain, M. I., et al. (2023). Understanding the benefits and challenges of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in English education: A literature synthesis. Journal on Education.
Banegas, D. L., & del Pozo Beamud, M. (2020). Content and Language Integrated Learning: A duoethnographic study about CLIL pre-service teacher education in Argentina and Spain. Language and Education, 53(1).