School of Nursing & Midwifery

An evaluation of the introduction of

the Robert Gordon University

Student Review Record in three

Scottish Schools of Nursing and

Midwifery

Josey Mackenzie

Ann Ogle

Dr Colin Macduff

Fiona Baguley

Joan Cameron

Pat Bradley

Dorothy Adam

Dr Ruth Taylor

Gavin Innes

March 2011

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank all the students and staff of the three

Universities who took part in the implementation and evaluation project.

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS

PT – Personal Tutor

SRR – Student Review Record

SEHD – Scottish Executive Health Department

SGHD – Scottish Government Health Department

VLE – Virtual Learning environment

HEI - Higher Education Institute

ii

PREFACE

This report describes the development, introduction and evaluation of a

tool for prospectively raising awareness of issues that may influence

students to leave nurse or midwifery education. The report is structured to

give the reader insight into: the underlying reasons for developing such a

tool; the initial development of the tool; the inception of a pilot project

involving three Scottish University Schools of Nursing and Midwifery and

the related introduction and implementation work; and the evaluation of

this introduction over a one year period. Following discussion of findings,

the report concludes with some recommendations for future

developments.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i

GLOSSARY OF ABREVIATIONS i

PREFACE ii

SECTION 1: THE RATIONALE FOR DEVELOPING THE STUDENT

REVIEW RECORD 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Perspectives from relevant literature 1

1.3 Local context and formative processes 4

SECTION 2: THE STUDENT REVIEW RECORD 8

2.1 The Developed Tool: aim and content 8

2.2 The tool: associated initial development

(testing and formats) 12

SECTION 3: DEVELOPMENT OF AN IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION PROJECT INVOLVING THREE SCOTTISH

UNIVERSITIES 13

3.1 Pilot project inception 13

3.2 Project Objectives 13

3.3 Project structure 14

3.4 Preparation and implementation processes at each site 14

SECTION 4: EVALUATION DESIGN 18

4.1 Objectives 18

iv

4.2 Methodology 18

4.3 Methods 19

4.3.1 The Student Questionnaire 19

4.3.2 Student Focus Group 20

4.3.3 Personal Tutor Interviews 21

4.3.4 Data analyses 22

4.4 Ethics 23

4.5 Summary details of participation achieved 25

SECTION 5: FINDINGS 26

5.1 Reporting principles and formats 26

5.2 Findings Objective 1 27

5.2.1 Site A 27

5.2.2 Site B 30

5.2.3 Site C 31

5.3 Findings Objective 3 33

5.3.1 Site A 33

5.3.2 Site B 37

5.3.3 Site C 39

5.4 Findings Objective 4 41

5.4.1 Site A 41

5.4.2 Site B 47

5.4.3 Site C 50

5.5 Findings Objective 5 53

5.5.1 Site A 53

5.5.2 Site B 54

v

5.5.3 Site 54

SECTION 6: DISCUSSION 56

SECTION 7: CONCLUSION 61

SECTION 8: RECOMMENDATIONS 62

References 63

Bibliography 67

Appendix 1 Student review Record

Appendix 2 Student Questionnaire with results

Appendix 3 Summary of Personal Tutor Interview Responses

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1: Anticipated implementation in the tree Universities 17

Figure 1: Timeline for Evaluation 24

Table 2: Response details 25

Table 3: Details of Personal Tutors interviewed 25

1

SECTION 1: THE RATIONALE FOR DEVELOPING THE STUDENT REVIEW RECORD

1.1 Background

The retention of students has featured greatly in the work of Higher

Education Institutions (HEI) over the last ten years, especially so within

nursing and midwifery education. Within this context the issue of attrition

from programmes has become a key priority to ensure the future of

manpower within healthcare. This has been reflected in directives from

the Scottish Government encouraging relevant changes to enhance the

retention of students (Scottish Government Health Department 2007).

Like many Scottish universities involved in nursing and midwifery

education, Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen has been extensively

involved in developing such enhancement initiatives. The particular

initiative detailed in this report focuses on the early identification of

students who are at risk of leaving. This work evolved from two main

sources: (i) the literature on student attrition and retention in nursing and

midwifery and (ii) local data on attrition, retention and the student

experience as a whole.

1.2 Perspectives from relevant literature

Many authors have highlighted the factors that can lead to increased

attrition for HEI along with suggestions on how to assist students to be

successful (McSherry and Marland 1999; Murphy 2006; Jefferys 2007;

Cameron et al 2010a; 2010b). Glossop (2001), highlights the complexity

of issues surrounding student nurse discontinuation and while

acknowledging the difficulties in conducting rigorous research into this

2

complex area, she also posited that reduced entry qualifications, wrong

career choice, academic failure, personal, financial, or family difficulties,

health difficulties, increased length of time since previous study, travel

difficulties, placement difficulties, were all examples of reported leaving

reasons.

Similarly, Last and Fullbrook (2003) found that juggling personal lives

with study and placements, feelings of not being valued, unmet

expectations and stress were all important factors. Within this context,

there is some evidence that students should be viewed as at their most

vulnerable on commencement of their programme (Glogowska et al

2007). Although assumptions are made that students in Higher Education

are able to ask for help and advice when struggling, the fact that they are

adults may deter them from seeking appropriate support (Cameron et al

2010 b).

The latter authors provide a useful alternative perspective by reviewing

why nursing and midwifery students stay on programmes. In essence the

personal commitment of students and the support provided through the

programme itself emerges as crucial. Within these broader themes a

number of more specific findings were highlighted. For example, Sadler

(2003) and Lai et al (2008) found that students who had personal

experience of being nursed were more likely to remain on programme.

Similarly, students who conceptualised the nurse as a „knowledgeable

doer‟ were more likely to stay (Kotecha 2002).

A number of approaches to address these attrition/retention issues are

advocated in the literature. Effective interview processes and selection

strategies are highlighted as ways to reduce attrition, along with risk

3

management measures such as reviewing attendance, access to hardship

funds, targeted student support mechanisms (e.g. study skills for specific

age groups), and enhancing support within the practice setting

(Department of Health 2006). Enquiry based learning has also been

recommended as a means to improve the experience of students and

address some of the reasons for student attrition, such as lack of support,

poor academic performance, and stressful practice experience (Taylor

2009).

From the American perspective, Tinto (1998) argues that the greater the

interaction between the academic and social systems of the institution,

the greater the possibility of retention. This argument is supported within

the British context. Students are encouraged and supported to engage

with the wider academic community, to collaborate and be involved with

shaping their learning experience.

Although literature specifically focusing upon early identification of

students at risk is very limited, Wells (2003) and Jeffreys (2006) do

provide some evidence to support the development of such a system.

Jeffreys (2006) discusses ways to track and assess student progression

from entry to completion of the programme, drawing from criteria such as

entry qualifications and assignment results. Whereas Wells (2003)

identifies age, gender, race, first language, prior educational experience,

and prior work experience as areas for early warning, along with student

satisfaction surveys. Support measures which could be effective are

discussed in both papers, such as mandatory workshops, stress

management, and educator and peer mentoring.

4

Within this context the literature suggests that the Personal Tutor (PT)

role can be pivotal for the provision of support through general academic

guidance, professional guidance, pastoral support, and facilitating

academic, clinical and personal development. Last and Fullbrook (2003)

recommend developing a supportive and effective Personal Tutor system.

This approach in maintaining contact with students using Personal Tutors

has also been identified as good practice by Por and Barriball (2008) and

Wells (2003). Andrew et al (2008) maintain that constant attention by

educators to student issues throughout their programme can help in

reducing attrition rates. Rhodes and Jinks (2005) found through their

research that Personal Tutors clearly cared about their students and that,

whilst an all encompassing system of Personal Tutor support required a

high commitment of time and people resources, it remains an important

support mechanism for students.

1.3 Local context and formative processes

Engagement with the above literature suggested the potential value of

developing a tool to help identify students at risk of leaving. Data

gathered in the Robert Gordon University School of Nursing and Midwifery

(Taylor 2009), confirmed that there was no one specific criterion that

would positively indicate that a student would leave the course. Thus it

seemed important to try to identify “at risk” student behaviours on an

ongoing, proactive, and holistic basis (Benda 1991; Whitehead et al

2007). From this perspective, it seemed logical that any early

identification system should primarily involve the student working in

partnership with his/her Personal Tutor so that they could identify relevant

5

risks and management strategies. This approach might help embed a

culture of risk management as advocated by Marjoram, Lockyer and

Cowen (2009).

To this end the Student Review Record (SRR) initiative developed in

Robert Gordon University School of Nursing and Midwifery during 2009.

The initiative was rooted in one of the objectives of the School of Nursing

and Midwifery Recruitment, Selection and Retention Working Group,

namely: to implement creative-evidence based solutions to address

current recruitment, selection and retention challenges.

Early discussions focused on possible content and formats for a suitable

tool. The concept of a „traffic light system‟ as a model for the Student

Review Record was initially generated through discussions with members

of academic and administrative support staff at the School of Nursing and

Midwifery Personal Tutor Forum. Traffic lights, utilising a red, green and

amber model (Scottish Public Health Network 2009) were being used by

NHS Grampian to provide a colour-coded picture of health indicators

within the North East of Scotland. Additionally the Food Standards Agency

had introduced the concept of traffic light colour coding for individual

nutrients that was found to help consumers interpret the nutritional value

of food. Within nursing and midwifery education, Glasgow Caledonian

University utilises an electronic traffic light system, KELPIE, to provide

feedback to students on attendance. The development of a traffic light

system for the Student Review Record therefore seemed contemporary

with an easily recognisable coding system to engage both students and

Personal Tutors.

6

Participants at the Personal Tutor Forum shared their knowledge and

experience on how to identify students who were thought to be at risk of

leaving a nursing or midwifery programme. Tangible and overt behaviours

were highlighted, such as level of achievement and active engagement

with tutorials and individual appointments, which in turn influenced the

Personal Tutors judgement as to the students' level of motivation and

commitment. Key indicators of an „at-risk‟ student included non-

achievement of academic or clinical work, non-submission of work, and a

low level of attendance and/or engagement with studies. However other

areas that could be of concern were less observable and dependent on the

openness and readiness of the student to share with his/her Personal

Tutor. These included health problems, disability, and financial or family

concerns. Also of note was that, as many students have progressed to

University from School, some students were still searching for their own

identity and were lacking in self confidence and personal management

skills. Lacks of self-esteem, limited self-efficacy, sexuality, and gender

identity and peer acceptance were all posited as potential concern areas

for students.

As such there was evidence of Personal Tutors‟ awareness of at risk

behaviours, and underlying reasons for these. Although it was clear that

Personal Tutors were also trying to address these aspects in existing

interactions with their students, it was felt that a Review Record that was

student held (and ideally student led) could offer a useful, and novel,

approach. Specifically, students would be encouraged to complete this

document prior to meeting with their Personal Tutor, and use its main

areas as a foundation for exploring progress, and to identify any required

7

support. The next section of the report describes the resultant tool in

terms of its content and associated initial development (in terms of testing

and formats).

8

SECTION 2: THE STUDENT REVIEW RECORD

2.1 The Developed Tool: aim and content

The aim of the Student Review Record is to enhance students and

Personal Tutors‟ awareness of the risk behaviours that are associated with

student withdrawal from nursing and midwifery programmes, so that

effective and timely support mechanisms can be implemented.

The tool (Student Review Record, Appendix 1) was devised during 2009 at

Robert Gordon University specifically for students undertaking the

undergraduate programmes. Drawing from the literature highlighting

potential risk areas, a number of key areas were identified as essential to

provide a holistic illustration of the students‟ progress and potential level

of risk. These areas are now explained with reference, where necessary,

to supporting literature.

Personal Story: this section is to be completed at the beginning of the

course in preparation for the initial engagement with the Personal Tutor.

The areas of previous study and work experience were identified as

important in making a judgement as to the readiness of the student to

embark on Higher Education study and the readiness of the student to

undertake nurse or midwifery practice placement experience (Land,

1993). The area of carer commitments is also important to enable the

student and Personal Tutor to have a conversation in relation to support

strategies to manage these commitments and the demands of the course.

The remaining areas within this section focus upon the students‟

9

expectations of the programme, areas they feel they need to concentrate,

and their usual strategies for coping when under pressure.

Academic performance: the green area within this section not only

acknowledges that academic work is being achieved at the 1st submission,

the subjective view of the student is acknowledged through the perception

of positive engagement with the learning experience. The perception of

the student is viewed as essential for determining any potential risk, as a

student may well achieve academically, yet may feel ambivalent towards

the learning experience. For this reason areas of concern for progression

are students who feel ambivalent towards the learning experience as well

as students who do not achieve at 1st submission of academic work, or

choose to not submit academic work and thus forego the opportunity for

formal feedback on academic development. There are various reasons for

underachievement and University Support Structures are available for

example, study skills, referencing techniques, time management and

enabling technology. However students need to be aware of when they

need to use these services and be willing to engage with them. The

amber section of this area (I have required a re-submission on one

occasion) could act as an early warning for a student and thus encourage

the student to choose a timely intervention to address areas of

underachievement. When a student feels ambivalent towards the learning

experience there is an opportunity to explore this further with the

Personal Tutor and thus consider possible solutions. The red section

illustrates more concerning areas which require a more timely

10

intervention, and includes whether or not the student has accessed

support services and the effectiveness of this.

Clinical performance: poor course choice has been cited as a reason for

leaving nurse or midwifery education, and while there are questions

surrounding the accuracy of this as a reported reason for leaving the

course (Taylor, 2009), nevertheless there is experiential evidence that

many students do question the career choice at some point in their

studies. This section provides an opportunity within the amber and red

areas for students to raise concerns about career choice with their

Personal Tutor, as well as discuss any actions required to enhance their

performance within the practice setting.

Attendance on programme: McCarey et al (2006) asserted that non-

attendance was likely to impact upon academic achievement, and when

reviewing student achievement profiles within the School of Nursing and

Midwifery at Robert Gordon University it was clear there was a link

between high levels of non-attendance and underperformance in both the

academic and practice settings. While on many occasions absences from

the course are supported by valid health reasons or personal

circumstances, other absences are unexplained, and ultimately any

absence could compromise achievement on the course. All the sections

have an aim of increasing the students‟ awareness, and this section aims

to increase the students‟ awareness of the potential effect of absences

from the course, and therefore encourage the student to consider early

intervention strategies to remedy the situation. This section also draws to

11

the students‟ attention the importance of following procedures for

reporting absence, providing certification, and attendance at Occupational

Health appointments and mandatory sessions such as moving and

handling, as non-compliance in these areas could be an indication of a

lower level of motivation towards the course and subsequent withdrawal.

Issues Influencing Progress: health, disability, personal and/or

financial concerns can effect progression on the course and this section

provides students with an opportunity to review the current support

systems and discuss the effectiveness of these. Students may well have

an issue however when the support plan is effective there may be no

identifiable risk to progress on the course. However, if the issue has

recently been identified and awaiting a support plan, this would be

highlighted within the amber area which would heighten the students and

Personal Tutor‟s awareness that action is required. The red area

illustrates more serious concern and includes a previously ineffective

support plan, as well as the students‟ perception that little can be done to

help the situation. This would indicate the need for a focused review of

the support plan, and encouraging and enabling the student to engage

with alternative solutions to the issue.

Review of Progress: where risk areas have been identified, this last

section is an area for the student and/or Personal Tutor to record the

actions required with an identified time frame. The emphasis is on

enabling the student to identify possible solutions to the issue and with

Personal Tutor guidance and support, begin to take positive action to

12

address the issue.

2.2 The tool: associated initial development (testing and formats)

The SRR was initially introduced to one cohort of students locally, and

feedback from students and Personal Tutors on its usefulness was

generally positive. The SRR was formatted as a word document which

students could complete electronically and send to the Personal Tutor

prior to the meeting, or alternatively download and print a copy to take to

the meeting. This method of implementation is convenient for students

who are currently on the University Campus and have face to face

appointments with the Personal Tutor. However, in order to enhance

accessibility an on-line version of the Student Review Record was

subsequently developed by an e-learning technologist.

The Moodle Quiz tool was used to develop the online Student Review

Record. Where the original word document required the student to write

comments in the colour coded box to determine the status, the quiz

employs multiple choice questions to allow the student to choose the

status. These questions are each followed by an open text box to allow

the student the freedom to enter the comments expected in the word

document format. The quiz feedback options were heavily customised to

minimise the notion of „scoring‟ the responses and replaced with the traffic

light graphics and colours used in the initial version. Once the quiz is

submitted, Personal Tutors can view the students‟ answers and respond to

them using the Moodle feedback button.

13

SECTION 3: DEVELOPMENT OF AN IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION PROJECT INVOLVING THREE SCOTTISH

UNIVERSITIES

3.1 Pilot project inception

The development of the Student Review Record within Robert Gordon

University was one of a number of enhancement initiatives within the

institution. In turn these initiatives were part of a raft of national

recruitment, selection and retention initiatives being taken forward by

Scottish HEI in association with the SGHD.

During 2009 the School of Nursing and Midwifery at Robert Gordon

University, in association with similar departments at two other Scottish

HEIs, was successful in obtaining support from SGHD for a pilot project

that would implement and evaluate the SRR in three settings. These

settings are now referred to as Sites A, B and C respectively in order to

minimise possibilities for context-related identification of individual

evaluation participants at the three sites.

3.2 Project Objectives

The objectives of the project were:

1. To identify pre-existing structures and processes for preview and

review of students‟ progress (Implementation and evaluation)

2. To enable the introduction of the SRR in ways that are responsive to

local needs and contexts (Implementation only)

3. To appraise processes of introducing the SRR in different contexts

(Evaluation)

14

4. To evaluate the impact of the SRR on students‟ and Personal Tutors‟

awareness of at risk behaviours, and solutions to the risk behaviours

(Evaluation)

5. To identify any unintended outcomes (Implementation and evaluation)

6. To make recommendations for future risk review work in this field

(Implementation and evaluation)

3.3 Project structure

As can be seen the objectives comprised a mixture of implementation and

evaluation focused activities. These were taken forward by two distinct

teams within the project:

1. The development and implementation team leads in each HEI

who facilitated the introduction of the SRR, further

development and evaluation by linking with Personal Tutors,

students and other relevant Faculty. These leads were

members of the Project Steering Group which met three

monthly to review and plan progress

2. The evaluation research team studied the process and impact

aspects of SRR introduction through working with each HEI.

This research team provided reports at the three monthly

Steering Group meetings, summarising progress and sharing

formative findings in aggregated formats.

3.4 Preparation and implementation processes at each site

The initial phase of the project was the preparation for the introduction of

the SRR in the three pilot sites, with at least one student cohort in each

15

site. Preliminary discussions and negotiations focussed upon the

structures and processes of the Institution‟s pre-registration programme,

and the application of the Student Review Record within this context.

Further details of preparation and introduction are now given for each

site.

University A

The Student Review Record was introduced to students and Personal

Tutors through a series of presentations and group discussions. Emphasis

was placed on the student having ownership of the tool and retaining the

tool within the student‟s personal development portfolio. While the tool

was introduced to six cohorts (nursing and midwifery), for the purpose of

the study only three cohorts and their Personal Tutors were invited to

participate in the evaluation. Each Personal Tutor had approximately thirty

students within each group. The Student Review Record was made

available as a word document and an electronic version was made

available through the virtual campus. Students were encouraged to utilise

the tool on return from practice placement and prior to an individual

meeting with the Personal Tutor. At relevant points, when students

returned to the University following placement, an e-mail reminder was

sent to students and Personal Tutors to utilise the tool.

University B

A meeting took place where the Student Review Record was introduced to

five Personal Tutors and in response to the programme structure it was

decided that the method of implementation was through the Personal

Tutor providing the student with the tool as a word document, for

completion prior to the individual Personal Tutor and student meeting.

16

Some very minor amendments to wording were made within the SRR to

reflect the particular context for implementation. Personal Tutor meetings

were scheduled prior to the student undertaking the first placement and

subsequently on return to University following placement. The tool itself

would however be owned by the student and remain within the student‟s

personal development portfolio. Each Personal Tutor had a group of

approximately thirty students.

University C

Within this University discussion took place with the key Personal Tutor

who then disseminated the Student Review Record to three other Personal

Tutors within one cohort. The three Personal Tutors sought four students

each to pilot the tool (due to a number of other concurrent evaluation

initiatives with this cohort, only a limited introduction and evaluation was

feasible). The tool was made available as a word document and utilised

within the individual Personal Tutor and personal student meeting. These

meetings were scheduled prior to the students‟ first placement and

subsequently on return to University following each placement experience.

Following this the tool was stored within the student‟s personal

development portfolio.

17

Table 1 now summarises the initial anticipated implementation in the

three universities for this project. As can be seen, the scope of

implementation was different across the sites, and the nature of student

group composition was also varied.

Table 1: Anticipated implementation in the three Universities.

Institution Personal Tutors involved

Students Mode of use Start time

Site A 13

2008

2-cohorts nursing and 1 cohort midwifery approx 250

students

SRR accessible via

Campus Moodle (Virtual Learning Environment) for student and PT. Hard copy download or web save options.

Ongoing since

early 2009 (hard copy SRR), but main launch of on-line version on

Moodle in January 2010

Site B 5

3 midwifery cohorts of around 20 students,

spanning 1st - 3rd years approx 60 students

Students get hard copy of SRR. PTs have blank copies, but essentially SRR is student owned. No

associated usage of VLE anticipated for SRR

Starting Feb/March 2010

Site C 4 September 09 nursing cohort

only, and

focusing on 12 students

PTs will use SRR to organise meeting with

students. Students can

use as preparatory tool and bring hard copies to the meeting with PT. Students will hold their own copies in their PDP part of the Ongoing

Achievement Record

Starting April/May2010

18

SECTION 4: EVALUATION DESIGN

4.1 Objectives

To reprise, the main empirical evaluation objectives were:

1) To identify pre-existing structures and processes for preview and

review of students‟ progress

3) To appraise processes of introducing the SRR in different contexts

4) To evaluate the impact of the SRR on students‟ and Personal Tutors‟

awareness of at risk behaviours, and solutions to the risk behaviours

5) To identify any unintended outcomes

4.2 Methodology

The research design was informed primarily by case study methodology

(Yin 1994; Stake 1995). The aim was to study implementation processes

and impacts within three sites with different contexts (multiple cases).

Analysis and synthesis of understandings from each site then enabled

cross case analyses and evaluation of the case of SRR implementation as

a whole. This iterative process was informed in particular by Stake‟s

seminal education evaluation work (1967) comparing envisionment with

enaction.

The study was predominantly qualitative in nature, drawing on in-depth

interviews with key actors. However, it also involved the use of

questionnaires that comprised a mixture of quantitative and qualitative

questioning. Ethical approval was sought and obtained from each of the

three participating HEIs. The following section presents more details of the

methods of data collection and analysis used.

19

4.3 Methods

The evaluation comprised three main elements of data collection. Each is

now described in turn in terms of their content and processes.

4.3.1 The Student Questionnaire

Drawing on formats successfully used in previous survey research into

educational initiatives (e.g. Macduff et al 2009), a questionnaire was

designed to elicit student perceptions of the SRR. Content was informed

by the project objectives and by the inherent need to evaluate the main

elements of the SRR itself in terms of their use and impact. This tool is

presented in Appendix 2 where the main quantitative findings and

summaries of trends in respondents‟ comments have also been

superimposed in red italics.

The research team worked with Personal Tutors and Lecturers at the three

study sites to identify opportunities to give a brief (5-10 minute)

presentation about the research to each of the cohorts involved. A hard

copy questionnaire; letter of introduction; FREEPOST return envelope and

letter of invitation were given to the students. Students were free to

decide whether to take part or not and were given two weeks to return

the questionnaire. The questionnaire took 10 minutes or so to complete

and students could choose to return it anonymously if desired.

However, the questionnaire also invited respondents to give contact

details if they were willing to:

a) Consent to be contacted and asked to take part in a future focus group,

and/or

b) Allow the researchers‟ access to their on-line SRR (if applicable)

20

In the former case they were then sent a further information sheet and

consent form in relation to the focus group. This contained an invitation to

bring their current SRR to the Focus Group so that the research team

could better understand how they were using it.

In the latter case, students were asked to indicate whether they would

consent to the research team gaining access to their on-line SRR should

they be using this (applicable to some students at Site A). This enabled

the research team to gain a better understanding of how the on-line SRR

was being used. Students were assured that their record would not be

changed in any way. Access to the on line record would be facilitated by

the E Learning Support Officer who has administration rights to the

relevant part of Campus Moodle. This arrangement was in line with advice

received from Site A data protection staff. Notes were taken in relation to

the SRR but an identification code was added to these notes rather than

the student‟s name.

4.3.2 Student Focus Group

A focus group interview schedule was designed in order to explore

consenting students‟ experiences of the SRR in more depth and to elicit

views on future developments. Held during students‟ university based

learning time, these interviews took 30 -45 minutes and were digitally

recorded as an aide memoir for the research team.

Those students who also opted to bring in their current SRR (hard copy)

had it photocopied by a member of the research team. The original was

returned to the student immediately and the photocopy was treated in

21

strict confidence by the research team. Students were informed that their

individual SRR would only be part of the focus group discussion should

they wish to refer to it themselves i.e. they were not expected to share its

contents with their colleagues

4.3.3 Personal Tutor Interviews

The original aim of this part of the research was to invite Personal Tutors

who were involved in the SRR implementation to take part in both an

individual interview and a subsequent focus group interview at their site.

However at a fairly early stage in the research it became apparent that

individual interviews were producing rich, in-depth data and that focus

groups were unlikely to add much to further understandings bearing in

mind the time pressures on academic faculty.

A schedule for the individual interviews was designed. Again this drew on

formats successfully used in previous research into educational initiatives

(e.g. Macduff et al 2010). Content was informed by the project objectives

and by the inherent need to evaluate the main elements of the SRR itself

in terms of their value and impact. This tool is presented in Appendix 3

where the main findings and summaries of trends in respondents‟

comments have also been superimposed in red type.

Personal Tutors in each HEI who were associated with the cohorts of

students selected for the evaluation were sent: an invitation to participate

in an interview; an information sheet; a consent form and FREEPOST

return envelope. Individual face to face interviews were subsequently

arranged at a time and place of convenience to the Personal Tutor.

22

Interviews typically lasted 30 minutes or so and were digitally recorded as

an aide memoir for the research team.

4.3.4 Data analyses

Interview recordings were listened to several times and selectively

transcribed. Qualitative content and thematic analysis approaches

(Bryman 2001; Priest et al 2002) informed our handling and interpretation

of this data. Key verbatim quotes were collated in relation to the thematic

areas of the prepared interview schedule and thematic content that

emerged from the interaction as a whole. Interview material for each site

was collated and individual responses compared (intra-case analyses).

Where data triangulation offered potential insights (e.g. where a Personal

Tutor‟s perceptions could be compared with those of his/her student) this

was explored. Cross case analyses then compared, contrasted and (where

appropriate) synthesised understandings from the three sites.

Data from the questionnaires were entered in an anonymised, coded

format onto a password protected SPSS database. Quantitative data was

collated and summarised through descriptive statistics. Comments were

collated in relation to each question. Response sets from each of the three

sites were first examined separately and then in aggregate, where

appropriate.

Finally, the findings from the interviews and questionnaires were drawn on

to construct a narrative addressing the main evaluation objectives.

23

4.4 Ethics

As indicated above, ethical permissions were received from the three

HEIs. Dr Colin Macduff and Fiona Baguley were the only people who had

access to any personally identifiable data shared during the study. All

documentation relating to the research was stored securely on site.

Individual and focus group interviews were digitally audio recorded and

downloaded onto a password-protected computer. Transcription data was

code numbered rather than having details of individual names on them

(list of codes kept in separate locked drawer). The digital recordings of

interviews were deleted after transcription. Consent forms were kept

separately in a locked drawer.

Completed questionnaires and photocopies of individual student's SRR

forms were stored in a locked drawer. Consent forms were kept in a

separate locked drawer. Additionally, where students granted the

researchers access to their on-line SRR, the site A administrator for the

Campus Moodle module area facilitated this. The administrator also

supplied the research team with three monthly summaries of on-line SRR

activities in a way that avoided identifying any specific individuals.

24

Figure 1: Timeline for evaluation

Key: - Questionnaire Distribution Interviews

April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

Site A

Midwifery

students 08

March 08

Nursing

Students

Sept 08

Nursing

Students

Site B

Midwifery

Students 3 cohorts

Site C

Nursing

Students

P Ts

Site A

Site B

Site C

25

4.5 Summary details of participation achieved

Tables 2 and 3 below provide summary details of responses and PT

participants respectively.

Table 2: Response Details

Location Student Questionnaires Distributed

Student Questionnaires Returned

Students Interviewed

PTs Invited

PTs Interviewed

Site A 185*

45

5

13

7

Site B 60

9

0

5

3

Site C 8**

1

0

4

2

Total 253

55

5

22

12

*Although there were around 250 students in the relevant cohorts at Site A (see Table 1), fewer were in attendance when questionnaires were distributed in class. Thus 185 were given out. **Although 12 students were initially involved at this site (four students each for three Personal Tutors), by the time questionnaires were distributed only 8 were involved (due to change in PT circumstances). A fourth PT who oversaw the implementation of the SRR in Site C was also invited for interview.

Table 3: Details of Personal Tutors Interviewed

Time spent as PT to date*

Current number of students**

Frequency of meetings with students***

More than 10 years 30 Once per semester

PT 3 times over many years

20 Once per semester

13 years 21 Once in 1st semester,

after student visits when necessary.

6 years 15 Once per semester

6 years 6 Once per semester

10 years 31 Once per semester

Many years 12 Once per semester

12.5 years 30 Once per semester (Also facilitate their learning.)

10 years 8 Once per semester plus one visit on clinical session

Over 10 years 18 Once per semester plus once per clinical placement

1 year 35 Once per semester

“Many” years 25 Three times annually

* All Personal Tutors had more than five years experience in the role except one. ** The average number of students per Personal Tutor was 21. *** All except one Personal Tutor saw students individually once per semester

26

SECTION 5: FINDINGS

5.1 Reporting principles and formats

In aiming to maximise participant anonymity and to focus on issues and

transferable knowledge, reporting of the research names neither

individuals nor institutions. Where participants‟ words are used directly,

these are italicised in quotation marks and a code system indicates some

aspects of individual participant identity. For example PT1 relates to a

particular Personal Tutor participant, NR20 relates to a nursing student

participant, and M4 relates to a midwifery student participant. Where the

code given is PT only, the number has been omitted to minimise possible

identification. This applies particularly in sites where there were few

participants.

The data from Personal Tutors and students is now drawn on in order to

detail findings in relation to each evaluation objective. For each objective

the findings from each of the sites are reported sequentially. Readers who

wish to view aggregated summaries of the student and PT data sets are

referred to Appendices 2 and 3 respectively.

27

5.2 Findings Objective 1

“To identify pre-existing structures and processes for preview and

review of students’ progress”

5.2.1 Site A

Frequency of Interviews

All except one of the seven Personal Tutors interviewed in Site A met with

students once per semester after the students returned from their clinical

placement:

PT5 “We had to meet the students one to one once a semester and we

would meet them in their Personal Tutor groups for briefing and debriefing

for practice."

PT4 “Saw students once per semester, unless there were apparent

issues”.

However, not all students experienced this frequency of meetings with

their Personal Tutor:

2MR “First year she came to all of us to explain what she did and then at

the end of first year she saw us all individually. Now we are in the last

term of 2nd year and she has just come into the class to make

appointments to see us again.”

One Personal Tutor described a different format and seemed to depend on

the student‟s initiative to approach and ask for guidance after an initial

face to face meeting in the first semester of year one. PT2 reported

having a "flexible" approach, relying on the student to “Call on me,” or “I

will see them on demand if it's suitable… that will be communicated at the

very first session in first year.”

28

Interview Format

Personal Tutors did not identify any structure to the format of the

meeting, although most Personal Tutors explained that assessment

records and attendance records were available for the Personal Tutor and

students to discuss if appropriate. These had to be located on an

individual student basis by the PT:

PT1 (There was no other structure) "other than the attendance record,

which was a good starting point. It was about the development of a

relationship with the student”.

Concerns about format, content, and support were particularly

pronounced when PTs were less experienced:

PT5 “When I was a new Personal Tutor I wasn’t always sure what I should

be talking to the student about at those one-to-one meetings.”

PT4 (Being a Personal Tutor was) “a baptism of fire and I really had very

little support.”

Peer support among the Personal Tutor‟s group of students was

emphasised by one Personal Tutor:

PT6 “I've always had a really close relationship with my students. I do a

lot of closed group work with my students, so my groups have been very

cohesive between themselves…and I also do individual meetings every

semester.”

The approach taken by Personal Tutors when raising sensitive student

issues for discussion was variable depending on the Personal Tutor and

the relationship between Personal Tutor and student:

PT3 “A colleague of mine had devised a form that she used to

complete…what I didn't have was a format for raising difficult issues.”

29

PT4 “I was exploring some of these issues with students already… my

relationship with the students is good”.

Relationship Building

The Personal Tutors at Site A were responsible for between 8 and 31

students at a time. The maximum number the School recommended that

they were responsible for was 40 students. Relationship building was seen

as important by most PTs:

PT1 “It's not just about meeting them on a formal basis which I have to

do as a Personal Tutor once a semester… it is a continuing thing rather

than time bound…What is raised comes from your relationship with the

student.”

PT4 Identified the Personal Tutor role as time consuming, but also said”

it's very valuable to the students as well. We have quite a needy group of

students, they're not like the normal students…It is a big role, it is an

essential role within the school."

Moreover, this sustained engagement was seen by one PT to involve

transmitting desirable values through behaviour:

PT7 “We are role models for students – if we show compassion, then they

will learn compassion as professionals”

Other Personal Tutors identified how difficult it could be to build an

effective relationship:

PT6 “Not able to give successful support if too many.”

PT1 "Now there's no protected time."

PT5 “I sort of knew the students and I usually could remember their

names after a period of time but never really knew them as individuals

30

within the group, unless something had happened with them and that was

usually something negative.”

PT2 "I still struggle with names to faces with 21" (students).

This perspective was supported by several of the students interviewed, for

example:

1MR “Personal Tutor does not know everyone’s name in the class yet just

the ones that stand out...Personal Tutor relationship is not established and

support suffers.”

Others thought that the support they received was adequate and seemed

flexible in nature:

2NR “We’re always being sent emails and at the start and end of a term

they’re always emphasising that if your struggling go to the skills centre,

go to the tutor, go to the PT.”

1NR “The support is really good from PT right through to lecturer. They

always respond to your emails.”

5.2.2 Site B

Frequency of Interviews

All three Personal Tutors interviewed met the students once per semester

on their return from clinical placement. There was consistency between

Personal Tutors in regard to how often they met with the students face to

face, on an individual basis. Students were also seen while on clinical

placement, although not always by their Personal Tutor. However if there

was an issue, the Personal Tutor was informed and involved.

31

Interview Format

All Personal Tutors interviewed stated that the format of the Personal

Tutor and student interview was mainly unstructured. The attendance

documents, assessment results and clinical record were all available for

Personal Tutor and student to reflect on:

PT “Usually go through absence and clinical progress documents etc., but

have no formal structure for interviews.”

Relationship Building

The nature of the relationship between Personal Tutor and student varied

between all three Personal Tutors interviewed. One Personal Tutor was

satisfied with the system of support that was in place because of the

sound relationships they had with the students:

PT “Worked well because we knew the students well.”

The second Personal Tutor found it more difficult to get to know students:

PT “Eventually get to know students. We have small cohorts which makes

it easier.”

The third Personal Tutor was less confident about how well they knew the

students and was less secure about the quality of their relationship:

PT “Knew some students better than others. Some share things, some do

not. Some you know have issues going on, but you don’t know what they

are.”

5.2.3 Site C

Frequency of Interviews

The students are seen at least once a semester:

32

PT “Usually after the semester and they have their paperwork reviewed.”

PT “At least three individual meetings with each student three times a

year.”

Personal Tutors are sensitive to the students‟ needs and therefore

interviews can take place more regularly if needed:

PT “It’s quite idiosyncratic. It depends very much on the student need... It

varies on the individual academic, but then it also varies on work load,

dependent on how well or poorly your students are doing.”

Personal Tutors also facilitated group work and visited the students out on

clinical placement:

PT”I do try to get out and see some of them in practice in first year.”

PT We “use Personal Tutor group for classroom delivery as well.”

Interview Format

The interview structure is around the students‟ “Ongoing Achievement

Record” where students are graded from 1-3 if they are progressing well

and from 4-5 if they have there are any concerns. Additional notes of the

meeting were also kept in the student file:

PT “We would normally record as best we could the Personal Tutor

meeting.”

Relationship Building

Despite being responsible for a large group of students each (12-15 every

new intake), the Personal Tutors interviewed noted that the students

could approach them if needed at any time for advice or support:

PT “I suppose for myself I have an open door policy.”

33

5.3 Findings Objective 3

“To appraise processes of introducing the SRR in different

contexts”.

5.3.1 Site A

Reason for introduction

Although there was a general awareness among the Personal Tutors that

the SRR was one of several initiatives brought in to address student

attrition, the specific rationale for its introduction and its envisaged

function were variously understood. Within this context, some Personal

Tutors highlighted the SRR‟s aspiration to address retention within the

context of other systems issues. For example:

PT 3 “I believed it was brought in to address attrition issues. It felt at one

point that everything in the whole world was about dealing with the

attrition problem”.

For others there was also explicit linkage made to the goal of student-led

action:

PT1 “Not given any reason for introduction – just knew it was about

retention and changing emphasis on students to monitor their own

progress and identify when they were struggling”

PT2 “From memory it was sometimes difficult in students moving from

one stage to another and the SRR was a mechanism to identify

weaknesses the student felt they had to be tackled in the next

placement.”

PT7 “It was like another piece of paper to tick box... but onus now on

student and is an aid to explore issues.”

34

For another the primary rationale related to improving the consistency of

Personal Tutor role enactment across Faculty:

PT4 “It was a guide so as there's commonality between one Personal

Tutor and another Personal Tutor from the way we approach students. It's

also about their own student journey so they identify their own risks so

it's making their own professionalism and its own self-awareness higher

than it was before. ”

Introduction to Staff

Introduction of the SRR to site A staff was undertaken through a series of

workshops carried out on site. The information from these workshops was

then re-enforced via the email system to all staff.

PT7 “there was a series of meetings that took place and I had the

opportunity to see hard copy version and work with three of my

colleagues.”

PT5 “It was introduced gradually. There was a Personal Tutor session you

could go along to. (Colleague) ”talked to us about it, which was useful.

There has been ongoing communication through the email. But honestly I

think that if I hadn't been involved with the development of it that I might

not have been able to engage so easily with it."

Three of the staff interviewed expressed their concerns over the way that

the SRR was introduced:

PT1 “It was introduced with the intake ahead of mine and we were told it

was a pilot with them. We started six months later. We were told you will

be doing this… it was still in the pilot stage...When staff asked questions

about it there were no answers.”

35

PT6 identified that it had not been based on “research.”

PT3 “It was a work in progress and that always makes things more

difficult. To clearly explain something when you're in the process of

developing it yourself…it was constantly developing.”

Introduction to Students: staff perceptions

The students were introduced to the SRR by the staff member who was

leading the SRR initiative and this information was re-enforced by email

contact. The majority of Personal Tutors interviewed did follow up the

initial SRR introduction, but this was variable:

PT1 “Then introduced to students by someone other than us as Personal

Tutors…I don't think it's been introduced that well to the students.”

PT5 “The introduction for students was done by a Colleague at Site A.”

I did my own introduction about it as well…I am a bit vague about the

mechanisms of the introduction to the students”

PT4 "I presume there was a little bit of guidance in the email that was

sent to them."

Introduction to Students: student perceptions

In the student questionnaire the students were asked, “Thinking of the

information you have been given so far about the SRR, how well has this

prepared you to use it?” The main responses were as follows:-

Well 22%, Adequately 29%, Poorly 22%.

Those students who commented on its introduction tended to emphasise

the optional nature of participation and a related lack of uptake:

36

1MR”None (of the midwives) have used it; it was seen as an optional

thing.”

2NR “We were told it would show us how we were doing. If we were

falling behind on what was expected of us, but it was a vague

explanation.”

38NR “It has not been stressed to me that it was an important document

with the workload we already had. I did not think it was necessary to

complete it.”

The online version

The online version of the SRR was introduced in site A in January 2010.

By July 2010, 24 students were registered as having made “attempts” at

using it, with 10 students completing and submitting an online document:

PT3 “13 completed the online, one completed the paper and one didn't do

either.”

There were persistent technical and practical difficulties with the online

version. These were mostly related to the format of the tool itself:

PT5 “Couldn't work the online version, it kept changing colour when I

entered something, so I stopped.”

However, some related to its housing within the VLE and the online

version was unavailable for several months (August-November 2010)

after upgrading of the system:

PT4 "The online version hasn't gone live properly really."

Technical difficulties for the user also co-existed with uncertainty about

intended systematic procedures for operationalising the electronic version:

37

PT3 “I can’t access it unless the student closes the form and then it

becomes accessible to the Personal Tutor...so I still have six that are left

open.”

PT3 "Unless each student logs in as themselves on your computer in your

room when you're having you're Personal Tutor interviews, you can't

make any changes to the document."

PT3 "Find it difficult to know what to do with it.”

This example may also suggest some conceptual difficulty around

envisaged ownership of the SRR. Nevertheless there was support among

Personal Tutors towards an online version if these difficulties were

addressed:

PT5 “Would prefer online version.”

Very few of the students who returned a questionnaire were aware that

there was an online SRR facility. None of the students interviewed were

aware of it:

23NR “Was unaware you could use it online.”

5.3.2 Site B

Reason for introduction

The three Personal Tutors at Site B were aware of why the SRR had been

introduced to Site A and their role as an evaluation site. The Personal

Tutors interviewed expressed that they also had an interest in the issues

of retention and attrition:

PT “(School) is also interested in attrition and retention and the SRR was

introduced as part of that.”

However, the facility was not totally embraced by all staff:

38

PT “This was not brought in to address student need.”

Introduction to Staff

A staff member from Site A introduced the SRR to staff at Site B in one

face-to-face introductory session. After that phone or email

communication continued, with one staff member from Site B being a key

contact and involved at Steering Group level:

PT “It was introduced by ... (colleague at site B) and then someone came

from RGU to talk to us about it.”

“Introduced to it by (other lecturer at Site B)”

Introduction to students: staff and student perceptions

Personal Tutors at site B introduced the SRR to the students and asked

them to complete it and bring it along with them to their next interview.

In the questionnaire, students were asked to rate how well they were

introduced to the SRR. The main results are as follows;

Well 2 Adequately 5 Poorly 2

46MD “Wasn’t made clear of its purpose.”

54MD “Understand when to use this tool when appropriate.”

The idea of an online version

There was no online facility at this Site, although the idea was received

positively by all three Personal Tutors. The potential for

integration/articulation with related systems was particularly appealing:

39

PT “An online version would be good if it is integrated into the

administration system and did not repeat work, but we don’t have

meeting rooms with computers and computers are slow”.

PT “Would like to use the online SRR.”

PT “I would like to use the online SRR and then once the summary page

was filled in it could be sent to Admin. directly.”

5.3.3 Site C

Reason for introduction

Student attrition and retention had been at the forefront for site C taking

an interest in the Student review Record and becoming involved in the

evaluation:

PT “Initially it was driven by attrition...but we also wanted to try and get a

flavour of students who were struggling but made a success of it.”

Introduction to Staff

The lead member of staff at site C met with two representatives from site

A and then passed on the relevant information to other Personal Tutors in

the School of Nursing and Midwifery. However local implementation was

largely left to individual PTs and their students:

PT “It might be that I wasn’t using the document the way the developers

intended because there was no guidance around how we perceived it

should be used.”

40

Introduction to Students: staff perceptions

It was introduced to the students by their Personal Tutors. Each student

was given a hard copy to read through and an explanation about the

evaluation. Eight students volunteered to contribute to the evaluation and

brought it filled in to their Personal Tutor interviews. The students who

volunteered to contribute were performing successfully on their course:

PT “It’s probably the students that don’t need it that became involved.”

Introduction to Students: student perception

There was feedback by questionnaire from one student at site C. This

student identified that there had been “adequate” introduction to the SRR

by the Personal Tutor.

The idea of an online version

As with site B, there was no online version of the SRR for use. However,

the idea was received positively as a way of getting the online information

to the Personal Tutor before the student came back from placement in

readiness for their Personal Tutor interview:

PT “For a bigger intake the fact that we could do it electronically to get

that information to us before the end of the placement.”

The same Personal Tutor thought that using the electronic version might

enhance student/ Personal Tutor working:

PT “It gives the students a good framework to use their Personal Tutor

better.”

PT “Would try and use it as an electronic tool.”

41

5.4 Findings Objective 4

“To evaluate the impact of the SRR on students’ and Personal

Tutors’ awareness of at risk behaviours, and solutions to the risk

behaviours”.

5.4.1 Site A

Impact of SRR on Personal Tutor Awareness

Amongst the Personal Tutors interviewed there was agreement that the

format of the SRR prompted constructive discussion and assisted the

Personal Tutors who had not been able to approach sensitive issues before

to do so now.

PT6 “Anything that prompts discussion is positive.”

PT3 “SRR has changed Personal Tutors perceptions of the role of Personal

Tutor from pastoral to more academic assessment and support.

Helps set boundaries.”

PT5.”It given me a real structure for dealing with the issues I might have

thought about talking to them about before…It has raised issues or

possible issues earlier…I think I have a well rounded understanding of the

students and I feel that I've got a personal relationship with each of

them”.

The majority of the Personal Tutors interviewed identified that a good

relationship between the Personal Tutor and the student was an

important. enabling factor for the SRR to be effective:

PT4 "It depends on the Personal Tutor; I think it depends on whether or

not the Personal Tutor is able to do that role."

PT7 “It’s the Personal Tutor and student working together where the

challenges are and therefore what strategies can be taken.”

42

PT5 “As long as you have a good relationship with the student" the SRR

"will move you to identify things you might not have identified."

Moreover, the latter PT saw it as useful across the student spectrum:

PT5 “It's not just about negative issues, it's about helping the student to

improve no matter where on the spectrum they are.”

Personal Tutors‟ perceptions of the SRR pre-meeting elements (see

Appendix 2) showed that the academic performance review sub section

was seen as most useful in raising awareness:

PT1. "Sometimes I don’t know how students are doing academically.

Students assume that I know when students have failed something. It

was useful because I found out they were carrying fails that I wasn't

aware of."

Other subsections were seen as less useful in raising awareness. The

clinical performance sub section could be viewed as supplementary:

PT1" We have to review their clinical assessment document every time

they come in, so the clinical assessment document tells me about their

clinical performance."

The information in the attendance on programme sub section was seen as

unreliable by several PTs:

PT6 “Students lie, I do think they lie. I don't think they lie willingly, I think

they want to avoid the conversation.”

PT1 “Don’t know when students are absent. Students can tell you

anything. You don’t know they haven’t been attending until there is an

issue.”

The latter comments suggest a possible systems related problem for PTs

in accessing student absence details.

43

Impact of SRR on Student Awareness

The questionnaire results (see Appendix 2) show that those students who

returned a completed questionnaire were mostly positive in their ranking

of the usefulness of the sub-sections:

42NR “Allowed me to see where improvements to work was required.”

35NR “The fact that it allows you to co-write action plans etc. with your

Personal Tutor allows you a lot more opportunities to identify issues.”

33NR “It provides an early detection and makes it easier for a student to

bring up the subject of problems”.

However, some students indicated that they think it is a facility to use

only when there is a problem or issue occurring:

27NR “I have never required to use it.”

28NR “Not been required.”

None of the students who interviewed thought that their awareness of

their progress had been changed or increased due to the use of the SRR:

1NR “You have to really have the support of the Personal Tutor. They’ve

got to buy into it as well. You’re not really going to do it yourself. It’s not

really telling me anything I don’t already know.”

Impact of SRR on Solution Finding

In the student questionnaire when students were asked about the value of

the tool for progressing actions there was a spread of perceptions (see

Appendix 2). Some saw it as useful in this regard, but this tended not to

come through in students‟ comments:

44

21NR “I have expressed problems, but have never seen actions or

changes taking place.”

8NR “It doesn’t help give you guidance.”

None of the participants interviewed said that the using the SRR had

assisted in finding solutions to issues identified:

2NR “No, there’s no been any development plan.”

PT6”Support systems have not changed.

However, PT3 identified that raising student self awareness in itself could

be the solution to some of the problems:

PT3 “A shared understanding of where we are is very important…I think

sometimes the problem is the lack of awareness."

Student Ownership

All except one Personal Tutor interviewed found that the students rarely

remembered to bring their SRR to the Personal Tutor interview. Most

students had been reminded by email once:

PT3 “When it turned from being my document to being the students'

document, I struggled to get my head around that for a while. Shortly

after that I tried it out and found that it made perfect sense to be the

students' document and not mine… I emailed it to students and they filled

it in and they kept it. I also kept a summary of their record to remind

myself and for continuity.”

PT6 “It is all lecturer led, but it’s not supposed to be.”

PT4 “Partly my fault I guess because wasn't reminding them. I think half a

dozen came with it completed or partly completed.”

PT1 “Student ownership didn’t really happen.”

45

PT7 “The Personal Tutor has to be pushy. Remember to fill out the

document before you come to the Personal Tutor interview. You have to

telephone, to do it verbally, you email.”

Interestingly, one of the students felt that the PT should control the SRR:

1NR “If the student has a problem and they have to see the PT then

they’re not going to take this doc with them anyway, so the PT should

hold it and facilitate it. If I was struggling I would not put it down on this

document, I would just go and see someone.”

Ease of use/coverage

Generally the majority of Personal Tutors and students thought that the

SRR was clear, simple and easy to use. It seemed to cover all areas that

were required for the Personal Tutor interview:

PT5 “I find it really useful because they are such broad areas.”

PT4 "As it stands at the moment it is very easy to use and it would be

very easy to over complicate it."

2NR “Yes the format’s simple.”

24NR “Format in itself is good.”

Just under half of the PTs interviewed said that they thought that the

document was too long:

PT 6 “Too long. Would have preferred a list of prompting questions.”

PT7”The SSR needs to be an A4 sheet where students can rate

themselves on the traffic lights, with and area on the back for reflection.

That would be ample. Make the document less tedious for students and

they would be keener to do it.”

Clarity in relation to ongoing usage was requested by one Personal Tutor.

46

PT5 “When you write comments it's not clear whether you're talking about

the first meeting or the second meeting.”

Traffic light coding

The coding system of the traffic lights itself was raised as an issue by the

majority of Personal Tutors and students interviewed. Some questioned

that accuracy of the system:

PT 4 “It's quite basic in that it doesn't go into the depth of particular

student issues to it.”

PT1 “She's putting in green and I'm putting in red, so who takes

precedence? It's that thing about negotiating with them, what do you do

compromise on amber?”

Others saw its value more as a means to the end of quality discussion

and/or reflection:

PT5 “ There's once or twice I would have them in the amber rather than

the red, but if a student perceives that their situation is causing them real

cause for concern, then I don't think that's a bad thing.”

PT7 “I saw the traffic light system are a self assessment of who they are

and where they are, so I am like a critical friend at the side..Could you tell

me why this is red for you...It enables me to challenge the student to

start to think deeply about the situation”

Concerns were voiced from some student responses, but not by all:

1MR “Traffic light system patronising and inaccurate because you can

always justify bad behaviour. You might never think that you are green

when you are.

47

1NR“It’s the questions within the traffic light system rather that the traffic

light system that needs to be changed. Traffic lights is a bit like going

back to teaching your children, but now it’s what’s written that’s

important.”

2NR“I didn’t mind the traffic lights. Some questions it seem like they’re

saying the same thing in a different way and so I don’t know where to

place myself.”

24NR“Highlighting potentially problematic behaviour/ incidences with

traffic lights system is helpful.”

5.4.2 Site B

Impact of SRR on Personal Tutor Awareness

Personal Tutor awareness was thought to be clarified by one of the three

Personal Tutors interviewed, but not increased. The others said it would

not make them more aware of students‟ progress because they had small

Personal Tutor groups and were able to get to know the students well.

When asked specifically to rank the usefulness of the sub-sections in the

SRR the Personal Tutors interviewed at this site were very slightly towards

the positive:

PT “In the past you had an awareness of how a student was doing, but

this puts it all together and clarifies it... Gives permission to ask questions

you would not normally ask because it was prying.”

However, the attendance on programme sub section was seen as

unnecessary:

PT “Student attendance given is to the Personal Tutor weekly – have to

have 100% attendance, or fill out evidence of learning form (NMC)”

48

PT “Students are already aware of this as they get a print out of their

attendance”.

Impact of SRR on Student Awareness

The students who returned the questionnaire were positive about the

SRR‟s influence on their self awareness. The majority rated each sub-

sections of the SRR as “Useful”.

50MD “Let me know/ confirmed that I was succeeding.”

This was endorsed in PT comments:

PT “Useful to see what students think of their own performance. – Some

students marked themselves as amber and were surprised that they were

amber”

“Good reflective tool for students.”

“Personal Tutors had all the information they need to see how students

are doing, but the SRR lets students evaluate how they are doing”.

Impact of SRR on Solution Finding

Participants from this site generally commented that they had not really

used the SRR to its full effect and therefore were unable to answer this

from experience. However one Personal Tutor had used the SRR more

fully with one of her groups:

PT “All the students filled it out and some highlighted that their writing/IT

skills were lacking and they needed support, which was organised.

Normally we wouldn’t have found out that there was a problem until they

submitted a piece of work.”

49

Student Ownership

One Personal Tutor found that, with some prompting, students would take

the initiative:

PT "Student led and students filling it in first is the key positive difference.

It’s positive that students rank themselves." “I asked the students by

email to bring it with them with other paperwork for Personal Tutor

interview and they all brought it.”

The other PTs had less positive experiences in this regard:

PT “Students don’t fill it in or forget to bring it.” “(They) didn’t really use

it.”

PT “I have used it once with one student who scored green on everything.

All other 11 students forgot to bring it, although they were only reminded

once.”

Ease of use/coverage

There were mixed PT views on these aspects:

PT “Clear, easy to use.

PT “Too long and the summary duplicates.”

PT “Summary page needs to belong to the University (to be added to the

student records).

Traffic light coding

Again, perceptions were mixed on the value of this aspect:

PT “Traffic light system useful, especially with defined criteria next to

colours.

However:

50

PT “You could be amber for one issue and green for another, so how do

you rate yourself?”

PT “Fine if someone is in the middle – i.e. if they are all green then what’s

the point and if they have really major problems then the tool is

patronising and inadequate. If they had major problems you would hope

they would come to you immediately and the meeting would be formally

documented.”

5.4.3 Site C

Impact of SRR on Personal Tutor Awareness

The fact that students chose to bring along a document that was as

structured as the SRR to a Personal Tutor interview was seen by one

Personal Tutor as significant:

PT “If their motivation was wavering if you like, or if their abilities were

being tested. If they had this and how well they did this for the Personal

Tutor meeting would have been quite indicative to us.”

The personal story sub-section was identified as being useful:

PT “That’s something we really don’t get access to...this seems to me a

good way to get to know the students.”

PT (talking about student disability) “Students don’t reveal it for about six

months down the line, so this will help.”

In regard to the SRR one Personal Tutor identified that the sensitive

approach, where Personal Tutor and student work together to identify

issues and successes was beneficial:

PT “I think we’ve got plenty of sticks...I think this maybe gives them (the

students) a leg up to some of them.”

51

Impact of SRR on Student Awareness

The SRR was seen as being a beneficial tool for all students.

PT (In relation to student who aren‟t achieving) “This basically focuses

them.” (In relation to those who are doing well) “It tells them what to

expect and gives them some consistency from Personal Tutor meeting to

Personal Tutor meeting.”

Impact of SRR on Solution Finding

Using the SRR at the interviews was seen as something that would raise

student‟s expectations of the Personal Tutor and look for solutions to

issues:

PT “It emphasises them (the students) to say, why are you asking me

about this when you’re not going to do anything about it?”

However, its success of use was identified as being variable depending on

the attitude and approach of the Personal Tutor:

PT “It depends on the relationship you manage to develop with the

individual student.”

The benefit of the SRR was the structure it gave to the Personal Tutor in

the one to one interview with the student:

PT “It gives us a script for the Personal Tutor interview.”

Student Ownership

Student ownership was not identified as being positive or negative in any

way. Students at this site are responsible for their clinical record, as they

52

are in the other two sites, so are used to taking responsibility for

documentation.

Ease of use/coverage

Personal Tutors at site C reported that the SRR seemed easy to use, but

recommended that the information gained could be utilised more fully.

PT “I don’t think there’s much point in actually using that as something to

lie in the student’s file. “

PT “It is good for us to be able to track if academic fail leads to attrition.”

Traffic light coding

The only comment on the traffic light system from PTs at site C

highlighted that:

PT “The students down at the red bits there don’t turn up for the Personal

Tutor interviews anyway.”

53

5.5 Findings Objective 5

“Identify any unintended outcomes”

This objective was formulated as it was anticipated that the

implementation activities might yield some outcomes (and processes and

impacts) that were difficult to clearly foresee at project inception. This

section of the findings reports these, along with some reflections from

participants on the potential role of the SRR within established School

systems.

5.5.1 Site A

Within this ambit, some of the unforeseen outcomes were practical and

particular in nature:

PT4 “It does take time for the Personal Tutor to sit down and go through

this document and if they are scoring red, take action if need be.”

The same PT also highlighted a different and unexpected phenomenon:

PT4 “The ones (students) who have been struggling are the ones who

have come with the SRR, which has been quite interesting, I didn't expect

that."

The distaff side, however, was perhaps less surprising:

PT4 “Those PTs who used it were the conscientious ones who valued the

Personal Tutor role anyway and perhaps didn’t need it”.

Although the SRR implementation in Site A was primarily focused on the

level of individual interaction between student and PT, this in no way

stopped participants evaluating it in the wider institutional context:

PT 6 “It is not embedded in the way we work and it is not compulsory,

therefore it has been forgotten and not used”.

54

There was often the sense that the document had little life beyond the PT-

student dyad:

PT6 “If they were collating this we could use it.”

PT5 “Don’t know what the students do with SRR in the end. Might be good

to use at final interview in 4th year to get overall picture of their

performance over the years”.

This led some to call for a more systematic and standardised institutional

adoption:

Pt4 “Either we use it or we don’t” (it needs full backing by students with Pt

support)

However other voices pointed to more fundamental underlying barriers:

PT7 “Some Personal Tutors do not value the Personal Tutor role. You can’t

change individuals and who they are therefore tools will be used

differently”.

5.5.2 Site B

A similar combination of practical and systems based outcomes were

evident in Site B:

PT “It has highlighted that we need a formalised way of recording

meetings with students. All Personal Tutors do things differently and as a

school we lack direction in what we should and shouldn’t be recording.”

5.5.3 Site C

As in other sites the success of the Personal Tutor role and the success of

any tool were seen as being closely linked to the enthusiasm and

perceptions of the Personal Tutor:

55

PT “it’s very much about the nature of the Personal Tutor.”

The significance of the students experience at University in preparation for

them to enter a professional role was noted as being important:

PT “The experience they get is the experience that allows them to be good

nurses.”

56

SECTION 6: DISCUSSION

Before discussing these findings it is first necessary to acknowledge the

limitations of the project. Clearly the SRR has been in use for a relatively

short time and the numbers of students and Personal Tutors exposed to it

has been limited, particularly in Sites B and C. Moreover, participation

rates in the evaluation were not high. This was particularly the case with

the student population who tend to be exposed to a large number of

research and educational evaluation study invitations despite efforts by

Schools to mitigate this.

In considering the meaning of what has been found it is firstly useful to

refocus on the principal aim of the SRR itself i.e. to enhance students and

Personal Tutors‟ awareness of the risk behaviours that are associated with

student withdrawal, so that effective and timely support mechanisms can

be implemented.

From the study findings in relation to objective 4 it is clear that the SRR

demonstrably can enhance such awareness when students and Personal

Tutors engage around it. Within this context the tool seemed to offer a

useful structure for discussions at student-PT meetings, facilitating review

and preview of aspects that might otherwise have been difficult to raise.

Indeed its proactive orientation was seen to contrast with some of the

existing review documentation at the various sites. Nevertheless the SRR

has so far supplemented rather than supplanted other key student

progress/process documentation. Furthermore the evaluation has shown

very limited evidence so far of the SRR impacting on the generation of

solutions by students and Personal Tutors.

57

The evaluation suggests that some parts of the SRR may be more useful

than others. The attendance on programme sub section of the SRR was

seen as the least useful by a number of PTs due to perceived lack of

reliability and articulation with existing monitoring systems.

The traffic light elements of the SRR have for many become synonymous

with the tool itself. However the findings show that these are variously

understood and interpreted when used. If the tool is seen primarily as a

means to enhance proactive preview and discussion by individual students

and PTs, this is not necessarily problematic. By contrast, if there is

aspiration to develop the SRR to integrate with pre-existing student data

collection and monitoring systems at School level, questions about its

reliability, validity and ownership will come sharply into focus. The

experiences with the on-line version in Site A are indicative of the

challenges of more systematic development and articulation.

The above discussion highlights the individual student-PT dyad as the

optimal locus and focus for the SRR. While the objective 2 findings

suggest some consistency in terms of how often PTs seek to engage with

their students, the study‟s other findings suggest variation amongst PTs in

the way they understand the role and enact it. Within this context the

introduction of a tool with aspirations for student-led preview and review

(objective 3 findings) tended to highlight such variation within pre-

existing cultures. Thus for some PTs this aspiration was easily assimilated.

For others it required more substantive adjustment in order to engage.

For others yet, no real engagement around the SRR took place. The

variation found in PTs‟ understandings of why the tool was being

58

introduced was to some extent symptomatic of these different

orientations.

However variations in PTs‟ perceptions and experiences of the SRR were

also bound up with: (i) the way the tool was introduced to them (and by

them) within their particular contexts, and (ii) the way that their students

received this. Taking point (i) first, it is clear that the introduction of the

SRR to three different Scottish HEI contexts varied somewhat in nature

and substantially in scope. Nevertheless, essentially all the sites: offered

the SRR tool to targeted groups of PTs and their students; engaged in

some support and reminder activities to encourage its use; but mostly left

decisions about its use to individual students and PTs. This has necessarily

resulted in the rather fragmented adoption of the tool depicted and

discussed above. Moreover, as the Site A findings show, PT and student

perceptions were also contingent on the clarity of internal

communications, and the SRR‟s status as a work-in-progress made such

clarity difficult at times.

The way that students received the tool also varied. While the majority of

those who responded to the questionnaire viewed the SRR positively and

felt it was valuable in raising awareness of at risk behaviours,

interpretation of this finding must be tempered by the low response rate

from students. Taken along side our findings that students often would

not bring the SRR to meetings, and the related need for reminder e mails

from PTs, it seems reasonable to conclude that a lot of work is still

necessary to achieve more student engagement, ownership and integral

usage of this tool.

59

One of the aspirations of the SRR is that it should be applicable across the

spectrum of student progress and performance, and it was encouraging to

find some evidence that its initial uptake has not solely been confined to

students who are progressing well. Clearly the implementation did,

however, highlight some differences within the culture of the student

body. While some students seemed to naturally engage with the ethos

and practice of proactive self review via the SRR, others appear to have

had difficulties in seeing the document as relevant.

On reflection it is striking that the development of the SRR appears to

have had no explicit student input. While it can be argued that relevant

literature on the student experience was integral to its conception and

content, the value of local and national student involvement in any future

development of tool purpose, format and content would seem likely to

enhance engagement, ownership and uptake.

Such a process may also enable the tool to more explicitly articulate with

student peer support developments. Cameron et al (2010b) highlight peer

support as being a relatively unrecognised but important factor in why

nursing students stay on educational programmes. Self efficacy beliefs are

another such factor and it may be that the SRR has a role to play in

highlighting personal progress and fostering such beliefs.

Accordingly, in order for the SRR to develop further and have more utility,

it seems necessary that work be done not only on the tool itself, but on

both sides of the student –PT dyad. There seems a need for more

research into the nature, scope and enactment of the PT role itself in

Scottish HEIs. Undoubtedly the implementation and evaluation of a tool

like the SRR brings into focus deeper and wider cultural issues relating to

60

PT preparation, practice, and autonomy. In effect, PTs‟ different

understandings of the what and why of the SRR, and their different

enactments of the how, where and when reflect (in a similar way) their

different understandings and interpretations of the PT role itself and

student needs and autonomy.

In this regard it was instructive how implementation of the on line version

of the SRR tended to raise not only practical challenges, but also

fundamental conceptual and cultural issues such as ownership and

control. While there is instinctive initial appeal in the notion of an online

student progress review record that could integrate with existing student

record systems (e.g. relating to attendance), clarity is first needed on

issues of ownership, control and expectations of students and PTs . Our

work to date has promulgated the concept and potential value of a

student-held, student-led record and our findings suggest that further

work in this direction in conjunction with PTs is likely to be more

productive than development as an institutional student monitoring tool.

61

SECTION 7: CONCLUSION

In concluding it can be seen that the SRR shows potential as a document

for students to preview and review their progress in conjunction with their

Personal Tutor. Its main strength appears to lie in raising awareness of at

risk behaviours and providing a structure for related discussion. Although

it was out with the scope of the study to attempt to link the tool‟s

implementation in a direct way to concurrent or subsequent student

attrition rates, it seems reasonable to conclude that the SRR could

develop as a helpful influence promoting retention. The final section of the

report now makes recommendations for the tool‟s further development

and application.

62

SECTION 8: RECOMMENDATIONS

1) It is recommended that further development and use of the SRR is

informed by considering its current areas of strength and weakness

as identified through this evaluation.

2) It is recommended that any further development of the tool is

informed by extensive consultation with students. In particular

there is opportunity to take this forward under the auspices of the

comprehensive student engagement process and model currently

being developed by NES. In this way local and national groups of

students could help shape and promote the tool as an integral

aspect of the student journey.

3) It is recommended that seminars on the SRR are held in each of the

three HEIs where it has been used. These would disseminate the

study findings and elicit PT and student perceptions of aspects of

risk review work for local and national development.

4) It is recommended that the above activities will culminate in a

national symposium on student-led progress review and peer

support mechanisms.

5) Finally it is recommended that further research be undertaken in

order to better understand the nature, scope and enactment of the

Personal Tutor role in Scottish HEIs where pre-registration nurses

and midwives are educated.

63

REFERENCES

Andrew, S. Salamonson, Y. Weaver, R. Smith, A. O`Reilly, R. Taylor,C.,

2008. Hate the course or hate to go: semester differences in first year

attrition, Nurse Education Today, Accessed 27 July 2009,

http://www.sciencedirect.com/doi:10.1016/j.nedt2007.12.0007

Benda, J. E., 1991. The relationship among variables in Tinto`s

conceptual model and attrition of Bachelor`s degree nursing students.

Journal of Professional Nursing, 7, 1, January – February, pp 16 – 24.

Bryman, A., 2001. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cameron, J. Roxburgh, M. Taylor, J. Lauder, W 2010(a). Why students

leave the UK: an integrative review of the international research

literature. Journal of Clinical Nursing, doi:10.1111/j.1365-

2702.2010.03328.x

Cameron, J. Roxburgh, M. Taylor, J. Lauder, W 2010(b). An integrative

literature review of student retention in programmes of nursing and

midwifery education: why do students stay? Journal of Clinical Nursing,

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03326.x

Department of Health., 2006. Managing Attrition Rates for Student Nurses

and Midwives: A guide to Good Practice for Strategic Health Authorities

and Higher. In: Cameron, J. Roxburgh, M. Taylor, J. Lauder, W 2010(a).

Why students leave the UK: an integrative review of the international

64

research literature. Journal of Clinical Nursing, doi:10.1111/j.1365-

2702.2010.03328.x

Glogowska, M. Young, P. and Lockyer, L., 2007. Should I go or should I

stay? : A study of factors influencing student’s decisions on early leaving,

Active Learning in Higher Education, Accessed on 11 August 2009

http://alh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/1/63

Glossop, C., 2001. Student nurse attrition from pre-registration courses:

investigating methodological issues, Nurse Education Today, 21, pp170-

180.

Jefferys, R. M., 2007. Tracking students through program entry,

progression, graduation, and licensure: assessing undergraduate nursing

student retention and success. Nurse Education today, Accessed 27 July

2009, http://www.sciencedirect.com/doi:10.1016/j.nedt2006.07.003

Kotecha, M., 2002. Exploring nurse learner wastage / persistence using a

discursive approach: towards a theoretical understanding of the subject.

Journal of Advanced Nursing 40, 210–217. In: Cameron, J. Roxburgh, M.

Taylor, J. Lauder, W 2010(a). Why students leave the UK: an integrative

review of the international research literature. Journal of Clinical Nursing,

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03328.x

Land, L.M., 1993. Selecting potential nurses: a review of the methods.

Nurse Education Today, 13, 1, pp30 – 39.

65

Last, L. and Fulbrook, P., 2003. Why do student nurses leave?

Suggestions from a delphi study, Nurse Education Today, Accessed 25

January 2011,

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleListURL&_method=list&

_ArticleListID=1618991485&_sort=r&_st=13&view=c&_acct=C00001147

9&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=138221&md5=5c6eb253fbca1207

79fa57fcc0b69bea&searchtype=a

Lai, H.L. Lin, Y.P. Chang, H.K. Chen, C.J. Peng, T.C. Chang, F.M., 2008.

Is nursing profession my first choice? A follow up survey in pre-

registration student nurses, Nurse Education today, Accessed 27 July

2009, http://www.sciencedirect.com/doi:10.1016/j.nedt2008.01.001

Macduff, C. Baguley, F. Gass, J. Tuckwell, M. West, B., 2009 An evaluation

of the impact of the NHS Education for Scotland Cleanliness Champions

Programme on clinical practice, Report for NHS Education for Scotland,

Edinburgh

Macduff, C. Gass, J. Laing, A. Williams, H. Coull, M. Addo, M. Mackay, R.,

2010 An evaluation of the impact of the dissemination of educational

resources to support values-based and recovery-focused mental health

practice, Report for NHS Education for Scotland, Edinburgh

Marjoram, B. Lockyer, T. Cowen, M., 2009. Supporting the `wobbly

student`: a strategy to aid retention and reduce attrition, Proceeding of

66

International Networking for Education in Healthcare Conference,

September, Cambridge.

McCarey, M. Barr, T. Rattray, J. 2006. Predictors of academic performance

in a cohort of pre-registration nursing students, Nurse Education Today,

27, 4, pp.357 – 364.

McSherry, W. Marland, R. G., 1999. Student discontinuations: is the

system failing?, Nurse Education Today, 19, pp 578 – 585.

Murphy, F., 2006. Motivation in nurse education practice: a case study

approach, British Journal of Nursing, 15, 20, pp 1132 – 1135.

Por, J. and Barriball, L., 2008. The Personal Tutor’s role in pre-registration

nursing education, British Journal of Nursing, 17, 2, pp 99 – 103.

Priest, H., Roberts, P. and Woods, L., 2002. An overview of three different

approaches to the interpretation of qualitative data. Part 1: theoretical

issues, Nurse Researcher, 10 (1), pp. 30-42.

Rhodes, S. Jinks, A., 2005. Personal tutors’ views of their role with pre-

registration nursing students: an exploratory study. Nurse Education

Today 25, 390–397. In: Cameron, J. Roxburgh, M. Taylor, J. Lauder, W

2010(a). Why students leave the UK: an integrative review of the

international research literature. Journal of Clinical Nursing,

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03328.x

67

Sadler, J., 2003. Effectiveness of student admission essays in identifying

attrition. Nurse Education Today 23, 620–627. In: Cameron, J. Roxburgh,

M. Taylor, J. Lauder, W 2010(a). Why students leave the UK: an

integrative review of the international research literature. Journal of

Clinical Nursing, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03328.x

Scottish Government Health Department., 2007. Report of the `Facing the

Future` sub-group and working groups, Accessed 13 January 2009,

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Health/NHS-

Scotland/nursing/RecruitmentRetenti...

Scottish Public Health Network and Observatory., 2009. NHS Health

Scotland. www.scotpho.org

Stake, R., 1995. The art of case study research, Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Taylor, R., 2009. Creating connections: an investigation into the first year

experience of undergraduate nursing students (PhD thesis).

Tinto, V., 1998. Colleges as Communities: Taking Research on Student

Persistence Seriously, Review of Higher Education, 21, 2, pp 167-77.

Wells, I. M., 2003. An epidemiologic approach to addressing student

attrition in nursing programs, Journal of Professional Nursing, 19, 3, July –

August, pp 230 - 236.

Whitehead, E. Mason, T. Ellis, J., 2007. The future of nursing: career

choices in potential student nurses, British Journal of Nursing, 16, 8, pp

491 – 496.

68

Yin, R., 1994. Case study research: design and methods. 2nd edition.

California: Sage.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fleming, S. and McKee, G., 2005. The mature student question, Nurse

Education today, Accessed 27 July 2009,

http://www.sciencedirect.com/doi:10.1016/j.nedt2005.01.006

Griffen, R. Sines, D, Blunt, C. and Lovegrove, M., 2009. Healthcare

student support systems: a review of the literature, London South Bank

University: Institute of Vocational Learning for Health and Social Care,

Accessed 6 August 2009,

http://www.networks.nhs.uk/news.php?nid=2983

O`Brien, F. Keogh, B. and Neenan, K., 2009. Mature students`

experiences of undergraduate nurse education programmes: The Irish

experience, Nurse Education Today, Accessed 27 July 2009

http://www.sciencedirect.com/doi:10.1016/j.nedt2009.01.008

Scottish Government Health Department., 2003. Facing the Future:

Nursing and Midwifery Recruitment and Retention – Issue 2, Accessed 21

January 2009,

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications.2003/16159/16477

Warbah, L. Sathiyaseelan, M. VijayaKumar, C. Vasantharaj, B. Russell, S.

and Jacob, K.S., 2006. Psychological distress, personality, and adjustment

69

among nursing students, Nurse Education Today, Accessed 27July 2009

http://www.sciencedirect.com/doi:10.1016/j.nedt2009.09.002

Yorke, M and Longden, B., 2008. The first year experience of Higher

Education in the UK, York: The Higher Education Academy.

Young, P. Moore, E. Griffiths, G. Raine, R. Stewart, R. Cownie, M. and

Frutos-Perez, M., 2009. Help is just a text away: The use of short

message service texting to provide an additional means of support for

health care students during practice placements, Nurse Education Today,

Accessed 27 July 2009

http://www.sciencedirect.com/doi:10.1016/j.nedt2009.06.010

Zepke, N. and Leach, l., 2005. Integration and adaptation: Approaches to

the student retention and achievement puzzle, Active Learning in Higher

Education, Accessed 9 February 2010

http://alh.sagepub.com/doi:10.1177/1469787405049946

Appendix 1: The Student Review Record

Faculty of Health and Social Care

School of Nursing and Midwifery

Nursing and Midwifery

Student Review Record

Name: Programme: Field of practice: Intake:

Personal Tutor:

How to use this review record

Dear Student,

Preparing for a career in nursing or midwifery is extremely

challenging, and also extremely rewarding. Many students can find the challenges of pre-registration education difficult at times, which

is why we recognise the need to provide good support systems to help our students to achieve the best that they can. You have been

selected for this course because we believe you have the potential to succeed and become a professional nurse or midwife, however to

provide you with the right support we need to know when times are difficult.

The Student Review Record has been designed to help you to undertake a review of your progress. To facilitate productive

meetings with your Personal Tutor you should make sure that they have access to your Review, by taking it along to your individual

meeting, or submitting it electronically. This way you will be working in partnership with your tutor to identify any areas that

require additional support. During Stage 1 and 2 of your programme or course, meetings will be scheduled, normally

following your practice placement. However, you can and should, schedule a meeting as soon as you are aware of any difficulty.

Within the Student Review Record, you will see areas that have

been allocated „amber‟ and „red colours‟. From our experience, and literature in relation to student retention, these are areas that could

alert you to the need for additional support to help you get the most

from your student experience. The „green‟ areas will provide feedback that all is going well, and you should let your tutor know

about this too.

Your meeting with your Personal Tutor is an opportunity to explore solutions to any difficulties, and if required you and your tutor can

develop a plan to help you through this period. There are many forms of support available to you, and your Personal Tutor will be

able to recommend the support for you to access.

We do hope that you find the Student Review Record of value, and we wish you success with your course.

Josey Mackenzie, Senior Lecturer

Ann Ogle, Pastoral Support Adviser

What to do next

1. Prior to meeting with your Personal Tutor read through the Review Record and comment on how you feel you are

progressing in the appropriate sections.

2. Arrange to meet your Personal Tutor and make sure you

either take the document with you or have it available electronically.

3. Be prepared to discuss your progress, including your

strengths and any areas you would like to improve.

4. Take a note of any actions agreed with your Personal Tutor,

including identified support to help you meet your goal.

5. Arrange to meet your Personal Tutor again for review of

progress.

Now start this process by completing the Personal Story

sheet. Once you have written as much as you wish to then please, read the statements below, and comment on your

progress.

Previous study experience:

Previous work experience:

Carer commitments (Children, Parents, Partner):

Expectations of the programme:

Areas you feel you need to concentrate:

Areas you feel you may require support:

How do you cope when under pressure?

Who do you usually turn to for support?

Student Journey – Review Record: Personal Story

I have achieved pass grades for all academic work at 1st attempt.

I have made a positive contribution to my learning experience. I have remained motivated towards my learning experience. Comments:

I have required a re-submission on one occasion. I have not always been prepared for/engaged with my learning

experience. At times I feel ambivalent towards my learning experience. At times I feel reluctant to access support services.

Comments:

I have required more than one re-submission attempt.

I have no valid mitigation for non-submission of course work. I have not engaged with my learning experience.

I have not accessed support services. I have accessed support services but this has not improved my performance.

Comments:

GREEN

AMBER

Academic Performance Stage: 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ (√ box)

Date of Review:

RED

I have achieved satisfactory grades and competencies for this placement. I have made a positive contribution to patient / client care.

I have remained motivated towards a career in nursing or midwifery. Comments:

I have needed an action plan to support my learning during this

placement. My contribution to patient/client care could be improved. At times I have doubts over my career choice.

Comments:

I did not achieve the satisfactory grade required with the support of an

action plan. My contribution to patient/client care was minimal. I have concerns over my career choice.

Comments:

Clinical Performance Stage: 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ (√ box)

Date of Review:

GREEN

AMBER

RED

I have attended all or nearly all academic sessions. I have attended all or nearly all placement shifts.

Any absences were supported with valid documentation. I followed the procedure for reporting absence. Comments:

I have attended half the required academic sessions. I have attended half the required placement shifts.

I have received a letter in relation to absence. I have received a letter in relation to not attending Hepatitis B appointments.

I have received letters about not attending at mandatory sessions (Moving and Handling/Resuscitation).

My absences were not always supported with valid documentation. I did not always follow the procedure for reporting absence. Comments:

I have attended very few academic sessions and/or very few placement

shifts. My absences were not supported with valid documentation.

I did not follow the procedure for reporting absences. I was non-compliant with the Hepatitis B programme. I did not attend mandatory sessions (Moving and Handling/Resuscitation).

Comments:

Attendance on Programme Stage: 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ (√ box)

Date of Review:

GREEN

AMBER

RED

My issue has been assessed and an effective support plan is in place.

I am aware that there are systems within the School which will enhance my learning experience.

I would be willing to access relevant support services to enhance my learning experience. Comments:

My issue has recently been identified and I am awaiting my support plan to be put into action.

I have an issue but am unsure how to access relevant support, or if there is any available. Comments:

The support plan for my issue has been ineffective and needs reviewed. I feel pessimistic that any support plan will be effective.

I cannot see what can be done to help my situation. Comments:

Issues Influencing Progress

Health □ Disability □ Personal □ Financial □ (√ box)

Stage: 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ (√ box) Date of Review:

GREEN

AMBER

RED

Academic Performance Actions identified plus time frames

Clinical Performance Actions identified plus time frames

Attendance on programme Actions identified plus time

frames

Issues affecting progress Actions identified plus time

frames

Review of Progress Field of Practice: Intake: Stage:

Date of meeting:

Summary of meeting between student and Personal Tutor

Please copy this review section as required.

Academic Performance Progress Review Date

Clinical Performance Progress Review Date

Attendance on programme Progress Review Date

Issues affecting progress Progress Review Date

Please copy this review section as required.

Review of Progress Field of practice: Intake: Stage:

Date of meeting:

Summary of meeting between student and Personal Tutor

Appendix 2

EVALUATION OF THE STUDENT REVIEW RECORD

STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Text italicised in red font denotes summary details of quantitative findings for main fixed choice response questions

Section 1: Information about you. Please indicate:

1. Your university Dundee =10 (18%) RGU =45 (80%)

Stirling =1 (2%)

2. Your course Nursing = 38 (68%) Midwifery =17 (30%)

3. Your intake 7 (13%) = March 08

46 (82%) = Sept 08

1 (2%) = Sept 09

1 (2%) = Sept 10

Section 2: Introduction to the Student Review Record (SRR) and

your use of it so far

4. To what extent were you aware of the SRR before receiving this questionnaire?

Full awareness of the SRR and its purpose = 10 (18%)

Aware of the SRR and its purpose = 18 (32%)

A little awareness of the SRR and its purpose = 18 (32%)

No awareness of the SRR and its purpose = 10 (18%)

Comments........................................................................................

5. Thinking of the information you have been given so far about the SRR, how well

has this prepared you to use it?

Very well = 1 (2%)

Well = 12 (21%)

Adequately = 20 (36%)

Poorly = 12 (21%)

Very poorly = 4 (7%)

Not applicable = 7 (13%)

Comments........................................................................................

6 Please tick the box that best describes your own use of the SRR so far?

I have used the SRR in a printed “hard copy” version = 21 (38%)

I have used the SRR on-line web version = 5 (9%)

I intend to use the SRR but haven‟t yet = 16 (29%)

I don‟t intend to use the SRR at all = 7 (13%)

7. If you have not used the SRR yet, please indicate your reasons

below, then return the questionnaire in the envelope provided. If you have

used it please go on to Section 3 and answer all remaining questions.

Comments........................................................................................

.......................................................................................................

(At this stage in the questionnaire 17 respondents

did not answer any further questions because they

had not used the Student Review Record.)

Section 3: Value of the pre-meeting subsections of the SRR

8 The SRR has five subsections designed for you to review and reflect

on progress prior to meeting with your Personal Tutor. Thinking of your

own experiences of using the SRR so far, please rate the usefulness of

each sub-section and give any comments on the process of using them.

Very useful

Useful Little use

No use

Unable to say/ not

applicable

My personal story subsection

2 (5%)

21 (54%)

7 (18%)

3 (8%)

6 (15%)

Comments

Academic

performance review subsection

10

(26%)

19

(49%)

4

(10%)

2

(5%)

6

(15%)

Comments

Clinical performance

review subsection

10 (26%)

19 (49%)

4 (10%)

2 (5%)

6 (15%)

Comments

Attendance on programme review

subsection

8 (21%)

16 (41%)

9 (23%)

2 (5%)

6 (15%)

Comments

Issues influencing

progress review subsection (i.e. Health, Disability,

Personal, Financial)

7

(18%)

17

(44%)

9

(23%)

2

(5%)

6

(15%)

Comments

Section 4: Value of the meeting-specific subsections of the SRR

9 The SRR has two subsections designed for review of progress

during and following your meeting with your Personal Tutor. Thinking of

your own experiences of using the SRR so far, please rate the usefulness

of these sub-sections and give any comments on the process of using

them.

Very useful

Useful Little use

No use Unable to say/ not

applicable

Summary of meeting

subsection where actions are

identified and “traffic light” ratings are agreed

6 (15%)

17 (44%)

8 (21%)

2 (5%)

6 (15%)

Comments

Summary of

meeting subsection where

agreed actions and “traffic light” ratings are

reviewed

5

(13%)

16

(41%)

9

(23%)

2

(5%)

9

(23%)

Comments

Section 5: Overall view of the SRR

10. Please rate the overall value of the SRR to you so far in terms of

raising awareness of possible problems and solutions, and give any

comments

Very valuable tool for raising awareness of these = 6 (15%)

Valuable tool for raising awareness of these = 16 (41%)

Of little value for raising awareness of these = 10 (26%)

Of no value for raising awareness of these = 4 (10%)

Comments...............................................................................................................................................................................................

11. Please rate the overall value of the SRR in terms of helping you to

progress any actions, and give any comments

Very valuable tool for helping me to progress actions = 3 (8%)

Valuable tool for helping me to progress actions = 18 (46%)

Of little value for helping me to progress action = 10 (26%)

Of no value for helping me to progress actions = 5 (13%)

Comments........................................................................................

.......................................................................................................

Section 6: Access to your SRR on-line (if applicable)

In the study information sheet accompanying this e mail, full explanation

is given in relation to granting our evaluation team access to your SRR

records on-line. If you are happy to grant us access to these on this basis,

please tick this box and give contact details at the end of the

questionnaire:

Section 7: Taking part in a future focus group interview

In the study information sheet accompanying this e mail, information is

given about the focus group interviews we will be hosting. If you are

happy to be contacted to take part in this, please tick this box and give

contact details at the end of the questionnaire

Section 8: Taking part in either of the prize draws

If you would like to take part in the prize draw for 10 x £10 of I Tunes

vouchers (open to all who submit this questionnaire) and/or the prize

draw for those who take part in a focus group (again 10 x £10 of I Tunes

vouchers), please tick this box and give contact details at the end of the

questionnaire

Section 9: Your contact details (if you ticked any of the boxes in

Sections 6-8)

Name ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contact address ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E mail _________________________________________ Best phone contact _______________________________

Many thanks for making the time to complete this questionnaire. Please press the submit button now.

Appendix 3:

Summary of Personal Tutor Interview responses to main parts of

the interview schedule

Personal Tutors explore the perceived usefulness of each sub-

section in the SRR as follows:

Pre-meeting

Very

useful

Useful Little

use

No use Unable to

say/ not applicable

My personal story subsection

x(to lecturer)

xx

X (for PT) x

X x

X (to students)

X x

Comments Summary Personal Tutors identified that this section is relevant in first year only and

that some students fill it in very superficially. Students rarely identify issues here.

Academic performance review

subsection

X xxx

X Xx

xx

Comments Summary

Personal Tutors noted this section as being successful to enable them to identify how students are progressing. Some student perceptions about their academic progress were rated higher than the Personal Tutor would

have rated them and this opened up discussion.

Clinical performance

review subsection

xx xx xxx x x

Comments Summary

Personal Tutors have commented that the clinical placement record already held this information. Therefore, although the information was

useful to note, it was easily accessed elsewhere.

Attendance on

programme review subsection

X xx xxx X

X x

Comments Summary Two of the evaluation sites had accurate records of student attendance; therefore this section was useful if attendance was an issue only.

For the site where attendance is not monitored there was no way of knowing if the students were being honest or of confirming that there was

an attendance issue.

Issues influencing

progress review subsection (i.e. Health, Disability,

Personal, Financial)

xxx x X

x

x

Comments Summary

Useful in that it opened up discussion between the Personal Tutor and the student, however, a sub section of Personal Tutors hoped that a student

would not wait for their Personal Tutor interview to approach them for

advice. An effective reflection tool for students and Personal Tutor together.

During and post meeting

Very useful

Useful Little use

No use Unable to say/ not

applicable

Summary of meeting

subsection where actions are identified

and “traffic light” ratings are agreed

X

X Xx

x

x x

Comments Summary This section was identified as being affective at highlighting issues and

also emphasising achievements. However it was noted that the tool did not identify any action to be taken

and information was being repeated.

Summary of meeting

subsection where agreed actions and “traffic light” ratings

are reviewed

X

x

x X

x

Comments Summary Very few Personal Tutors had reviewed students using the SRR. However,

for those who had, one Personal Tutor thought that it was useful as a development tool. The others suggested that students' ratings did not change and an effective relationship with the student was important.

Personal Tutors rate the overall value of the SRR in terms of

raising awareness of possible problems and solutions.

Very valuable tool for raising awareness of these x (for student) x

Valuable tool for raising awareness of these x x (for PT) x x xx

Of little value for raising awareness of these x

Of no value for raising awareness of these

Summary of Comments

The majority of Personal Tutors stated that they thought that the SRR was

an effective document to aid discussion, particularly around issues that

were sensitive.

The majority of Personal Tutors who commented said that the tool did not

assist in solving any issues the students might have and the Personal

Tutors supported the student or directed them for support in the same

manner as before.

It was noted that there was variety among tutors in the way that they

approached using the tool.

Personal Tutors rate the overall value of the SRR in terms of

helping with progressing any actions.

Very valuable tool for helping to progress actions

Valuable tool for helping to progress actions x

Of little value for helping to progress actions x x x

Of no value for helping to progress actions x x

Summary of Comments

Of the five Personal Tutors who commented, none of them thought that

the SRR helped to progress any actions.