Mental Well-Being and Emotional Regulation in Preparing for the Master’s Nursing Thesis Defense: An Interpretative Thematic Analysis

Abstract

Background: The master’s thesis defense requires students to demonstrate research maturity, a high-stakes phase often causing significant stress. Understanding student challenges and the process of emotional regulation is crucial to improving pedagogical support, promoting academic well-being, and reducing the associated anxiety. Aim: To explore master’s nursing students’ experiences of the interplay between mental well-being and emotion regulation, during their thesis defense preparation. Methods: A qualitative study, conducted in accordance with COREQ guidelines, explored the perceptions of 29 master’s nursing students (average age of 35.62 years) in Portugal. Data was collected through four face-to-face focus groups, each comprising six to eight students, between October and November 2024, and was analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s systematic thematic analysis. Results: We found three main themes: (i) the pervasive nature of performance anxiety, characterized by significant fear of judgment and cognitive blocks; (ii) preparedness as a central strategy for fostering mental well-being, which included emotional regulation strategies such as researching the jury and practice sessions to manage uncertainty; and (iii) institutional support as a key mediator of well-being, which highlighted a demand for clearer information and formal training in oral communication skills to mitigate anxiety. Conclusions: The findings suggest that relying solely on students’ informal emotional regulation strategies creates vulnerability. To reduce defense-related anxiety and enhance mental well-being, structured institutional support, including clear guidelines, simulated rehearsals, and communication training focused on emotional regulation, is essential to transform the defense process into an opportunity for professional growth and academic well-being.

1. Introduction

The contemporary healthcare landscape is characterized by continuous and multifaceted transformation, primarily driven by global demographic aging and the consequent increase in the prevalence of chronic diseases [1,2,3]. This evolving epidemiological context, alongside the rapid integration of technology and Artificial Intelligence into healthcare, necessitates advanced adaptation by professionals, especially nurses [4,5,6].

Scientific evidence has explored the importance of higher education for nurses and the impact of postgraduate differentiation on population health outcomes [7,8]. A transformative force in this educational evolution has been the Bologna Process, which standardized higher education across Europe through a three-cycle structure (Bachelor’s, Master’s, Doctoral) and established the European Higher Education Area [9,10]. Within this framework, the master’s degree (second cycle) provides specialized knowledge and advanced skills. In Portugal, for instance, this 90–120 ECTS program [11] requires nurses to move beyond foundational studies and apply knowledge to innovative research contexts [12]. A key expectation is the ability to apply problem-solving acumen to novel, multidisciplinary settings [13]. Graduates must synthesize complex information, formulate judgments with incomplete data, articulate conclusions clearly, and possess the autonomy for lifelong learning [14,15].

The culminating phase of a master’s degree is the public defense of a scientific dissertation or project, typically an oral viva voce examination [16]. This high-stakes assessment, whether in-person or virtual, assesses the candidate’s ability to articulate, defend, and validate their scholarly contributions [17,18].

The public defense is crucial for professional development, particularly when viewed through the lens of Chinn and Kramer’s [19] patterns of knowing. Building on Carper’s work, the defense validates empirical knowing (scientific substantiation), fosters aesthetic knowing (artful interpretation), provides a forum for ethics, and promotes personal knowing (professional identity). Chinn et al. [19] also added emancipatory knowing, which the defense addresses by situating research within broader societal and clinical contexts [14,20]. However, the thesis defense also represents the culmination of a formative trajectory as a highly demanding, high-stakes event. This process, which requires students to debate and respond to complex questions, acts as a significant academic stressor [18]. This final phase generates a critical tension centered on mental well-being, defined here as a state of psychological equilibrium. This equilibrium is crucial for effectively managing stressors, optimizing innate potential, and sustaining robust cognitive function necessary for academic success, professional engagement [21], and successful adaptation to the university environment [22]. Due to the multifaceted and demanding nature of their curriculum, nursing students exhibit a higher predisposition to psychological distress compared to their counterparts in other disciplines [23].

A meta-analysis, which aggregated data from 25 meta-analyses and 375 primary studies, encompassing a total of 171,828 nursing students, revealed an overall prevalence of mental health issues at 27% within this population. The most prevalent issues were notable, with sleep disturbances occurring in half of the sample. Fear was the second-most common symptom, affecting 41% of participants. Other key issues included burnout, reported at 32%, depression and anxiety registered at 29%, and stress at 27% of the nursing students [24]. Within the Portuguese context, the deterioration of mental health among university students is prevalent, with alarming rates of psychological distress, where 75% of participants reported anxiety symptoms (ranging from mild to severe), and 61.2% reported depressive symptoms (ranging from mild to severe) [25]. These critical mental health aspects require the development of emotional regulation in higher education institutions [26]. Central to sustaining mental well-being is emotion regulation, defined as the set of processes, ranging from spontaneous to more deliberate efforts, through which individuals monitor, evaluate, and modify their emotional reactions to achieve personal or academic goals. While mental well-being represents the clinical or psychological outcome, emotion regulation constitutes the active mechanism that allows students to navigate the high-stakes environment of a public defense [26,27]. Emotional adjustment involves the competence to effectively modulate and manage affective responses across diverse contexts. This capacity underpins an individual’s psychological resilience, enabling adaptive and functional responses to substantially demanding circumstances [27]. Crucially, emotion regulation must be distinguished from coping or stress management; while coping is a reactive response to perceived stressors, emotion regulation is a proactive, broader process involving the modulation of emotional experiences, such as cognitive reappraisal. Consequently, while stress management focuses on enduring pressure, emotion regulation modulates the emotional trajectory to optimize cognitive and performative efficacy during the public defense [24,25,26].

While resilient health systems are essential for preventing, adapting to, and recovering from public health threats, nurses play a crucial role in maintaining this systemic stability. Therefore, cultivating mental well-being and emotional regulation in future nurse leaders is not only critical for their individual resilience against academic stress but is a foundational prerequisite for ensuring their sustained professional contribution and the long-term efficacy of the health system [28]. This study aims to explore master’s nursing students’ experiences of the interplay between mental well-being and emotion regulation during their thesis defense preparation.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Design

This study adopted a qualitative, exploratory, and descriptive design, utilizing Focus Groups [29] as the primary data collection technique. The qualitative approach was chosen to facilitate a deep understanding of social phenomena from the participants’ perspectives [30,31], with the overarching objective of investigating the perceptions of master’s nursing students regarding their preparation for thesis defenses. To ensure transparency and methodological rigor across all study phases, the COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines [32] were rigorously followed. Focus groups provide a unique advantage by prioritizing inter-participant interaction. Rather than conducting 29 individual interviews, this methodology prioritized the group effect, allowing us to capture collective dynamics that individual perceptions alone cannot reveal. This dynamic often functions as an icebreaker, facilitating participant expression and encouraging a more open dialogue that might not emerge in a one-on-one setting. Grounded in an interpretivist paradigm, this study recognizes that reality is socially constructed via participant interaction. This epistemological position seeks to identify patterns of meaning in qualitative data that capture the participants’ lived experiences.

This study is part of the “PedPPac—Pedagogy in Academic Public Defenses” research project, which seeks to develop targeted pedagogical strategies and evidence-based resources aimed at optimizing student preparation and support during this pivotal stage of academic assessment.

2.2. Participants and Setting

Participants were selected using a total population sampling strategy, a type of non-probability purposive sampling [33,34]. The study included 29 master’s nursing students from a single higher education institution in Portugal. Participants had a mean age of 35.62 years (SD = 9.06) and an average of 11.62 years (SD = 8.67) of nursing clinical experience. The study included all 3rd-semester master’s nursing students from two distinct master’s programs in the field of nursing. This specific semester, which marks the final phase of their master’s course, was selected to facilitate an in-depth examination of their perceptions regarding academic defense preparations.

Participants were initially approached via an official email invitation distributed through the university’s academic channels. No refusals to participate were recorded, and all enrolled participants completed their respective focus group sessions. To safeguard voluntariness and mitigate potential power imbalances within this hierarchical context, several measures were implemented. First, it was explicitly communicated to all students, both in the invitation and at the beginning of each session, that participation was entirely voluntary and that choosing not to participate would have no impact, positive or negative, on their academic assessments, grades, or the defense process itself. To further ensure autonomy, the researchers who conducted the focus groups were not involved in the participants’ upcoming final thesis evaluations. The 100% participation can be attributed to the high relevance of the topic to the students’ immediate academic concerns and their stated desire to contribute to pedagogical improvements in the defense process. Given this total population sampling, the risk of self-selection bias was effectively mitigated. However, the institutional setting may have introduced other limitations, such as social desirability or hierarchy-related response bias, where participants might have tailored their responses to align with institutional expectations.

Regarding anonymity, particularly in small cohorts, participants were informed that their identities would be protected using pseudonyms and that any specific institutional or personal identifiers would be removed from the transcripts to prevent indirect identification by the faculty.

Four Focus Group (FG) sessions were conducted during October and November 2024. Each session, face-to-face, comprising six to eight students from the respective scientific areas of the master’s programs, adhering to the lower limit of participants recommended by Freeman [35]. All FG sessions were held in a comfortable environment for the participants, with dedicated, quiet research rooms on the university campus, ensuring privacy and minimal distractions. No individuals other than the participants and research team members (moderator and reporter) were present during sessions [36,37].

2.3. Data Collection

The Focus Group (FG) technique was selected for its suitability in exploratory studies, allowing for structured group discussions led by a moderator to explore perceptions on specific issues interactively [29]. This method effectively captured group dynamics and facilitated the simultaneous exploration of diverse perspectives [37].

Each FG session lasted approximately 45 min. While slightly shorter than some recommended durations (typically 60–120 min) [33], this specific timeframe was intentionally chosen to maintain participant engagement and mitigate potential fatigue and stress-related factors, given the focused nature of the discussion on academic defense preparations. Sessions were facilitated by an experienced researcher (CN), who was responsible for introducing the questions and guiding the discussion, actively encouraging participation from all attendees. Additional probing questions were posed by the interviewer as needed to clarify participants’ responses. A second researcher (HM) served as a reporter during each session, taking detailed field notes and documenting interactions among participants [29]. Both involved researchers possessed prior experience with qualitative data collection techniques and held in-depth knowledge of the study context. The moderator (CN) and reporter (HM) were PhD University Professors and Researchers in the fields of Nursing, Education, and Psychology. No pre-existing therapeutic or supervisory relationship was established between the researchers and participants before the study. At the commencement of each focus group session, moderators introduced themselves (including their names, backgrounds, and general experiences relevant to the research topic), followed by brief self-introductions from the participants. Subsequently, the moderators provided a comprehensive explanation of the study’s objectives, methodology, and topic. The researchers acknowledged their position as faculty members within the same institution and consciously strived for neutrality, facilitating open discussion without imposing their perspectives. Their deep understanding of the academic context enabled them to conduct informed probing while maintaining objectivity.

The interview guide was designed using a funneling technique, starting with a broad, neutral anchor question. This approach ensured that the dialogue was not preconditioned. Specific probes regarding knowledge gaps or lack of preparation were only introduced when participants spontaneously identified these issues, thereby ensuring that the data reflected their genuine lived experiences rather than researcher bias. The FG guide comprised four general open-ended questions designed to elicit participants’ perceptions: As a future candidate for public defense… (a) Do you have any concerns about this moment? (b) What do you feel you lack knowledge about regarding this moment? (c) What strategies do you consider necessary to prepare for this online moment? (d) What factors should the educational institution consider to improve this moment for public defense candidates? The interview guide was developed in consultation with experts in qualitative research and nursing education, and then pilot-tested with a small group of master’s students not included in the main study, resulting in minor refinements for clarity and flow.

Written informed consent was obtained for voluntary participation, including explicit authorization for audio recording. This was conducted to ensure accuracy in subsequent transcription and data analysis. Before the FG interview, each participant completed a brief sociodemographic questionnaire, with a response time not exceeding two minutes. The moderator then structured the gathered information, leading a group discussion that was directly informed by these compiled insights.

2.4. Data Analysis

The study employed a systematic thematic analysis approach, guided by the framework of Braun and Clarke [38]. The interpretation process commenced with the comprehensive reading of all focus group transcripts. During the initial phase of data analysis (familiarization), both researchers independently immersed themselves in the dataset. The primary researchers involved in focus group facilitation and transcription (CN and HM) achieved familiarization through these direct engagements and subsequent thorough rereading of the transcripts. The second phase involved generating initial codes, accomplished through repeated individual readings by each researcher. This led to the creation of preliminary categories. Subsequently, in the third phase, researchers independently developed initial themes from these codes.

Following these independent analyses, the researchers convened for a collaborative session, where data triangulation was performed. This critical stage, aligning with the fourth phase of Braun and Clarke’s guide (reviewing themes), involved a meticulous review, definition, and naming of the emergent themes. A high degree of consensus was observed, as independently generated codes and themes exhibited consistent meanings, facilitating a negotiated agreement on final theme titles. The subsequent phases (defining and naming themes and producing the report) were then completed. In this study, the adequacy of the data was assessed based on the concept of information power [39]. The robustness of the findings is supported by the inclusion of the entire accessible population at the institution; the high specificity of the participants (master’s students in the final stage of their degree); and the depth and richness of the discussions across four focus groups, which provided a dense dataset sufficient to address the study’s aims.

2.5. Ethical Considerations

The study received favorable ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of a Higher Nursing School (Number 2835/2024, 5 July 2024). The study adhered to the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki and principles of good scientific practice, including data protection requirements. All participants provided written informed consent for voluntary participation and audio recording of the focus group interviews.

2.6. Rigor and Trustworthiness

The trustworthiness of the qualitative research findings was rigorously established through adherence to key criteria throughout the research process. The data coding process was independently conducted by two researchers, with subsequent verification by a third reviewer to ensure consistency and accuracy. Furthermore, investigator triangulation was systematically employed, involving collaborative review and discussion among the research team, which served to mitigate potential biases stemming from individual perspectives and to achieve a consensual understanding of the data.

To ensure the credibility of the analysis, participants were invited to provide feedback on the research findings. While individual transcripts were not returned for correction, the principal results were presented to the students during a workshop held one month after the initial data collection. This session provided an opportunity for participants to validate the researchers’ interpretations.

Transferability was addressed by providing a rich, detailed description of the study context and participant exemplars, enabling readers to assess the applicability of the findings to other settings. Finally, analytical rigor was fostered through debriefing sessions and analytical memos. These were specifically used to manage the researchers’ dual roles as faculty, ensuring that students’ criticisms regarding institutional culture and assessment were analytically preserved and represented, thereby minimizing potential bias.

3. Results

3.1. Sociodemographic Data

The sample consisted of 29 master’s students in nursing, distributed across four focus groups (FG G1, FG G2, FG G3, and FG G4). Data were collected on gender, age, and length of professional experience, as shown in

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of participants.

Focus Group	N	Female (n)	Male (n)	Age (Years) Mean (SD)	Age Range	Years of Experience Mean (SD)	Experience Range
FG G1	8	5	3	36.38 ± 12.39	22–55	13.75 ± 11.27	1–30
FG G2	8	5	3	34.25 ± 8.21	23–46	9.50 ± 9.29	1–24
FG G3	7	2	5	38.00 ± 6.27	30–47	12.29 ± 5.19	6–21
FG G4	6	3	3	33.67 ± 6.15	27–41	10.83 ± 5.42	4–18
Total	29	15	14	35.62 ± 9.06	22–55	11.62 ± 8.67	1–30

.

The sample had a balanced gender distribution, with 15 female participants (51.7%) and 14 male participants (48.3%). The participants’ average age was 35.62 years, with a range from 22 to 55 years. The average age varied among the groups, with FG G3 having the highest average (38 years) and FG G4 the lowest (33.67 years). The average professional experience was 11.62 years, with a range from 1 to 30 years. FG G1 had the highest average experience (13.75 years), while FG G2 had the lowest (9.50 years). The variation in the data indicates the presence of both early-career professionals and more experienced ones.

Three themes emerged from the data: (i) emotional and cognitive experience of public exams, (ii) emotional regulation strategies, and (iii) institutional needs and suggestions for public exams, as

Table 2. Focus Group Themes and Subthemes.

Themes	Subthemes	Description
Emotional and Cognitive Experience of Public Exams	Performance anxiety Fear of public speaking and oral exposure Social pressure and external validation Complex emotional and cognitive management Influence of waiting time before the exam Judgment and vulnerability in evaluation Influence of the format of the public defense (online vs. in-person)	Exploration of how students perceive, feel, and interpret the psychological demands of the public defense process.
Emotional Regulation Strategies	Knowing the examiner’s area of expertise Attending other public defenses Practice sessions	Identifies the proactive behaviors and cognitive adjustments adopted by students to modulate their emotional trajectory and enhance performance.
Institutional Needs and Suggestions for Public Exams	Clear and accessible information about the process Structured support for defense preparation Pedagogical strategies to foster oral communication skills Simulation of oral defense in a classroom context Preparatory computer-based test Institutional notification system for scheduled defenses	Students’ perceptions of the institutional support, available or lacking, within the context of public thesis defenses, along with their suggestions for improvement.

illustrates.

3.2. Emotional and Cognitive Experience of Public Exams

The first theme identifies public exams as highly demanding “threshold moments,” where the intersection of academic requirements and personal expectations creates a significant emotional burden. Performance anxiety is a collective experience, described as an inevitable and intense stressor: “(…) we all feel some anxiety, some stress” (P2, FG G1). Public exams are understood as emotionally, cognitively, and performatively taxing threshold moments: “(…) it’s a very stressful, very demanding moment. The journey is demanding and ends with an even greater demand at that moment” (P1, FG G2). For some students, this experience is anticipated as inevitable and intense: “(…) it is a moment that, at least for me, will generate a great deal of stress” (P2, FG G1); “(…) it’s something that causes me a lot of stress” (P5, FG G3). The description of concrete physiological symptoms—such as “(…) butterflies in the stomach, trembling hands, heart racing” (P5, FG G3), and “(…) my hands also tend to tremble a bit. My heart tends to beat faster too” (P2, FG G4)—reinforces the somatic dimension of anxiety.

In parallel, fear of public speaking and oral exposure is identified as critical sources of discomfort, as one participant notes: “I’m a bit afraid too, because I really struggle to speak in public” (P3, FG G3).

Closely tied to this fear is the social pressure and need for external validation. This pressure is not overtly imposed, but internalized by students as a reflection of their desire to be recognized, valued, and legitimized within the academic, personal, and family spheres—as these participants explain: “We want to present our work in the best possible way; we want to live up to the jury’s expectations” (P2, FG G1); “I’m not afraid of disappointing my advisor; I’m afraid of disappointing my family, who will be there listening, who helped with everything and endured all the stress for a year and a half” (P5, FG G1). The need to “make a good impression” and leave a positive impact reveals a pursuit of external validation that goes beyond mere academic approval: “(…) we want to look good, we want to present our work in a positive way that makes an impact on others” (P3, FG G1). This underscores the idea that the public exam is also an identity performance. Another excerpt illustrates the diffuse concern with the audience’s gaze: “Some fear of not meeting the expectations of someone in the audience” (P1, FG G3). Thus, public exams become a moment of intense identity exposure, where success is not only measured by the academic quality of the work but also by the ability to meet the expectations of those the students deem important: “From the moment all the attention is focused on us, it becomes an anxiety-inducing moment” (P2, FG G1).

The data also reveal a complex emotional and cognitive management process that compromises reasoning, logical organization, and oral expression, as expressed: “We know it’s a decisive moment, but sometimes the pressure makes us lose our way during the presentation” (P3, FG G2); “Even if we know the content, we might be so nervous at the time that we can’t organize our thoughts to respond” (P3, FG G4); “When the moment actually arrives, I think the stress and anxiety affect our language capacity, and maybe even our scientific rigor. So, it’s a moment that brings me fear” (P2, FG G1).

This temporary fragility can lead to a chain reaction of errors, culminating in a subjective experience of failure: “It’s a bit like a snowball effect—slipping one after the other and then not being able to seize the moment and end as well as we’d hoped” (P1, FG G4). Even with prior preparation, participants report cognitive blocks associated with performance anxiety: “I have one big fear—going blank. That’s my biggest concern. I really do, because it’s so common” (P4, FG G1). This fear is not just occasional, but felt as a constant threat, as another participant illustrates: “I’m very afraid of going blank, because I know it can happen and that increases my stress even more” (P5, FG G3). The public nature of the defense itself worsens the subjective sense of loss of control: “(…) the fact that we’re there in a public setting makes it feel like our thoughts just vanish” (P2, FG G3).

Another factor identified is the influence of the waiting period before the exam, especially when it is extended or undefined, which contributes to the maintenance of prolonged states of anxiety. Participants acknowledge the existence of an ideal timeframe in which they feel more confident in their mastery of the content—a phase during which the material is still fresh, reasoning is structured, and the connection to the developed work is more intense: “If it’s three or four months, I think that’s reasonable. But really, when it goes beyond that period… because we have that moment when we are most familiar with the knowledge” (P3, FG G1). When this interval is excessively prolonged, confidence tends to decline, which can compromise students’ performance during public defenses. Dates are described as “very guiding,” functioning as temporal markers that organize effort, reduce the anxiety caused by uncertainty, and facilitate the management of the preparation phase for the public exam: “There should be a set deadline, because the dates are very guiding” (P4, FG G1). This concern highlights the importance of pedagogical structuring and academic scheduling as central elements in the student experience of this highly evaluative process.

Students’ perceptions of the evaluation moment during master’s public defenses reveal a lived experience strongly marked by feelings of judgment and vulnerability in evaluation. This experience is described as less a mere academic assessment and more a process of personal and professional judgment, experienced with intense emotional charge: “It’s about being questioned, so to speak. Yes, I think it’s about judgment” (P5, FG G3); “Fear of being judged by others regarding our competencies, our academic path, our decisions” (P1, FG G4).

Closely tied to this sense of judgment is a heightened perception of exposure, which translates into increased emotional vulnerability, as illustrated by the following participants: “We don’t know what they’re going to ask. (…) a detail about a topic we didn’t explore much (…) could ruin everything” (P5, FG G1); “Because of the final questions, we don’t really know what will come up regarding our academic journey” (P2, FG G3); “It’s the fact that we associate it with evaluative weight that ends up bringing (…) additional pressure. Because the knowledge is there, the capability is there” (P4, FG G3).

Some students expressed the influence of the format of the public defense (online vs. in-person), reporting that the virtual environment provided them with greater control and comfort: “I think the online format was an incredibly effective strategy for managing stress. When we’re speaking online, it’s not total confidence, but if we forget something, we have our notes nearby and we can check and read them” (P5, FG G1). On the other hand, other students found online defenses more uncomfortable, particularly due to the lack of human contact: “I don’t feel any confidence in the online format. When I’m speaking, I feel I need that nonverbal feedback, to see people” (P3, FG G1); “In person, sometimes it provides that comfort, that pause, to look and see to what extent I’m on the right path or not, based on the other person’s reactions and nonverbal cues. And I think online ends up losing a bit” (P2 FG G4).

Ultimately, these findings underscore that the public exam is experienced as a process of personal and professional judgment, setting the stage for the specific emotional regulation strategies adopted by students to mitigate their vulnerability.

3.3. Emotional Regulation Strategies

The emotion regulation adopted by students in preparation for public exams serves as a dynamic mechanism of affective and cognitive self-regulation. This theme illustrates how students actively modulate their psychological state by transforming instrumental actions into tools for managing anxiety. By anticipating potential stressors and acting upon them, students engage in proactive regulation to protect their mental well-being during the evaluative process. One such strategy involves knowing the examiner’s area of expertise to minimize the sense of exposure. By aligning their discourse with the jury’s background, students reduce anticipatory anxiety through a greater sense of predictability: “As soon as we know who the jury is, we learn their fields of expertise or areas of study. We more or less know what direction their questions will take, because they’re also going to ask about things they feel confident discussing” (P1, FG G4). Although this practice is tactical, its primary psychological function is to mitigate the fear of judgment by creating a more controlled interpersonal environment.

Similarly, attending other public defenses emerges as a strategic observational activity that serves a dual purpose. While it provides technical familiarity with the format, it functions primarily as a strategy to regulate emotion through social modeling. Observing peers helps to normalize the experience and deconstruct the “jury’s reactions” as manageable events: “With all those remarks that are never covered in class. We learn them by watching other presentations” (P2, FG G4); “(…) they are very useful techniques and tips we can pick up from watching other defenses” (P2, FG G1); “(…) the defenses I attended had very open-ended questions, which was helpful for me” (P2, FG G2); “Regarding the questions, there are ways and strategies to create a coherent and connected discourse” (P3, FG G2). Practice sessions conducted with peers or supervisors are highlighted as essential for optimizing performance while simultaneously building emotional resilience. These sessions allow students to rehearse under simulated pressure, converting anticipatory anxiety into a sense of self-efficacy: “Practicing and encouraging these skills can help improve our performance, both oral and in support of our written work” (P2, FG G4); “(…) people start paying more attention to how we’re communicating, the projection of our voice” (P1, FG G2). Collectively, these strategies demonstrate that for these students, rigorous preparation is the most effective vehicle for maintaining mental well-being and minimizing the uncertainty of the public defense.

3.4. Institutional Needs and Suggestions for Public Exams

The analysis of students’ perceptions also reveals a series of institutional needs that remain unmet in the context of the preparation and execution of public thesis defenses, for which they provide suggestions. In this third theme, one of the main gaps identified concerns the lack of clear and accessible information about the process, including the composition of the jury and the roles of its members. One student asked: “So, how many people are there? Is the advisor part of it?” (P5, FG G3), highlighting a critical informational gap that compromises adequate preparation. This lack of clarity is experienced as a source of tension, leading students to advocate for more explicit guidance: “I think there should be some kind of information about [public defenses]” (P5, FG G3); “Knowing the role of each person involved would help, I think it would help calm us down” (P2, FG G4).

Students also expressed the importance of structured support for defense preparation, particularly regarding the organization and structure of their presentation: “Selecting the right information to include in our slides (…) can be complicated at the end” (P3, FG G1); “I expect my advisor to help me with the structure of our presentation” (P1, FG G3).

Data analysis underscores the need for pedagogical strategies to foster oral communication skills. This needs manifests across various dimensions—from mastering public speaking to using body language, emphasis techniques, and speech rhythm—as participants note: “Moments when we should emphasize an idea or not. These are techniques and tips that can be used to highlight a point, an activity, or a reflection, and sometimes even to ease the anxiety of rushing through the content just to finish” (P2, FG G4); “There should be a class on the topic—even just an introductory one. Because we always end up getting tips and strategies for oral communication” (P5, FG G3).

Students refer to the simulation of oral defense in a classroom context as a gradual and safe preparation strategy for public exams. They express a desire to rehearse their presentations in a protected environment, not only to improve individual performance but also to foster a culture of collaborative learning, as stated by one participant: “It’s also a way to support one another, for people to discuss things, like ‘What do you think if I present this part like this?” (P3, FG G1). Beyond content rehearsal, simulations help to internalize the presentation script and reduce the margin of error at critical starting moments.

Other innovative proposals include the development of a preparatory computer-based test. One participant stated: “What adds stress for the candidate is the lack of monitoring or assurance that all the technical systems are working properly beforehand” (P4, FG G1), highlighting that technological unpredictability is perceived as an additional source of emotional instability. More than a mere formality, prior testing of technological tools should be an integral part of the pedagogical preparation for public defenses, restoring a sense of control to the student.

Participation in public exams is not limited to the candidate’s formal presentation. It also represents a collective learning opportunity that can benefit other students through observational learning. Accordingly, participants suggested implementing an institutional notification system for scheduled defenses, with the option to subscribe by scientific area: “There should be a more accessible platform that informs people when public defenses in our area are scheduled” (P2, FG G1). This suggestion demonstrates digital awareness and a demand for solutions that align technology with users’ real needs. As another participant emphasized: “There are many platforms, even in nursing schools, where we can subscribe to notifications. Our platform doesn’t offer that, and I think it’s very important” (P5, FG G1). The lack of effective notifications also affects students’ defense preparation. Therefore, access to other public defenses should not be seen as an optional extra, but rather as a practice of academic and scientific literacy.

4. Discussion

A public master’s thesis defense represents a pivotal and demanding stage in a student’s academic journey, carrying both an evaluative and symbolic function [40]. This moment is experienced with significant emotional intensity, often marked by a mix of enthusiasm, fear, insecurity, and relief [41,42]. For many, it symbolizes not only the culmination of an academic cycle but also a rite of passage into a professional and scientific identity, where critical competencies, intellectual autonomy, and investigative maturity are demonstrated [40,43].

Performance anxiety is a major barrier in this context, closely linked to a fear of public speaking [44], the unpredictability of questions, and the pressure to meet expectations [45,46]. This anticipatory anxiety, often overlooked by educational institutions, significantly affects performance by interfering with working memory and the ability to respond effectively during the evaluation [17,47,48,49,50]. Our data corroborates this with participants from all focus groups describing public exams as stressful and demanding. They provided specific examples of physiological symptoms of anxiety, such as “butterflies in the stomach” and “trembling hands.” Furthermore, the fear of “going blank” and the cognitive blockades that affect language capacity and scientific rigor are recurrent themes in our findings, directly mirroring the literature’s description of how anxiety compromises cognitive processes and social competencies [51,52].

The literature highlights a strong association between anticipatory anxiety and oral viva assessments [17,53]. Despite empirical evidence of emotions’ direct impact on academic performance, there seems to be a persistent institutional culture that is often insensitive to the emotional demands of public exams [53]. Our findings, which highlight the lack of safe spaces for students to share and normalize their emotions during preparation, are perceived as neglect of their well-being, which compromises their cognitive and communicative performance. In the context of nursing education, this emotional neglect is particularly concerning. While nursing curricula emphasize holistic care, students often struggle to apply these principles to their own mental health, frequently experiencing fear and concerns about their personal image when acknowledging vulnerability in high-stakes academic settings. Our findings highlight that institutional support must go beyond technical training to foster an environment where emotional transparency is seen as professional competency rather than a weakness [22,41].

The performative dimension of the defense, which demands expository clarity, critical argumentation, and interaction with the jury, is perceived as challenging by students [54,55]. Many report difficulties in maintaining a coherent scientific discourse, which contributes to their communicative apprehension [56,57]. Our data demonstrates this strongly. Participants described the defense as a moment of intense identity exposure where the need to make a good impression and the fear of not meeting the expectations of the audience were central concerns. The COVID-19 pandemic introduced new dynamics, promoting online formats that, while increasing accessibility, created additional challenges like reduced non-verbal expressiveness, technical issues, and a sense of distance [42]. These changes, although relevant, did not eliminate the candidates’ classic concerns; instead, they added new layers of complexity. Students widely recognize oral presentations as an effective tool for developing essential skills to mitigate anticipatory anxiety and enhance performance in public exams. Personal rehearsals, focusing on body language, voice control, and time management [44], contribute to the development of self-confidence and oral expression [58,59]. These strategies represent active emotion regulation processes. By engaging in situation modification through rehearsals, students do not just practice content; they proactively modulate their emotional response before the actual event. This process allows them to internalize a sense of control over the environment, shifting the focus from physiological symptoms of anxiety to the development of self-confidence and oral expression. The preparation of the oral presentation, including the construction of slides and the organization of the discourse, was identified as the most common strategy among doctoral students in Lantsoght’s [43] study. Similarly, rereading and in-depth analysis of the thesis help consolidate key content, review data, and anticipate possible discussion points, proving equally relevant in the technical and conceptual preparation of candidates.

Alongside these strategies, the importance of anticipating questions and formulating answers, a form of self-questioning, is also identified to prepare the candidate to respond with clarity and confidence during the exam [43], including the profile and area of expertise of jury members to anticipate critical emphasis, theoretical positions, and possible epistemological tensions. Another frequently mentioned strategy is reading institutional documents and gathering information about the defense format—including structure, duration, and evaluation criteria—considering formal norms and institutional practices during preparation [46].

Another strategy that has emerged in academic preparation is the use of digital health technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbots. Specifically, tools like Woebot, a virtual assistant grounded in cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) principles, have shown efficacy in providing accessible emotional support [60,61]. Lantsoght [43] suggests emotional self-regulation techniques, such as breathing exercises, while other authors point to acting classes, group presentations, and rehearsals with colleagues [62,63,64]. Our analysis confirms that these actions constitute proactive emotion regulation. The students in our study actively prepared for their public defenses by adopting tactics such as attending other defenses to familiarize themselves with the format and questions and holding practice sessions with peers and supervisors to build confidence. Additionally, they demonstrated a strategic approach by analyzing the jury’s profile, thereby anticipating the direction of questions based on the examiners’ areas of expertise.

Formal simulation of public defenses stands out as one of the most valued pedagogical practices for preparing oral defenses. It allows candidates to familiarize themselves with the exam format, practice interacting with the jury, and receive feedback in a safe environment. From an authentic assessment perspective, simulating public defenses can promote the development of professional confidence and be seen as an opportunity for growth [65]. The pedagogical value of simulation and mentoring lies in response modulation. Peer mentoring, conducted by students who have already gone through the defense process, is highlighted as a key strategy. This type of guidance has proven particularly effective in fostering a close and authentic sharing environment, demystifying the process, reducing uncertainty, and offering models for overcoming challenges [66]. Data reveal that even brief mentoring experiences—a single, short session—can have a significant impact on reducing anticipatory anxiety, challenging the idea that only long, structured programs produce relevant effects. The pedagogical value of this initiative lies in validating the emotional dimension of the public exam and creating a safe space for sharing doubts, fears, and strategies, thereby promoting an increase in confidence and the feeling of preparedness for the defense. Formalizing peer mentoring moments and strengthening constructive and reciprocal feedback practices can enhance not only the quality of scientific production but also students’ emotional well-being, self-confidence, and academic success [67].

The high emotional stakes and performance pressure reported by our participants resonate with recent findings in diverse academic fields. For instance, substantial proportions of students in other disciplines have reported significant anxiety linked to evaluative milestones [50]. This suggests that the moment and the preparation for the defense are systemic stressors in higher education that transcend disciplinary boundaries. Higher education institutions should invest in training programs to support the development of oral communication, such as the specific work of Nascimento and Martins [44] related to public master’s defenses, which is guided by active learning principles, with an emphasis on deliberate practice, constructive feedback, and self-reflection. Academic communication, especially oral communication, should be worked on intentionally and progressively throughout a student’s education, not as a one-off activity and competence, as revealed in another’s research [48]. Short, but structured, interventions that combine practice, self-reflection, and expert guidance significantly reduce anxiety levels and improve students’ communicative performance. The systematic inclusion of practice sessions, mentoring, and psychological support can be decisive for the academic success and emotional well-being of candidates [45]. Communication training is beneficial for increasing students’ self-confidence, communicative fluency, and anxiety management, supported by a dialogical pedagogy, self-regulation, and valuing students’ personal experiences [46].

Our results highlight the importance of forward feedback—guiding future development—whether from a professor, peers, colleagues, or other agents, and through different possible strategies. The data acknowledge the power of feedback [68,69] for learning in academic public exams. Once again, it is recognized that the ability to prepare for academic public exams must generate pedagogical and scientific value. The potential of different pedagogical moments lies in the authenticity of the interaction, the empathy generated by sharing similar trajectories, and the possibility for students to recognize themselves in others’ challenges. Information about an individual’s performance or understanding serves to inform their performance and can take different forms, such as encouragement, corrective guidance, or alternative strategies [69].

Limitations and Strengths

While the study offers valuable insights, its scope was limited to a single institution and a specific disciplinary context, which may affect transferability. Future research could compare perspectives across disciplines and cultural contexts or evaluate the effectiveness of proposed interventions in reducing anxiety and improving performance. Furthermore, while the study’s qualitative methodology provides rich, detailed perceptions, it does not allow for the quantification of the prevalence of reported feelings and emotional regulation strategies [70].

The strengths of this study are rooted in the high specificity of the cohort and the density of the focus group discussions. By including the full accessible population of master’s students at the final stage of their degree, the study captured a comprehensive range of experiences within this specific academic context. This depth of data aligns with the criteria for information power. However, social desirability or hierarchy-related response bias may still exist, as participants might have felt inclined to provide responses perceived as more acceptable within their institutional environment.

The public defense emerges as a true pedagogical rite of passage that contributes to building the professional and human identity of the nurse, aligning with the commitment to inclusive, equitable, and quality education, and promoting students’ emotional and formative well-being, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [71]. In this context, institutional support is essential and represents a call for the humanization of the academic journey. Fostering pedagogical environments that value not only “knowing how” but also “knowing how to be” and “knowing how to relate” is an expression of a commitment to a holistic, ethical, and person-centered education. This research calls for a humanization of the academic journey—valuing not only “knowing how” but also “knowing how to be” and “knowing how to relate.” Such an approach reinforces commitments to reducing educational inequalities (SDG 10), recognizing diverse forms of knowledge (SDG 5), and promoting fair, participatory, and humane educational environments (SDG 16).

5. Conclusions

Public master’s defenses are far more than a simple academic evaluation; they are a deeply challenging, multifaceted experience. This study explored the perceptions of master’s nursing students regarding their preparation for public defenses, employing qualitative focus group methodology to capture their lived experiences and suggestions for improvement.

Findings reveal that students face significant emotional and cognitive burdens, including performance anxiety, social pressure, and fear of judgment. These stressors can impair reasoning and communication, creating a sense of vulnerability that may undermine their achievements and confidence. To regulate these emotional demands, students adopt proactive and instrumental strategies—such as attending other defenses, practicing presentations, and analyzing jury profiles. Their perceptions highlight an urgent need for structured, humanized pedagogical responses, encompassing clear procedural guidance, formal defense simulations, and systematic development of oral communication skills.

The results underscore the responsibility of educational institutions to transform public defenses from moments of intense weakness into genuine opportunities for personal and professional growth. By embedding simulation-based rehearsal, transparent communication, and skills training specifically focused on adaptive emotional regulation, institutions can strengthen students’ professional identities and mental well-being, aligning with the principles of inclusive, equitable, and quality education.

Future research should adopt experimental or quasi-experimental designs to assess the effectiveness of structured pedagogical and mental interventions. Such studies could measure the causal impact of initiatives like formal oral defense simulations, peer mentoring schemes, or targeted communication skills training on variables including anxiety reduction, performance quality, and perceived preparedness. Longitudinal approaches could further explore the lasting effects of these interventions on professional identity formation and confidence. Expanding the research to multiple institutions and disciplines would enhance the external validity of the findings and provide a broader evidence base for policy and curriculum development.