The Importance of the Preceptor-Preceptee Relationship in Creating Well Prepared Professionals: A Make or Break Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In this study, we explore the ‘make or break’ challenges faced in the preceptor-preceptee relationship. The preceptor-preceptee relationship needs to evolve from a teacher-student dynamic to a collegial partnership. METHODS: This qualitative study used focus group interviews which explored challenges experienced by preceptors and preceptees. The preceptors included ten clinical teaching assistants and 14 clinical professionals. The preceptees included ten student nurses. In total, we interviewed 34 participants. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Both preceptors and preceptees experienced challenges in developing healthy relationships. Preceptors felt that they were committed and trained to teach, and that fulfilling an extended role was beyond their reach. Preceptees had difficulty realizing nursing practice and transitioning from a student to a professional role. Both parties identified strategies for developing healthy professional relationships. Preceptors could extend their professional role to include a mentorship facet. Preceptees could be exposed to diverse clinical environments with guided transitioning to facilitate the change from student to professional. CONCLUSION: Student nurses need a caring environment to transition from a student role to a professional role. The relationship based care model undoubtedly influences the teaching and learning process by fostering a caring attitude and commitment to teaching and learning. Preceptees develop a sense of belonging and are motivated to accept and adapt to practical realities.
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 | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".