Related Experiment Videos
Just how bad does it have to be? Industry and academic assessors' experiences of failing to fail - A descriptive
Lynda J Hughes1, Marion L Mitchell2, Amy N B Johnston3
1Griffith University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Nathan, Qld 4111, Australia; Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Nathan, Qld 4111, Australia.
Background:
Failing to fail nursing students in clinical assessments is an internationally acknowledged issue that necessitates thorough examination. Despite the gravity of 'mis-grading' nursing students, current research exploring this subject is limited. Understanding the experiences of assessors when faced with an underperforming student may help illuminate some of the broad issues associated with failure to fail.
Objectives:
To describe both tertiary and industry based assessors' experiences of grading nursing student performances in clinical courses when that performance was not a clear pass or fail.
Design:
A pilot study using a descriptive survey design was employed.
Setting:
Participants were drawn from all states and territories in Australia.
Participants:
Academic and industry assessors of undergraduate nursing students across Australian universities participated in this study.
Methods:
A newly developed and validated survey was conducted via an online platform. Descriptive data were collected on assessors' experiences across the domains of the Invitational Theory: people; processes; programmes; policies and places.
Results:
Participants clearly had a strong duty of care to patients and the nursing profession. However, 23.5% of participants had given the benefit of the doubt to student performances. They reported failing student performances nevertheless reported passing students. Some participants experienced a number of coercive student behaviours. They perceived that the culture of the ward impacted on student performances in assessments. Inadequate time to assess students in clinical practice was reported by 44% of participants. Participants reported no differentiation between theoretical and clinical assessments in their organisations' assessment policies.
Conclusions:
Assessors reported many challenges when assessing students who were not performing at requisite standards. This study furthered the extant literature around the impact of people and processes on assessors and failure to fail. For the first time, assessors' experiences of the assessment environment, programme design and organisational policies associated with grading marginal student performances are reported.