Dental faculty and student views of didactic and clinical assessment: A qualitative description study.
assessment
dental education
dental faculty
dental students
qualitative research
Journal
European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe
ISSN: 1600-0579
Titre abrégé: Eur J Dent Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9712132
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2020
Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
18
02
2020
revised:
22
04
2020
accepted:
02
05
2020
pubmed:
14
5
2020
medline:
15
12
2020
entrez:
14
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Although assessment is essential to accurately represent student learning, little is currently known about student and faculty perceptions of assessment in dental schools. Our study aimed to explore faculty and student views of didactic and clinical assessments in the School of Dentistry at the University of Alberta. Qualitative description informed the study design. Data were collected through focus groups and analysed inductively using manifest content analysis. Five focus groups were conducted with faculty (n = 34) and three with students (n = 19). Faculty and student views of assessment were related to improvements made (perceived positive changes), improvements needed (perceived limitations) and improvements recommended (recommendations to improve perceived limitations). Faculty and students reported that improvements made (eg adequacy of assessment to students' levels of training) varied across instructors, courses and learning environments. Both faculty and students perceived clinical assessments as less appropriate than didactic assessments. Faculty perceived limitations were mostly related to assessment appropriateness, especially assessment accuracy and comprehensiveness, whilst student perceived limitations included other issues related to appropriateness (eg misalignment with course objectives) as well as issues related to assessment volume, pace and scheduling. Similarly, faculty recommendations focused on enhancing the assessment of clinical competencies, whilst students' recommendations aimed to also improve assessment scheduling, volume and usage (eg for learning purposes). Faculty and student views of assessment complemented one another. Our data show that assessment in dental education is multidimensional, so that multilevel strategies may be needed to improve this component of dental curricula.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
628-636Informations de copyright
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Stormon N, Ford PJ, Eley DS. DREEM-ing of dentistry: Students’ perception of the academic learning environment in Australia. Eur J Dent Educ. 2019;23(1):35-41.
Formicola AJ, ed. New models of dental education: the Macy Study report. J Dent Educ. 2008;72(2 suppl):5-136.
Kalkwarf KL, Haden NK, Valachovic RW. ADEA Commission on change and innovation in dental education. J Dent Educ. 2005;69(10):1085-1087.
Ali K, McHarg J, Kay E, et al. Academic environment in a newly established dental school with an enquiry-based curriculum: perceptions of students from the inaugural cohorts. Eur J Dent Educ. 2012;16(2):102-109.
Victoroff KZ, Hogan S. Students' perceptions of effective learning experiences in dental school: a qualitative study using a critical incident technique. J Dent Educ. 2006;70(2):124-132.
Roff S. The Dundee Ready Educational Environment Measure (DREEM)-a generic instrument for measuring students' perceptions of undergraduate health professions curricula. Med Teach. 2005;27(4):322-325.
Miles S, Swift L, Leinster SJ. The Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM): a review of its adoption and use. Med Teach. 2012;34(9):e620-e634.
Lanning SK, Wetzel AP, Baines MB, Ellen BB. Evaluation of a revised curriculum: a four-year qualitative study of student perceptions. J Dent Educ. 2012;76(10):1323-1333.
Henzi D, Davis E, Jasinevicius R, Hendricson W. In the students' own words: what are the strengths and weaknesses of the dental school curriculum? J Dent Educ. 2007;71(5):632-645.
Henzi D, Davis E, Jasinevicius R, Hendricson W. North American dental students' perspectives about their clinical education. J Dent Educ. 200670(4):361-377.
Jahangiri L, Mucciolo T, Choi M, Spielman A. Assessment of teaching effectiveness in U.S dental schools and the value of triangulation. J Dent Educ. 2008;72(6):707-718.
Postma TC, White JG. Students' perceptions of vertical and horizontal integration in a discipline-based dental school. Eur J Dent Educ. 2017;21(2):101-107.
Ebbeling S, Adam L, Meldrum A, Rich A, McLean A, Aitken W. Oral health and dental students' perceptions of their clinical learning environment: a focus group study. J Dent Educ. 2018;82(10):1036-1042.
Haden NK, Hendricson WD, Kassebaum DK, et al. Curriculum change in dental education, 2003-09. J Dent Educ. 2010;74(5):539-557.
ADEA. ADEA Statement on Professionalism in Dental Education: (As approved by the 2009 ADEA House of Delegates). J Dent Educ. 2017;81(7):885-890.
Ali K, Zahra D, Tredwin C, Mcilwaine C, Jones G. Use of progress testing in a UK dental therapy and hygiene educational program. J Dent Educ. 2018;82(2):130-136.
Hauser AM, Bowen DM. Primer on preclinical instruction and evaluation. J Dent Educ. 2009;73(3):390-398.
van Manen M. Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press; 1990.
Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2014.
Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(4):334-340.
Pyle MA. New models of dental education and curricular change: their potential impact on dental education. J Dent Educ. 2012;76:89-97.
Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM. Internet, mail, and mixed mode surveys - The tailored design method. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 2015.
Neergaard MA, Olesen F, Andersen RS, Sondergaard J. Qualitative description - the poor cousin of health research? BMC Med Res Meth. 2009;9:52.
Krueger RA. Developing questions for focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998.
NVivo qualitative data analysis software; QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 12, 2018.
Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62:107-115.
Taylor CL, Grey N, Satterthwaite JD. Assessing the clinical skills of dental students: a review of the literature. Educ Learn. 2013;2(1):20-31.
Albino JE, Young SK, Neumann LM, et al. Assessing dental students' competence: best practice recommendations in the performance assessment literature and investigation of current practices in predoctoral dental education. J Dent Educ. 2008;72(12):1405-1435.
Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77(1):81-112.
Chambers DW, Geissberger M, Leknius C. Association amongst factors thought to be important by instructors in dental education and perceived effectiveness of these instructors by students. Eur J Dent Educ. 2004;8:147-151.
Behar-Horenstein LS, Mitchell GS, Dolan TA. A case study examining classroom instructional practices at a U.S. dental school. J Dent Educ. 2005;69(6):639-648.
Commission on Dental Education. Accreditation standards for dental education programs. Chicago, IL: American Dental Association; 2006.
Patel US, Tonni I, Gadbury-Amyot C, et al. Assessment in a global context: an international perspective on dental education. Eur J Dent Educ. 2018;22(suppl 1):21-27.