tends to seek rather more from her than this, seeing her work against

the larger canvas of total assessment for tha course*

j

4,52 HELPFUL FEATURES IN THE FIELDUQRK TEACHER/STUDENT HEALTH VISITOR *.

RELATIONSHIP: During a fieldwork placement the student health visitor and the fieldwork teacher spend a considerable amount of time in each other’s company. The quality and character of the relation­ ship thus built up is clearly one of the major determinative factors in the success or failure of the teaching and learning situation: and this is of special importance to the student, who depends upon the field­ work teacher for a range of appropriate experience geared to her indivi­ dual needs. Thus whilst examining the ’success’ or ’effectiveness’ of the fieldwork placement it sesmed both useful and appropriate to ask the recently qualified HVs what features they had found helpful in their relationships with their fieldwork teachers: and what they considered had been unhelpful. Responses (cf. Appendix Pi) were again categorised under the threB major criterial groups discussed in Para. 4.61» and

the following table prepared:

DESCRIPTION: _EDUCATIONAL: RAbJ FREQUEN_{PROFESSIONAL:}CIES:_{COMMUNICATIONAL:}

HELPFUL FEATURES: . 24 19 70

UNHELPFUL FEATURES: 15 11 13

TABLE 4,27: HELPFUL/UNHELPFUL FEATURES IN FIELDWORK TEACHER/

STUDENT RELATIONSHIP (RECENTLY QUALIFIED HV SUB- .

SAMPLE N - 110).

\ ■ \ Overall, significantly more helpful than unhelpful features were report—

2

ed OC 51 33*352, df 2, p < 0*001). Chi-squared analysis of the separate

\

cells of the table showed the only statistical differentia to be a highly significant raised frequency of response in the area of ‘helpful comm- unicationalt features

cf

in this area were those concerning (A) a ‘relaxed1 student/fieldwork >

teacher relationship; and (B) ‘similarity of personalities* between

teacher and taught. In both these connections, the importance for adult learners of a non-threatening learning environment has already been dis­ cussed (cf. Para. 1.44,also (10))* These data would appear to support

the positions of Fabb et al (1976) and of numerous other workers in

the field. A closer consideration of such features could well be

helpful, both in future placement of students and in future selection of fieldwork teachers.

4.53 STUDENT SATISFACTION DURING FIELDUIORK: A receptive ‘set* on the

part of the learner towards specific types of learning experience, or towards specific aspects of the general learning context, may lead to

a more effective learning outcome (12). It has therefore seemed

(10) FABB. W.E., HEFFERNAN. M.lif., PHILIP. U.A. and STONE. P. (1976):

Focus on Learning in Family Practice.

Melbourne: Royal Australian College of General Practitioners.

(12) HARLObi, H.F. (1959):

Learning Set and Error Factor Theory. In KOCH, S. ed: Psychology: a study of a science, Vol. II.

worthwhile to request informants from both professional sub— samples to state what are, in their opinion, the more 1 satisfying* aspects of the fieldwork placement for the student. These responses are summ­ arised in Table 4,28:

'SATISFYING* FACTOR: RAU/PER_{FUTs (N=101):}CENT FREQUENCIES:

HVs (N*110): _{% 2 :} P: 1 Home visits: 70 (69*3) 79 (71*8) 0*453 NS 2 Clinics: 27 (26*7) 14 (12*7) 5*725 <0*02 3 Results in visiting: 57 (56*4) 25 (22*7) 23*785 <0*001 4 Relationships with families: 52 (51*5) 61 (55*4) 0*193 NS 5 Working in the community: 32 (31*7) 30 (27*3) 0*303 NS 6 Autonomy in work: 20 (19*8) 13 (11*8) 1 *971 NS

7 nesting other health

care professionals: 21 (20*8) 17 (15*4) 0*686 NS

8 Health teaching: 9 ( 8*9) 18 (16*4) 1*991 NS

TA3LE 4.28: STUDENT SATISFACTION DURING FIELDWORK PLACEMENT (BOTH

PROFESSIONAL SUB-SAPIPLES).

These data show a significant relationship regarding the general fre­ quencies with which informants from both professional sub-samples have selected particular ’satisfactions* during fieldwork (r ® +0*762, p < 0*05): and there is similar agreement regarding all the individual factors named, with the exception of factors 2 and 3 ( ’clinics* and •results in visiting*) where significantly more FUTTs than recently qualified HVs felt these to be ’satisfying* factors (cf. Table 4,28

f o r v a l u e s ) . Predictably, home visiting heads the ranking of

•satisfiers* for both professional sub-samples, with the modal group

specified as 'the new baby and his/her parents*, 55*4 per cent of

in ‘getting results* in health visiting (e*g, when parents are obviously taking her advice): but this is not borne out by the responses of the recently qualified HVs, only 22*7 per cent of whom state that 'results' gave the most satisfaction ex? = 23*785, p «c 0*001)* It would seem that the majority of (recent) HV students are not looking for overt

'results' per se: possibly the more analytic and evaluative ethos of contemporary nursing is helping students to be more circumspect and

\ more 'accepting' in their encounters with the public* Conversely the majority of FUTs trained as nurses in the authoritarian nursing ethos

\ of the 1950s and 1950s, in which patients largely accepted the 'infall­ ibility* of medical and nursing pronouncements and were expected to

’obey* instructions* Contemporary social pressures and philosophical

approaches to health care both within and outside the hospital have led to a professional climate in which student health visitors are appar­ ently much more ready to accept the fact that not everyone listens to the health visitor* In passing it may be noted that the predisposition on the part of the FWT sub-sample to regard 'clinic work* as signific-

2

antly more rewarding than do the recently qualified

HVs (X

p < 0*02) may be a similar function of early training and experience

- a degreB of nostalgia for containable and predictable parameters not

shared

same

by

younger

4*64 The relationship which a student health visitor ha

3

study families is special and intensive, in that she spends much mora

time with them than her fieldwork teacher is ever likely to do* 55*4

per cent of recently qualified HV informants felt this to be one of the most satisfying aspects of fieldwork, with a similar proportion of FUTs (51*5 per cent) agrBBing that this was probably a source of

aspects which perhaps helped the student to feel 'more like the real thing’:

'•♦.when people phoned up and asked for me.o*I felt I’d been accepted1; ’.♦.when they told me things they’d

newer told my fieldwork teacher*• • that gives you a lift’.

4.65 STUDENT DISSATISFACTION DURING FIELDWORK: Dissatisfaction with fieldwork appeared to centre around the limitations in range of . experience previously discussed (cf. Para. 4.54) and around the limited time available whilst on fieldwork:

’...no opportunity to follow-up visits...no feedback if you’re

worried*; (HU)

’...too much to do and too little

time to do it! *. (HV)

The length of the course and the amount of information and experience which has to be fitted into it was a constant source of dissatisfaction

to the majority of informants in both professional sub-samples. This

problem is currently under consideration by the Council, which has

before it a recommendation that the health visitor course should be lengthened to include a probationary year (17). A related point for consideration is the possibility (as fieldwork is presently organised)

that there may be a lack of continuity or indeed a dichotomy between academic demands and the demands of fieldwork practice. As one recently qualified HV put it: