Skip to main content

Advertisement

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