The role of faculty advisors in preceptorship: From a faculty point of view
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was twofold: 1) to explore the psychosocial process involved when senior baccalaureate students were being evaluated as unsafe by their preceptors; and 2) to understand how faculty play a role in that process. Method: A grounded theory method was employed. Data were generated from six faculty via semi-structured interviews and analyzed using constant comparative analysis. Results: The process of ‘Facilitating student success’ emerged as the core variable. Intrinsic to this process were six major categories and their inherent subcategories: 1) recognizing red flags of unsafe practice; 2) strategies for managing students who display unsafe practice; 3) using evaluation strategies to foster success; 4) deciding to fail a student; 5) guiding and supporting the student and preceptor; and 6) guiding and supporting faculty. The six major categories represent the processes that faculty advisors used to facilitate student learning and success in the clinical setting. In this article, only findings related specifically to the last category ‘Guiding and supporting faculty’, and subcategories: ‘role preparation’, ‘faculty advisor perceived roles’, and ‘guidance and support received from the educational program’ will be discussed. The other categories have been reported elsewhere. Conclusion: The findings from this study can contribute to our understanding of: a) the process involved in working with final year nursing students who display unsafe clinical practice; b) identifying preparatory and support needs of faculty who oversee the preceptorship experience; and c) the value of the development and implementation of preceptorship support programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".