Exploration of Students & Mentors Experiences of Grading Student Competence in Practice.

1. Exploration of Students & Mentors Experiences of Grading Student Competence in Practice. Janet Scammell Vanessa Heaslip Senior Academic Practice Learning Senior Lecturer Nursing Centre for Wellbeing and Quality of Life School of Health & Social Care

2. Overview of presentation • Context and aim of the grading practice project • Overview of stage one • Stage 2: findings of a questionnaire survey of students and mentors exploring their perceptions of grading in practice. • Implications • Recommendations for future practice

3. Local Context • Review of pre-registration nursing curriculum (2005) • -Academic credit for practice units of study • -Grading system • -Practice profiles introduced (Sept 2005) • Stage 1 evaluation using qualitative methods at the end of year 1 • (Scammell et al. 2007)

4. National Context • National concerns re fitness for practice at point of registration • Standards to Support Learning and Assessment in Practice (2006); revised 2008: • To meet the requirements of the NMC equality and diversity scheme • To incorporate changes to specialist practitioner award and practice teacher standard. In addition: • Increased focus upon mentorship • Annual updates and tri-annual review • Clarification of roles of both HEI and Practice Partners. • Introduction of the sign-off mentors.

5. Methodology Questionnaires Pilot Questionnaire with 10 students representing all braches 5 Mentors from Adult, Child Health and Learning Disability Revised Questionnaire Mentor Students Convenience Sampling 112/130 (86.6% response rate) All branches Responded Convenience sampling Years 2 and 3 107/210 (51% response rate) Adult, Mental Health, Child Health

6. Mentor Updates Pie Chart Demonstrating Mentors Last Attendance at Updates 4.50% Attended Mentor Update 2.80% in the last year 0.90% Attended Mentor Update in the last 2 years 10.70% Attended Mentor Update in the last 3 years Attended Mentor Update 81.25% in the last 4 years Did not respond to this Question

7. Graph Demonstrating Levels of Support Perceived by Mentors When Working in Practice 33% 35.00% 28.60% 30.00% 1 = Very Supported 25.00% 20.50% 2 20.00% 15.20% 3 15.00% 4 10.00% 5 = Not Supported 2.70% 5.00% 0.00% 1 Graph Demonstrating Levels of Support Perceived by Students When Working in Practice 36.40% 40.00% 33.60% 1 = Very Supported 30.00% 2 20.00% 15.00% 3 4 6.50% 6.50% 10.00% 5 = Not Supported 0.00% 1 Support in Practice • Mentors expressed higher levels of support than students. • Both mentors and students allocated a high neutral grade to these questions.

8. Mentors Work colleagues (89.7%; n=96 ) LF/PE (49.5%; n=53) Link tutors (15.9%; n=17) Family (7.5%; n=8) Friends (3.7%; n=4) Others (1.9%, n=2) Students Work colleagues (83.3%; n=85), Friends (76.5%; n=78) Family (57.8%; n=59) Link Tutors (18.6%; n= 19) Learning Facilitators (17.6%; n=18), Practice Educators (16.7%; n=17) Others (6.9%; n=7) Support in Practice

9. Assessment and Feedback • The evaluation identified that team mentorship occurred within practice. • Whilst continuous assessment occurred this was not always matched by continuous feedback.

10. Graph Demonstrating Levels of Mentors Confidence to Grade Practice 70.00% 60.00% 1 = Very Confident 50.00% 2 40.00% 3 30.00% 4 20.00% 5 = Not Confident 10.00% Missing 0.00% 1 Confidence in Grading Practice Mentors “Satisfying to give graded feedback, to indicate whether they are a borderline pass or are really excelling” “Gives students something to aim for” Students “Marks your practice skills and not your academic ability” “The opportunity to show my abilities in practice as I find the academic work hard but my practical work is much better”

11. Allocation of Grade Awarded

12. Pie Chart Demonstrating Confidence of Mentors to Fail Students Confident 2.70% 17.90% Neutral 19.60% Not Confident 59.80% Missing Data Failing to Fail • Failing students (Duffy, 2003) • Theoretically the introduction of criteria to enable assessment should increase confidence in failing students, yet this does not appear to be the case in practice. • Reopens the debate as to whether a mentorship and an assessment role are complimentary Pie Chart Demonstrating Mentor Responses when asked if they would like more Education on Failing 7% Yes 33% No 60% Missing

13. Implications • Grading practice values the practice element of the programme and those that assess it • Mentor preparation/update • Mentor support • On-going feedback • Reliability • Mentor and assessor?

14. Recommendations • Retain the idea of grading practice and refine the tool • Focus mentor update on support, feedback and dealing with borderline practice • Engage mentors in developing ideas for updating mechanisms • Develop more sophisticated systems for early warning and intervention for borderline students

15. Final Thoughts Grading practice is well received but quality assurance is essential; supportive structures for mentors and students is a significant part of this. Contact details: Janet Scammell Centre for Quality of Life and Wellbeing School of Health and Social Care, Bournemouth University jscammell@bournemouth.ac.uk Vanessa Heaslip Centre for Quality of Life and Wellbeing School of Health and Social Care, Bournemouth University vheaslip@bournemouth.ac.uk