Self-evaluation is concerned with the way in which each learner perceives their own ability to succeed. Here, Cross (1981) suggested that learners were unlikely to engage in activities that might pose a threat to their self-esteem, although she acknowledged there was a relationship between having successfully participated in further education and the tendency to do so again. Of importance in this study appeared to be capability related to the perceived difficulty of the task. PDRP
requirements; interpreting and responding to Nursing Council competencies together with options work all provided unique challenges for prospective participants.
6.2.1 PDRP requirements
Nurses’ explanations identified that general appreciation of portfolio requirements were a factor in decision-making about PDRP participation. Specific difficulties were highlighted in understanding what was required and consequently, nurses did not have great confidence in their ability to complete what was asked. These
171 difficulties affected perception of the entire task and validated any apprehension felt by an individual related to their perceived capability of achieving the outputs needed for a portfolio submission. If it was difficult to understand, it was difficult to write about. On this issue, Norman and Hyland (2003) also identified that this type of dispositional barrier was significant, showing that self-confidence was instrumental to success in a study of ongoing education for student teachers. Corley (1994) documented similar challenges reported by nurses when completing evidence for professional portfolios. For others, the relevance of written work to the development of their clinical practice was not immediately obvious. It became apparent that whilst the underpinning pedagogy had been carefully crafted, the intended outcomes were not evident to potential participants. Consequently, the activities designed to support development of expert practice (reflection on action through case studies and presentations) did not seem to be valued. This finding adds new knowledge by extending the outcomes
articulated in the work of Vernon, Chiarella, Papps, et al. (2013) who found nurses were also confused between purpose and requirements of the recertification and PDRP processes.
6.2.2 Interpreting and responding
Nurses who had completed or who had experience of working on PDRP requirements added further detail to the difficulties experienced. They reasoned that Nursing Council competencies were a significant factor that affected their continuing engagement with PDRP. They identified that it was difficult to interpret the Nursing Council competency statements as well as difficult to tell what kind of evidence would be suitable to validate them. Havill (2010) had similar findings in her work, whereby respondents felt unsure about how they should demonstrate the competencies in
172 relation to increasingly complex levels of PDRP. Furthermore, Havill indicated that the wording of competencies seemed to be difficult to understand particularly for those for whom English was a second language.
For PDRP options work, some forms of assessment were more acceptable than others. Again, having confidence in oneself to be able to do what was required featured strongly in nurses’ narratives. Nurses indicated that presentations were least favoured, although others were considered to be challenging because of the writing required or volume of work anticipated. These issues are similar to those raised in the study conducted by Corley et al. (1994).
As a consideration of PDRP requirements, their acceptability to participants sits within the wider context of PDRP. Requirements are not set at a local level, rather these are nationally agreed and are made to suit particular specialities by the nurse
completing PDRP. Given the variable initial entry to practice qualifications of the nurses in this study, it is certainly worth considering whether the ability to interpret and respond to options requirements is hindered by what McCready (2007) and McMullan et al. (2003) describe as ‘academic maturity’. The study by Carryer et al. (2007) provides further insight, suggesting that where nurses are not educated via the tertiary system, PDRP is a daunting process. The latter point is reinforced by Tisani (2008) who identifies the extent of the problem for the less practised writer. These difficulties, together with the low levels of engagement reported with NZBS PDRP might also reflect the need to consider whether the educational activity is appropriate for the particular educational purpose. Adjustment to requirements might positively impact on the role of the Charge Nurse who, it appeared, had multiple roles and responsibilities beyond management in supporting nurses to complete PDRP.
173
6.2.3 Role of the Charge Nurse or manager
The role of the Charge Nurses was revealed to be more than simply a
gatekeeper of study leave or financial support for CPD; they were crucial to successful PDRP completion. The nurses in this study identified that Charge Nurse support was needed from initial decision-making until PDRP completion. Without a PDRP-friendly Charge Nurse, a culture of completion did not exist in the clinical area and engagement with PDRP at all was of low priority. The Charge Nurse was central to setting the
educational tone and ultimately, PDRP completion. In many ways, the need for Charge Nurse support throughout the endeavour pointed once again to the fragility of nurses’ self-confidence and lack of belief in their own capability. However, the Charge Nurse had a difficult path to tread since they also approved leave and supported the level of portfolio completion.
Granting study leave fairly, and with respect to the needs of each collection centre appeared to be an onerous task which was never fully understood by
participants. A lack of support for study leave when requests were not honoured gave some respondents the unfortunate impression that mangers did not view PDRP as a high enough priority. This finding is similar to that of Gould et al. (2007) who undertook secondary analysis on data from a study on continuing professional education for nurses. Here, the role of the nurse manager was found to be fundamental to the completion of CPD activities that needed approval. Carryer et al. (2007) also made this observation in relation to the underutilisation of study leave to complete PDRP
portfolios where the nursing workload was substantial and prevented leave being supported. However, this study goes further, validating that there are gatekeeping aspects within the Charge Nurse role, but also in identifying the direct manager as a
174 substantial part of the support network needed to complete a portfolio. Their
encouragement clearly impacted on participants’ self-esteem and self-belief that a portfolio could actually be achieved. The role of the direct manager was intrinsic to the whole endeavour. Like the seminal work of Ogier and Barnet (1986) and Gould et al. (2007), this work adds yet another facet to the role of the direct manager. It
underscores the importance of making appropriate decisions during recruitment and selection. The kind of educational experience this role creates is certainly included amongst the extrinsic factors that impact attitudes to education.