Mentor Us: A Formal Mentoring Program for Nurses in Graduate Education
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Graduate education fosters unique skills including advanced communication, complex problem solving, project management experience and a complex understanding of specific fields of work (Edge & Munro, 2015). In Canada, enrollment in full-time graduate studies in nursing are increasing. As these enrollments increase, the academic community must consider the realities of graduate school, how students are socialized into faculties and most importantly how integration and community in these programs are fostered because these factors impact the graduate school experience and completion outcomes. Successful graduate students tend to have strong peer relationships, more positive integration, and personal connections with their department or faculty (Gansemer-Topf, Ross, & Johnson, 2006; Golde, 1998; Golde, 2000; Tamburri, 2013). Mentorship programs foster these close relationships among members, help to strengthen a sense of personal and professional safety, provide academic and professional support, and promote collegial interactions (Garvey & Westlander, 2013). In early 2013, four Master of Nursing (MN) students at a large western Canadian University began to conceptualize a formal mentorship program for nursing graduate students called Mentor Us, with the intent of improving student collegiality, building connections within the faculty and community, and providing opportunities for peers to connect. They envisioned and developed a voluntary mentorship program that offered the opportunity for peer-to-peer mentorship in dyads consisting of one mentor and one mentee. The program has seen success in achieving many of its aims and goals; however, the leadership team has also identified areas for future improvement including engaging specific student populations, improving mentor training initiatives and dyad matching, and sustaining the leadership structure of the program. The aims of the paper are first, to outline the current state of nursing graduate education in Canada. Second, to present the process of building and maintaining a formal mentorship program for nurses in graduate studies. Third, to describe the vision of the program moving forward, to outline lessons learned during the development and operation of the program, and to review strategies to ensure future program success. This paper provides a unique way to mitigate the concerns of nursing graduate students by fostering peer mentorship relationships and enhancing community connections. It provides a concrete example of the development of such a program and presents an honest critique about how to improve the program for future students.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».