Skip to main content

Table 2 Students’ experiences of the clinical learning environment (CLES+T) in the two supervision models

From: Nursing students’ perception of the clinical learning environment and supervision in relation to two different supervision models – a comparative cross-sectional study

 

Model A (n = 170)

Mean (SD)

Model B (n = 74)

Mean (SD)

p value

Effect sizea

Pedagogical atmosphere (alpha = 0.89)

4.2 (0.6)

4.0 (0.7)

0.107

0.32

1.Staff were easy to approach

4.3 (0.8)

4.0 (1.0)

0.027

 

2. I felt comfortable going to the ward at the start of my shift

4.3 (0.9)

4.1 (1.0)

0.067

 

3. During staff meetings (e.g., before shifts), I felt comfortable taking part in the discussion

3.6 (1.0)

3.6 (1.0)

0.791

 

4. There was a positive atmosphere on the ward

4.2 (0.9)

4.2 (0.8)

0.485

 

5. Staff were generally interested in supervising students

4.0 (0.9)

3.7 (1.0)

0.020

 

6. Staff knew each student by first name

4.0 (1.0)

4.0 (1.1)

0.607

 

7. There were sufficient meaningful learning situations on the ward

4.3 (0.8)

4.3 (0.7)

0.610

 

8. The learning situations were multi-dimensional in terms of content

4.2 (0.8)

4.1 (0.9)

0.725

 

9. The ward could be regarded as a good learning environment

4.5 (0.9)

4.2 (0.9)

0.003

 

Leadership style of the ward manager (WM) (alpha = 0.85)

3.6 (0.9)

3.8 (0.9)

0.418

0.22

10. The WM regarded staff on her/his ward as key resources

4.2 (0.8)

4.1 (0.9)

0.924

 

11. The WM was a team member

3.7 (1.1)

3.8 (1.2)

0.216

 

12. Getting feedback from the WM could easily be regarded as a learning situation

3.1 (1.2)

3.4 (1.2)

0.126

 

13. The efforts of individual employees were appreciated

3.6 (1.0)

3.7 (1.1)

0.624

 

Premises of nursing on the ward (alpha = 0.75)

3.8 (0.7)

3.9 (0.7)

0.218

0.15

14. The ward’s nursing philosophy was clearly defined

3.3 (1.0)

3.5 (1.0)

0.337

 

15. Patients received individual nursing care

4.2 (0.8)

4.1 (0.9)

0.510

 

16. There were no problems in the information flow related to patient care

3.9 (1.0)

4.0 (0.9)

0.419

 

17. Documentation of nursing (e.g., nursing plans, daily recording of procedures) was clear

3.9 (1.0)

4.1 (1.0)

0.093

 

Supervisory relationship (alpha = 0.96)

4.3 (0.8)

4.3 (0.9)

0.360

0.0

18. My preceptor showed a positive attitude towards supervision

4.5 (0.7)

4.3 (1.0)

0.304

 

19. I felt that I received individual supervision

4.2 (0.9)

4.4 (1.0)

0.066

 

20. I continuously received feedback from my preceptor

3.9 (1.0)

4.0 (1.2)

0.424

 

21. Overall, I am satisfied with the supervision I received

4.4 (0.9)

4.3 (1.1)

0.735

 

22. The supervision was based on a relationship of equality and promoted my learning

4.2 (0.9)

4.3 (1.1)

0.327

 

23. There was mutual interaction in the supervisory relationship

4.3 (0.8)

4.3 (1.0)

0.384

 

24. Mutual respect and approval prevailed in the supervisory relationship

4.4 (0.9)

4.4 (1.0)

0.210

 

25, The supervisory relationship was characterised by a sense of trust

4.4 (0.9)

4.4 (1.0)

0.383

 

The role of the nurse teacher (NT) in clinical practice (alpha = 0.87)

3.9 (0.7)

3.6 (0.8)

0.003

0.41

26. In my opinion, the NT was capable of integrating theoretical knowledge with the everyday practice of nursing

4.2 (0.7)

4.1 (0.7)

0.333

 

27. The NT was capable of operationalising the learning goals of this clinical placement

4.1 (0.8)

4.0 (0.8)

0.518

 

28. The NT helped me reduce the theory-practice gap

4.0 (1.0)

4.0 (0.9)

0.848

 

29. The NT was like a member of the nursing team

3.2 (1.4)

2.6 (1.4)

0.006

 

30. The NT was able to impart his or her pedagogical expertise to the clinical team

3.4 (1.2)

2.9 (1.3)

0.009

 

31. The NT and the clinical team worked together supporting my learning

3.9 (1.1)

3.2 (1.4)

< 0.001

 

32. The meetings between myself, the preceptor and the NT were a pleasant experience

4.4 (0.8)

4.0 (1.0)

0.004

 

33. The atmosphere at the meetings was congenial

3.4 (1.1)

2.9 (1.4)

0.007

 

34. The focus of the meetings was on my learning needs

4.2 (0.9)

4.2 (0.9)

0.345

 
  1. Items rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from: 1 (not at all/disagree entirely) to 5 (agree entirely), tested with Mann-Whitney U test. a Effect size calculated with Hedges’ g. Missing data in Model B ranged from 0 to 10; missing data in Model A ranged from 10 to 21