Peer-mentees’ challenges in an undergraduate peer-group clinical mentoring programme in a nursing education institution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical competency and professional growth amongst nursing students is the cornerstone of a nursing education programme. The demanding and complex training of nursing students requires various clinical teaching and learning strategies such as peer-group clinical mentoring. AIM: The objective of this research was to explore and describe the challenges that peer-mentees experience in an undergraduate peer-group clinical mentoring programme in one-specific nursing education institution in the North West Province. SETTING: The study was conducted at a nursing education institution in North West Province. METHODS: A qualitative, retrospective case study research design was used. Two separate World Café sessions following a semi-structured schedule based on Gibbs Reflective Cycle were conducted with 51 peer-mentees who were mentored in clinical practice. Four levels of qualitative thematic data analyses were employed to analyse the data. RESULTS: Five themes emerged from the findings of the study, namely, poor implementation of the peer-group clinical mentoring programme, ineffective undergraduate peer-group clinical mentoring programme, undesirable attitudes of the mentors, mentors unprofessional conduct as well as communication challenges. Ten sub-themes emerged from the findings. Literature control was done to support the findings. CONCLUSION: The findings showed that undergraduate nursing students faced a diversity of challenges in the effective learning and teaching of peer-mentees in a clinical context. Limitations and recommendations of the study were given. Recommendations were given for nursing practice, education and research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".