Impression management was as important for mentors as students. Students
evaluated their mentor’s ability and confidence in the grading process. ‘I think also depends on how long you have worked for them for doesn’t it…. Cause some of them are really confident of that you’re definitely a 15 and others say well you could be, sometimes you’re this and sometimes you’re that’ (S2/T1/G1). The factors that seem to affect the grading process were the length of time a student and mentor worked together and the mentor’s confidence.
It all depends on your mentor, doesn’t it? (S5/T1/G2).
It definitely depends on your mentor some will just quite happily agree with what you’ve written (S8/T3/G2).
Sign you off, yeah (S5/T1/G2).
Whereas others will think about it and actually tell you no, I think you’re higher than this because or you’re a bit lower than this because. That is much more helpful (S8/T3/G2).
These students found specific feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of their performance helpful. This was when the criteria rules were made explicit to them by the mentor (Bernstein, 1990). S8 suggested she received constructive criticism. However, the use of ‘a bit’ implies the positives outweighed the negative comments from her mentor or the mentor framed the negative feedback in this way.
The importance of mentor preparation and confidence in their role, featured in the literature (Gray and Donaldson, 2009a; Heaslip and Scammell, 2012; Scammell, et al., 2007). While most mentors, 64.3% (n=72) were confident to grade practice there was a disparity in the qualitative and quantitative feedback offered to students (Heaslip and Scammell, 2012). The authors postulated this discrepancy could be due to a lack of confidence in mentors offering constructive feedback or in students recognising they were receiving feedback. However, if feedback is only provided at the end of a placement it does not enable the student to improve their practice. Plakht, et al., (2013) found student development was impoved by high quality discussions on areas for development rather than focussing on positive. In my work, students also seemed to respect the mentor more who offered a discussion rather than a ‘you’re fine’ response. This was a feature of implicit criterial rules and the student was unaware of the criteria they had to meet (Bernstein, 1990).
By 2012 grading of practice had been operationalised for 3 years but there was still a sense that mentors were not familiar with the process.
I think that they find it quite difficult, they’re not familiar, well they say they’re not familiar with the practice grading. They don’t understand how it works; they have to have it explained to them all the time (S20/T2/G5).
Who explains it? (SCM).
Me and then it kind of feels like you don’t want to lead them into making a conclusion but when they go, ‘What does this bit mean?’ and your kind of, you want to say well this is when I am doing this, that and the other, so you are really telling them well…...whereas really, they should be familiar with it themselves and make the decision off their own judgement (S20/T2/G5). This student explained how she interpreted the criteria for the mentor and in doing so she understood the potential to influence the mentor. S20 was not sure whether the mentors were not familiar with the paperwork or they were testing the student to see how they explained it. What she seemed to want was the mentor to decide how well she was practising and offer that feedback independently.
Not all students agreed with this:
I think it depends on the mentor, some of them are familiar and some aren’t and some are confident in, you know, might not have seen it before but are confident to read the guidance in our PAD documents and draw their own conclusions from that. I think it’s always the mentors I’ve worked with it’s always been (a) consultative process it’s always ‘Are you happy with what I’ve written here? And ‘If I sign you off at this level are you happy with this?’ …I find it very hard to grade, to grade myself in what I think is, you know, reliably accurate (S19/T3/G5).
Here S19, who has a previous degree, managed to separate the ongoing assessment of progress from the grading process. The relation between the ongoing assessment and grading was not always made distinct in the student’s discussions, which is understandable as the two assessments are related. This student may have found the process consultative because she was always explicit in her communication and articulated the problem or care decision succinctly.
While some students were sceptical that mentors understood the grading criteria, several mentors explained how they used it explicitly.
No I think it’s good, I think um because you can look at their criteria and say and give them examples of why they are doing it rather than just saying [to]
them it’s fine. I think it’s good and I think that it’s really good for people that aren’t doing so well because you can then show them the criteria for what the good grades are, the high grades and say you need to be doing this as well as, you can’t just do the bare minimum and go and deliver someone’s baby, you need to be giving it the whole, you know (M1/T3/H).
Similarly, this student understood how the criteria were used explicitly. You are face-to-face with your mentor and she’s got to justify what she’s given you, as much as we’ve got to justify what we think we’ve achieving and she doesn’t want to look bad to us as we don’t want to look bad to her or not meeting our targets (S23/T2/G6).
This section demonstrates that grading practice is a social process. The student, mentor and lecturer at the tripartite meeting, were engaged in a process of mutual surveillance, testing out each other’s perceptions, responses and negotiating
interactions. Students observed mentor confidence and lecturer inconsistencies and some could influence the grade awarded.
In my field notes, I documented student-mentor interactions. Some students and mentors came prepared to the meeting, like the student above explained, with notes on why they deserved higher or lower grades and examples from practice. This strategy often produced greater depth of discussion and the prepared party’s ability to influence the grade. Another student, who protested how much she hated the grading process, pushed the PAD away from her towards her mentor when her mentor reduced the student’s self-assessed grade. This act of frustration or disappointment seemed to disassociate her from the awarded grade; it was the mentor’s responsibility. The manner of her action was symbolic of dissatisfaction in the grade but she was unable to explain why she deserved her self awarded grade. Mentors seemed to anticipate the reaction of the students. If students managed favourable impressions of themselves, it often led to a higher practice grade.