BASE INCREMENTAL PRODUCCIÓN PRODUCCIÓN TOTAL

Data from the study are. presented sectionally as follows: reasons for becoming a health visitor (4.1 — 4.5); reasons for becoming a field work teacher (4.6 — 4.8); characteristics of the fieldwork teacher (4.9 - 4.12): followed by a fourfold functional analysis of the field work teacher role consisting of: (A) organisational aspects (4.13 -

- 4.26); (B) educational aspects (4.27 - 4.48)j (C) professional

aspects (4.49 - 4.55); and (D) communications! aspects (4.56 — 4.60). The section continues with data on pastoral and evaluative issues (4.61 — 4.68); and concludes with a brief section 'on being a field work teacher

1

(4.69 - 4.70).

Data on motivation towards health visiting are contrasted with those Clark (1973) in that they show the contemporary samples to be less negatively motivated by 'dislike of practical nursing' ( p - <

0

001

); and less positively motivated by 'care of the whole person* (p-«C

0

01

), though a general relationship existed between the two sets of data ( p < 0 * 0 1 ) (4*1 - 4*4). 'Professional* as opposed to 'personal* mot ives uere the more frequently cited (p-<C0*001) (4.5). Conversely, motivation towards fieldwork teaching displayed a predominantly 'per sonal' character ( p < 0 * 0 1 ) (4.6 - 4.8). There uas a marked inter- -group relationship concerning the 'ideal* attributes of the field work teacher (p*< 0.001) (4.9). Recently qualified health visitors cited pedagogic qualities of empathy and communication as maximally important, and emphasised the importance of 'knowledge* in contrast to the fieldwork teachers* emphasis on 'experience* ( p < 0 * 0 5 ) (4.10). 'Vision* and 'insight* (i.e. the ability to intuit and to interpret the latent as uell as the manifest needs.of families and students) were characteristics stressed by health visitors but omitted by field work teachers (4.11 — 4.12).

(A) ORGANISATIONAL ASPECTS: Members of the health visitor sub— sample

were significantly more satisfied with the current pattern of field work than were members of the fieldwork teacher sample (p<<0*05) (4.13). The correlation between 'time spent* on an organisational task and its

importance rating uas highly positive ( p < 0 * 0 1 ) . Fieldwork teachers tend to assign high importance to organisational tasks linked with

teaching (4.14 - 4.15). Tasks not directly related uith teaching

(e.g. collaboration uith management regarding student progress) were

accorded a lower rating (4.16). The practical and 'symbolic* import

ance of efficient student accommodation is discussed (4.17 — 4.19).

For both sub-samples, a

1:1

teacher— learner ratio was regarded as opt

imal (4.20 — 4.21). A number of fieldwork teachers felt that prior

information regarding the student was frequently inadequate to facil-r

itate the best fieldwork planning (4.22 - 4.24). There was consensus

regarding the 'expressive* usefulness of an initial fieldwork teacher/ student meeting in the college setting (4.25 - 4.26).

(B) EDUCATIONAL ASPECTS: The nature of tasks discussed in this sec

tion is outlined (4.27). Correlation showed no necessary connection between the importance rating of an 'educational* task and the amount

of time which the fieldwork teacher will spend on that task. Sig nificantly less importance is accorded by fieldwork teachers to man agerial/administrative tasks in the task analysis (p < 0*001)(4.28). The relatively low importance given to preparation of materials for the neighbourhood study as over against other educational tasks by fieldwork teachers (p <

0

01

) is seen as a function of its present location in the course (4.29). A majority of fieldwork teachers both received and implemented curricular guidelines from the training estab lishments (4.30). Much reliance is placed on observational learning leading to 'modelling

1

of appropriate activities (4.31). The ostens ibly high time allocation accorded to health visiting studies is dis cussed (4.32 - 4.33); followed by details regarding the information given to the student health visitor about study families* and student participation in accompanied activities (4.34 - 4.37). A significant difference exists regarding the reported inception of 'solo

1

visits (p < 0 * 0 2 ) (4.38 -4.39). Mainly intuitive decisions are made regard ing introduction of the student to autonomous visiting (4.40). Five introductory strategies to facilitate student autonomy.are discussed

(4.42 - 4.46). Fieldwork teachers are relatively cautious regarding

the adequacy of health teaching experience during fieldwork (p <

0

02

)

though there is consensus regarding field-based teaching practice as the, method of choice (p < 0 *001) (4.47 — 4.48).

(C) PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS: A relatively tenuous correlation existed between 'time taken

1

to carry out 'professional

1

tasks and the import ance allocated to such tasks (p < 0*05* one-tailed)(4^49). Education ally-oriented were again highly rated relative to managerial/administ

rative tasks (4.50). In selecting study families, fieldwork teachers

appeared to prioritise college criteria above those of representative ness or practical utility of the visits to the families concerned

(p < 0*01)(4.51). There was high inter-group consensus regarding* types of experience available in fieldwork (p <

0

001

); but there were dis crepancies regarding those activities not considered 'traditional

1

to the health visitor's role (4.52). Dichotomous views existed between the sub-samples regarding appropriateness/efficiency of preparation to encounter 'problem

1

situations (4.53). Although a strong general relationship existed between group responses regarding limitations in fieldwork experience; the recently qualified health visitors cited ad ministrative experience and experience with problematic situations significantly more frequently than did the fieldwork teachers (p -c

**0*01**

and p < 0*001 respectively) (4.54 - 4.55).

(D) CQMMUNICATIONAL ASPECTS: There was no necessary connection be tween the importance rating of communicational tasks and the time taken to perform such tasks (4.56). Discrepancies occurred between field work teacher accounts of prior information given to study families regarding students, and student perceptions of the information they actually received (p < 0*001) (4.57 - 4.58). The general level of fieldwork teacher satisfaction with help proffered by college-based tutors was high (4.59). Six main assessmental methods employed by fieldwork teachers are discussed: and here the frequency with which 'student participation in case discussion’ is employed is seen to be significantly lower than in other assessmental techniques ( p <

0

001

) (4^60).

In discussing the nature of a 'successful' fieldwork placement, educ ational aspects were mentioned by both groups significantly more fre-

-quently than ware other criteria (p < 0*001). The emphasis placed by recently qualified health visitor informants on communicational criteria of success contrasts significantly with the relatively low ratings accorded to communicational features by the fieldwork teachers (o <

0

001

) (4.61). In discussing helpful and unhelpful features in the fieldwork placement, recently qualified health visitors cited significantly more ’helpful’ than “ ’unhelpful* features ( p <

0

001

) (4.62). Exploration of potential ’satisfiers* in the fieldwork con text showed broad inter-group agreement (p < 0*05); but with signific

ant lack of congruence regarding results in visiting (p <

0

001

) and

participation in clinics ( p < 0*02) (4.63 - 4.64). Student dissatis

faction appeared to centre around limitation* of experience and lack of. time in fieldwork (4.65).

Responses from both sub-samples regarding potential stress factors in

the fieldwork situation showed a high correlation (p <

0

001

); but

with significant discrepancies regarding the potential contribution to

stress represented by academic work (p <

0

01

); lack of overt results

(p < 0*02); and lack of guidance in visiting (p < 0*05) (4.66 — 4.69).

The section concludes with a brief discussion by fieldwork teachers of their subjective experiences of the role, including its enjoyment, the need for careful planning of parallel educational/professional activ ities; the need for effective feedback from both academic and manager ial areas; and the dilemma presented by the need for ’rest years’ as contrasted with the escalating demand for trained health visitors (4.69 - 4.70).

4.1 In this section it is proposed to consider the findings of the^ present study in relation to the order of events which a student health

visitor may experience both before and during her year of study on the health visitor course. From the accounts given by members of both professional sub— samples, data will be presented tp illustrate the possible sequence from the decision to become a health visitor to the evaluation of the success or failure of the student health visitors’

fieldwork placement. As far as possible, both qualitative and quant

itative data will be discussed in relation to the following four main aspects of the fieldwork teacher’s role:

(A) Organisational aspects;

(9) Educational aspects;

(C) Professional aspects;

Regrettably the scope of the present study has made it impossible to include a discussion of the wealth of data which has flooded in con cerning what may be regarded as the more peripheral areas from the present standpoint — e.g. college—based work, or the period of super vised practice immediately subsequent to the fieldwork placement

Appendix L )» Hopefully these data will be discussed elsewhere^

but for present purposes only data touching the central issues of fieldwork teaching will be discussed, •

In document Estado actual de la política del sector petrolero ecuatoriano : basado en el análisis del cambio de política, en el período 1992-2012 (página 93-100)