Preceptorship in nursing education in Ontario: Rhetoric vs. reality
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this quantitative and qualitative study was to provide a detailed view of how preceptorships were organized and experienced in university and college settings in Ontario in 1997–98. One important difference between university and college preceptorships was that diploma programmes tended to have more of a work focus and university programmes a learning focus. While there was clearly overlap in these distinctions, these contrasts in rationale were apparent in the handbooks from these programmes. When this study was done in 1997–98, health care agencies were feeling the effects of restructuring in the health care system and universities and colleges were faced with budgetary restraints. My study showed that this impacted negatively on those closely involved with preceptorship experiences. Managers were left to select preceptors, using their own criteria. I found that the learning environment in these stressed workplaces was less than ideal for students and at times they felt exploited. Students missed out on opportunities for critical thinking because their preceptors were rarely provided time to teach and help them reflect on patient care. In spite of workload issues and lack of recognition, preceptors were willing to take on the responsibility of being a preceptor. Intrinsic rewards were more important to them than being paid for this work. While faculty were less satisfied with preceptored experiences and their ability to support preceptors, preceptors in my study seemed content with the amount of support they received. Support from colleagues and managers in the practice setting was more important to them. While the nursing education system in Ontario has changed since 1998, preceptored experiences have not appreciably changed. There is controversy about the frequency and focus of these experiences, but I would argue that the emphasis should always be on student learning and having faculty pay more attention to preceptors and how they teach. Funding for nursing clinical education must be made more equitable than in the past so that resources are there to offset the increased time and effort that is needed to address the disjunction between the rhetoric of teaching and the reality of the practice settings. The tendency in the nursing literature to lay the blame for these problems with faculty or preceptors fails to recognize that cutbacks and restructuring have exacerbated them.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,024 | 0,021 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».