IndexSome researchers on the other hand argue that NEGATIVEForms of FeedbackRationale and Critical AnalysisRecommendations for Best PracticesAbstract: Providing feedback to students is one of several roles of mentors in the context of nursing education. This essay provides a critical analysis of the process of giving feedback to a nursing student in the context of achieving one of the competencies identified as part of the mentorship preparation course. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Providing feedback to students has long been considered a critical aspect of the learning process. The requirement for mentors to provide feedback to students is a key component of student assessment and mentors are responsible for providing regular feedback to their students to ensure they are able to achieve their learning goals. This was emphasized in the Nursing and Midwifery Council's (NMC) Standards to Support Learning and Assessment in Practice (2008), which specifically state that: “Mentors are responsible for assessing total performance, including skills, attitudes and behaviours.” It is essential that mentors possess the necessary skills and are competent in "providing feedback to students and assisting them in identifying future learning needs and actions" (NMC, 2008). Feedback enriches students' 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 believe that providing feedback remains a challenging undertaking (Cornell, 2014). Indeed, educators have expressed concerns about feeling unconfident in their feedback abilities; they sometimes avoid providing feedback because they fear it will lead to a defensive response from the student or ruin the mentor-student relationship (Johnson, 2016). This activity was selected in order to acquire more knowledge and skills in giving feedback to students as one of the training needs identified at the beginning of the course. The student who took part in this activity belongs to the first year of the Bachelor of Nursing (Hons) (Adult) program [Pre-Registration Nursing] at BPP University and is on his second placement. The student's previous placement was in the General Medicine-Diabetes department. Based on the curriculum, the course the student is currently taking is classified as a Level 4 program. In reference to the SEEC Descriptors (2016), students in Level 4 programs are expected to perform certain tasks of a complex and non-repetitive nature . The student must also be able to fully engage in self-reflection. The admission took place at the Regional Neurology Unit, a 31-bed department specializing in the care of patients with various neurological conditions, including those who have had a traumatic brain injury (TBI). In reference to the most recent practice learning environment audit carried out by one of the liaison teachers in April 2017, the practice area was assessed as meeting all placement learning standards. Furthermore, the councilor specified that “The district offers excellent learning opportunities for students. Students can gain an excellent foundation in basic nursing and specialized neurological conditions. There is a good teamto support students." The student was instructed to perform simple medication calculations followed by completing a supervised medication course. These activities are integrated into the student practice assessment document as part of the NMC Standards for Pre-Registration Nursing Education, particularly in the Medicines Management Essential Skills cluster (NMC, 2010). After completing the two activities, the student was invited to go to the break room and asked if she would like to receive feedback. After the student confirmed that he wanted to receive feedback on his performance, the mentor confirmed to the student whether he was ready for the feedback session. The student was happy to proceed with the discussion about her performance. Schartel (2012) suggested that feedback should be given with privacy in mind and focused on the events under discussion. Furthermore, Rudland et al (2010) highlighted the importance of providing feedback in a timely manner, ideally immediately after the event. Furthermore, it is important that the student is ready to receive feedback 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 place emphasis on what has been done well (Hardavella et. al, 2017). This model focuses on the student and the student-mentor conversation. It also allows the student to identify an action plan or goals that lead to “reflection for action.” During the initial conversation, the student was asked what he or she did well during the medication calculation activity and the subsequent supervised medication round. The student was quick to discuss the near miss that she was able to identify and subsequently report. It also believes it has succeeded in promoting patient safety by properly checking the patient's identity before consulting the online medication chart. The student also mentioned taking an active role in working with the department pharmacist to correct problems identified during the medication round. It is important to note that the mentor used a positive approach when starting the conversation with the student. This strategy allows the mentor to first create a protected atmosphere by emphasizing the positive aspects and thus preventing the student from becoming defensive. Since most healthcare professionals' learning is hands-on, this was an opportunity for the mentor to promote reflective and experiential learning, including the perspective of reflecting on the entire experience of completing the medication calculation and medication round , reflecting and reporting on the incident, and general feelings about the learning activities. The mentor agrees with the student regarding the positive points mentioned. In the next step, the student was asked what was done badly or what could have been done better. He was able to mention that he did not check the patient's drug allergies and blood glucose level before administering subcutaneous insulin. The last part of the feedback process allowed the mentor to address areas that could have been improved, such as: gathering all necessary medications and materials before starting the medication round, following the 5 Rights of Medication Administration, and ensuring that the patient's allergy is controlled, involving the patient in his care by asking if he wishes to self-administer insulin and adequate documentation. Altmiller (2016) suggested that constructive feedback should require a balanced analysis of performance, describing theevents as they occurred, with the aim of correcting errors and promoting understanding. The student welcomed the feedback provided after the learning activities. He feels that he has achieved the agreed learning objectives. The mentor highlighted the student's ability to catch a near miss by recognizing an insulin pen that belongs to another patient and is also obsolete. Although there was limited time to discuss the entire medication management picture 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 extensive feedback in a range of educational contexts has been found to have a direct impact on student engagement and high-quality learning (Black and Williams, 1998). This hypothesis was further strengthened 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 evaluating the feedback as subjective rather than using an objective approach. The proponents of the study emphasized that the subjective evaluation of student feedback should be more meaningful rather than using objective criteria to highlight individual characteristics of students instead of using an identical tool for everyone. The results of the study emphasize the direct impact of high-quality positive feedback in achieving higher goals and a significant impact on the student's clinical practice. In contrast, it is interesting to note that the researcher found that providing high-quality negative feedback has a direct impact on a student's accurate review of their performance, while high-quality positive feedback can lead to an overestimation of their performance by the student. Using a qualitative research design, Matua et al., (2014) studied the various approaches used by preceptors to provide effective feedback in a teaching hospital in Oman. The researcher used a modified focus group discussion method to guide the conduct of the study. The results indicated that there are six strategies for providing effective feedback: feedback should be provided regularly and in a timely manner, it should be clear and focused, emphasize current performance and progress, the feedback provided should begin with a positive evaluation and end with a negative evaluation, the student's feelings and privacy must be taken into consideration. Some researchers, on the other hand, argue that NEGATIVE Forms of Feedback Feedback comes in a variety of forms. Vida Tayebi et al., (2017) conducted a randomized, controlled trial to explore the effectiveness of oral versus written feedback. Using purposive sampling, 44 nursing students participated in the study. Each participant was designated for oral or written feedback response groups. Before the start of the study, three instructors underwent training regarding the organization of feedback sessions. They were then assigned the task of providing the necessary feedback to the nursing students. The results of this study indicate that the provision of oral feedback compared to.