Is there evidence of failing to fail in our schools of nursing?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

AIM: To assess evidence for "failing to fail" in undergraduate nursing programs. BACKGROUND: Literature on grading practices largely focuses on clinical or academic grading. Reviewing both as distinct entities may miss a more systemic grading problem. METHOD: A cross-sectional survey targeted 235 faculty within university and community colleges in a western state. Chi-square tests of independence explored the relation between institutional and faculty variables. RESULTS: The response rate was 34 percent. Results suggest failing to fail may be evident across the sector in both clinical and academic settings:43 percent of respondents had awarded higher grades than merited; 17.7 percent had passed written examinations they felt should fail; 66 percent believed they had worked with students who should not have passed their previous placement. CONCLUSION: Failing to fail cuts across instructional settings. Further exploration is imperative if schools are to better engender a climate for rigorously measuring student attainment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)226-231
Number of pages6
JournalNursing Education Perspectives
Volume36
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2015

Fingerprint

School Nursing
grading
nursing
Students
Chi-Square Distribution
Climate
school
evidence
Nursing
Cross-Sectional Studies
student
climate
examination
university
community
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Clinical practice
  • Educational assessment
  • Educational measurement
  • Nurse faculty
  • Student performance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)
  • Education
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Is there evidence of failing to fail in our schools of nursing? / Docherty, Angela; Dieckmann, Nathan.

In: Nursing Education Perspectives, Vol. 36, No. 4, 01.07.2015, p. 226-231.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{342d3abb25e348e2ad566bdc17bb06e6,
title = "Is there evidence of failing to fail in our schools of nursing?",
abstract = "AIM: To assess evidence for {"}failing to fail{"} in undergraduate nursing programs. BACKGROUND: Literature on grading practices largely focuses on clinical or academic grading. Reviewing both as distinct entities may miss a more systemic grading problem. METHOD: A cross-sectional survey targeted 235 faculty within university and community colleges in a western state. Chi-square tests of independence explored the relation between institutional and faculty variables. RESULTS: The response rate was 34 percent. Results suggest failing to fail may be evident across the sector in both clinical and academic settings:43 percent of respondents had awarded higher grades than merited; 17.7 percent had passed written examinations they felt should fail; 66 percent believed they had worked with students who should not have passed their previous placement. CONCLUSION: Failing to fail cuts across instructional settings. Further exploration is imperative if schools are to better engender a climate for rigorously measuring student attainment.",
keywords = "Clinical practice, Educational assessment, Educational measurement, Nurse faculty, Student performance",
author = "Angela Docherty and Nathan Dieckmann",
year = "2015",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5480/14-1485",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "226--231",
journal = "Nursing Education Perspectives",
issn = "1536-5026",
publisher = "National League for Nursing",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is there evidence of failing to fail in our schools of nursing?

AU - Docherty, Angela

AU - Dieckmann, Nathan

PY - 2015/7/1

Y1 - 2015/7/1

N2 - AIM: To assess evidence for "failing to fail" in undergraduate nursing programs. BACKGROUND: Literature on grading practices largely focuses on clinical or academic grading. Reviewing both as distinct entities may miss a more systemic grading problem. METHOD: A cross-sectional survey targeted 235 faculty within university and community colleges in a western state. Chi-square tests of independence explored the relation between institutional and faculty variables. RESULTS: The response rate was 34 percent. Results suggest failing to fail may be evident across the sector in both clinical and academic settings:43 percent of respondents had awarded higher grades than merited; 17.7 percent had passed written examinations they felt should fail; 66 percent believed they had worked with students who should not have passed their previous placement. CONCLUSION: Failing to fail cuts across instructional settings. Further exploration is imperative if schools are to better engender a climate for rigorously measuring student attainment.

AB - AIM: To assess evidence for "failing to fail" in undergraduate nursing programs. BACKGROUND: Literature on grading practices largely focuses on clinical or academic grading. Reviewing both as distinct entities may miss a more systemic grading problem. METHOD: A cross-sectional survey targeted 235 faculty within university and community colleges in a western state. Chi-square tests of independence explored the relation between institutional and faculty variables. RESULTS: The response rate was 34 percent. Results suggest failing to fail may be evident across the sector in both clinical and academic settings:43 percent of respondents had awarded higher grades than merited; 17.7 percent had passed written examinations they felt should fail; 66 percent believed they had worked with students who should not have passed their previous placement. CONCLUSION: Failing to fail cuts across instructional settings. Further exploration is imperative if schools are to better engender a climate for rigorously measuring student attainment.

KW - Clinical practice

KW - Educational assessment

KW - Educational measurement

KW - Nurse faculty

KW - Student performance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84940654914&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84940654914&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5480/14-1485

DO - 10.5480/14-1485

M3 - Article

C2 - 26328290

AN - SCOPUS:84940654914

VL - 36

SP - 226

EP - 231

JO - Nursing Education Perspectives

JF - Nursing Education Perspectives

SN - 1536-5026

IS - 4

ER -