In the Students’ Own Words: What Are the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Dental School Curriculum?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Dental students have little input into the selection of course topics and subject matter included in their dental curricula. Curriculum requirements are framed by the Commission on Dental Accreditation, which has stipulated competencies and associated biomedical and clinical knowledge that must be addressed during dental school. Although these competency requirements restrict the variance of educational experiences, students are eager to share their views on the curriculum within the realm of their educational experience. The objective of this research project was to elicit the perspectives of dental students from a broad cross-section of U.S. and Canadian dental schools about their education. A total of 605 students (285 sophomores, 220 seniors, 100 residents) from twenty North American dental schools completed a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis to communicate their perceptions of the curriculum. Students were also asked to provide their impressions of the overall quality of the educational program in an open-ended written format. The students' qualitative comments were then reviewed and categorized into key issues or themes. Resulting themes for each category of the Curriculum SWOT (C-SWOT) analysis were the following. Strengths: 1) clinical learning experience, and 2) opportunity to work with knowledgeable faculty. Weaknesses: 1) disorganized and inefficient clinical learning environment, 2) teaching and testing that focus on memorization, 3) poor quality instruction characterized by curricular disorganization, and 4) inconsistency among instructors during student evaluations. Opportunities: 1) develop strategies to provide students with more exposure to patients, especially early in the curriculum, and 2) opportunities to learn new technology/techniques. Threats: 1) cost of dental education, 2) students' concerns about faculty "brain drain," i.e., lack of sufficient numbers of dental faculty capable of providing high-quality instruction, and 3) questionable treatment of patients in the dental clinic as a consequence of pursuing procedural requirements. This report presents commentaries selected from 2,421 total responses that communicate students' perspectives related to C-SWOT themes. Students at seven schools in this study reported that they completed all or portions of the first two years of the curriculum in combined classes with medical students. Sophomore and senior students at these schools provided their thoughts on this curricular approach; these perceptions are also reported. Findings from this study are compared to results from a similar investigation of dental student perceptions conducted fifty years ago. We conclude that students participating in this study were positive overall about their learning experiences in dental schools, but identified several areas that appear to be problematic for many students at a variety of different schools including fundamental concerns about instructional quality in some areas of the curriculum. Academic program administrators in dental schools can use these findings to guide modifications that will enhance the overall dental education experience.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».