Table of ContentsSome researchers, on the other hand, argue that NEGATIVEForms of FeedbackRationale and Critical AnalysisRecommendations for Best PracticesSummary: Providing feedback to students is one of the various roles of mentors in the context of nursing education. This essay offers a critical analysis of the process of providing feedback to a nursing student in the context of acquiring one of the skills identified in the mentoring preparation course. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get an Original EssayProviding feedback to students has long been considered a fundamental aspect of the learning process. The requirement for mentors to provide feedback to students is a key part of student assessment and mentors are responsible for providing regular feedback to their students to ensure they are able to achieve their goals learning. This has been highlighted in the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) (2008) standards for supporting learning and assessment in practice, which specifically state that: “Mentors are responsible for assessing overall performance, including skills, attitudes and behaviors”. It is essential that mentors have the necessary skills and are competent to “provide feedback to students and help them identify future learning needs and actions” (NMC, 2008). Feedback enriches the student's learning experiences and is also considered a measure of teaching quality (QAA, 2008). Therefore, mentors should be able to provide constructive verbal and written feedback to students, including program providers (Duffy, 2013). On the other hand, some mentors still find that providing feedback remains a difficult endeavor (Cornell, 2014). In fact, educators expressed concerns about feeling unsure of their feedback skills; they sometimes avoid giving feedback because they fear it could lead to a defensive reaction from the student or ruin the mentor-student relationship (Johnson, 2016). This activity was selected in order to gain more knowledge and skills in providing feedback to students as one of the learning needs identified at the beginning of the course. The student who participated in this activity is in the first year of BSc (Hons) Nursing. (Adult) [Pre-registration Nursing] from BPP University and is on her second placement. The student's previous internship was in a general medicine-diabetes department. Based on the program, the course the student is currently taking is classified as a Level 4 program. With reference to the SEEC (2016) descriptors, students in Level 4 programs are required to complete certain complex and non-repetitive tasks. The learner must also be able to fully engage in personal reflection. Placement was carried out in the Regional Neurology Unit, a 31-bed service specializing in the care of patients with a range of neurological conditions, including those with traumatic brain injury (TBI). With reference to the most recent audit of the practice learning environment carried out by one of the Link lecturers in April 2017, the practice area was assessed as meeting all learning standards for the placement. Additionally, the evaluator noted that “The neighborhood provides very good learning opportunities for students. Students can acquire aexcellent grounding in basic nursing as well as specialized neurological conditions. There is a good team to support the students. » The student was tasked with performing simple medication calculations, followed by a supervised medication round. These activities are incorporated into the student's practice assessment document as part of the NMC Standards for Pre-Registration Nursing Education, particularly within the Essential Competency Cluster for Medicines Management (NMC, 2010). Following the completion of both activities, the student was invited to the living room and asked if she would like to receive the feedback. Once the student confirmed that she was interested in receiving feedback on her performance, the mentor confirmed to the student whether she was ready for the feedback session. The student was happy to continue the discussion about her performance. Schartel (2012) suggested that feedback should be given with confidentiality in mind and focus on the events being discussed. Additionally, Rudland et al (2010) highlighted the importance of providing timely feedback, ideally shortly after the event. In addition, it is important that the learner is ready to receive feedback in order to maximize its benefits. The Pendleton model was used to provide feedback to the student. It is a recognized method that creates a positive environment by allowing the mentor to emphasize what was done well (Hardavella et. al, 2017). This model focuses on the learner and the learner-mentor conversation. Additionally, it allows the learner to identify an action plan or objectives that lead to “reflection for action”. During the first conversation point, the student was asked what she did well during the medication calculation activity and subsequent supervised medication round. The student was quick to discuss the near miss that she was able to identify and then reported. She also believes she was able to promote patient safety by properly verifying patient identity before viewing the online medication chart. The student also mentioned his active role in liaising with the department pharmacist to rectify problems identified during the medication round. It is important to note that the mentor used a positive approach at the beginning of the conversation with the student. This strategy allows the mentor to first open a protected atmosphere by emphasizing the good and therefore preventing the learner from becoming defensive. Given that most health professional learning is hands-on, this was an opportunity for the mentor to promote reflective and experiential learning, including the perspective of reflecting on the whole experience of achievement calculation and medication cycle, reflect and report the incident. , and their general impressions of the learning activities. The mentor agreed with the student on the positive points mentioned. In the next step, the student was asked what was done wrong or what could have been done better. She may have cited failure to check the patient's drug allergies and blood sugar levels before administering subcutaneous insulin. The final part of the feedback process allowed the mentor to address areas that could have been improved such as: gathering all medications and materials needed before starting the medication cycle, following the 5 rights of medication administration and ensure the patient's allergy is checked. , involving the patient in their care by asking them if they would likeself-administer insulin, and appropriate documentation. Altmiller (2016) suggested that constructive feedback should require a balanced analysis of performance, describing events as they occurred, with the goal of rectifying errors and fostering understanding. The student appreciated the feedback given after the learning activities. She believes she has achieved the agreed learning objectives. The mentor emphasized the student's ability to detect a near miss by recognizing an insulin pen belonging to another patient that was also expired. Although there was limited time to discuss overall medication management with the student, overall I found the entire activity to be successful. The student was also satisfied with the outcome of the feedback session. Good and in-depth feedback has been found in a range of educational contexts to have a direct impact on student engagement and high-quality learning (Black and Williams, 1998). This hypothesis was reinforced by Parboteeah and Anwar (2009) when they highlighted the effect of feedback on student motivation to improve their learning. The importance of high-quality positive feedback was further explored by Plakht et al. (2012) in a cross-sectional study involving 124 third-year nursing students. Respondents were asked to rate the feedback provided by their teachers using a series of survey questions. The researcher recognized one of the limitations of the study, which was assessing the comments as subjective rather than using an objective approach. Supporters of the study pointed out that subjective evaluation of student feedback should be more meaningful rather than using objective criteria to highlight individual student characteristics instead of using a one-size-fits-all tool. The study results emphasize the direct impact of high-quality positive feedback on the achievement of higher goals and a significant impact on the student's clinical practice. On the contrary, interestingly, the researcher found that giving high-quality negative feedback has a direct impact on the student's accurate assessment of their performance, while high-quality positive feedback can lead to an overestimation of his performance by the student. Using a qualitative research design, Matua et al. (2014) investigated the different approaches used by preceptors to provide effective feedback in a teaching hospital in Oman. The researcher used a modified group discussion method to guide the conduct of the study. The results indicated that there were six strategies for providing effective feedback: feedback should be given regularly and timely, should be clear and focused, emphasize current performance and progress, feedback given should begin with a positive evaluation and ending with a negative evaluation, the feelings and privacy of the learner must be taken into account. Some researchers, on the other hand, argue that NEGATIVE forms of feedback come in a variety of forms. Vida Tayebi et al. (2017) conducted a randomized controlled trial to explore the effectiveness of oral versus written feedback. Through purposive sampling, 44 nursing students participated in the study. Each participant was designated to be part of groups responding to oral or written comments. Before the start of the study, three instructors underwent training regarding the organization of feedback sessions. They were then tasked with.