Practicum Structures and Nursing Student Retention/Achievement Rates in a United Kingdom University: A Quantitative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to examine whether the consistent application of a specific placement design to student practice learning experiences within two pre-registration nursing degree programs offered by a university in the United Kingdom (UK) affected retention and achievement levels. The quantitative analysis involved a sample of 460 employer-sponsored undergraduates, all of whom worked as non-registrant carers, within two cohorts of a part-time adult (physical) or mental health nursing degree program, both of 4 years duration, offered by a large academic institution with a presence in all four UK nations. Cross-tabulation and multinomial logistic regression analyses found no statistically significant relationship between exclusive student exposure to either block or integrated practicum experiences in respect of program withdrawal rates or the degree classification achieved by such learners. Unlike pre-registration nurse education programs offered within some other countries, for example Australia and Canada, most of those provided in the UK have traditionally been based solely on a block design. Nevertheless, recent changes in the program options available to learners seeking to acquire registered nurse status, combined with growing demand for healthcare placements, have led some UK universities to now consider alternative practicum models and so optimize the use of available placement capacity. Internationally, no previous work investigating the potential impact of the two practicum designs on student retention and academic achievement appears to have been undertaken in respect of pre-registration programs, either in nursing or any other health or social care discipline. The absence of any statistically significant effect of a practicum design upon the identified performance measures may therefore be both helpful and reassuring to academic institutions either using, or planning to implement, both models. Whilst the results are institutionally and geographically specific and derived exclusively from only two nursing programs, they still make an important contribution to a seriously under-researched field. It is hoped that the work will stimulate further investigation regarding the impact of undergraduate experience within different placement models both within and beyond nursing education. The literature review associated with this study also identified widespread inconsistent use of terminology to describe the two practicum models; a situation which may be adversely affecting efforts to consolidate the body of knowledge related to the effect of different placement designs.
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 | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".