The impact of specialized accreditation on Canadian dental hygiene diploma progams
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The competition for scare resources in higher education has increased the pressure on administrators and educators to evaluate educational programs, and to demonstrate quality outcomes. Accreditation has been suggested as a useful tool for looking at accountability, but little research has been conducted to explore this issue, particularly in program accreditation. Little evidence exists to support the assumption that program accreditation adds value to the educational environment. This study explored the perceptions of program directors and administrators regarding the impact of accreditation on the quality of Canadian dental hygiene diploma programs. A 63% response rate was received from the 54 individuals surveyed, representing an 85% institutional response rate from the 27 accredited programs. Of these respondents, 21 individuals also participated in a semi-structured interview. Descriptive and inferential statistics including t-tests and ANOVAs were calculated for the usefulness of accreditation, the importance of accreditation requirements, and the value of accreditation phases. Accreditation as a stimulus for improvement was rated as extremely useful by 41% and very useful by 41%. As a tool for self-evaluation it was rated as extremely useful by 24% and very useful by 56%. While all the standards were rated as important, the following received the highest ratings: Clinical Outcomes Review Evaluation {extremely important 38%, and very important 35%), curriculum {extremely important 44% and very important 44%), preparation for clinical practice {extremely important 40% and very important 47%), and faculty and faculty development (extremely important 38% and very important 50%). While the site-visit and the report were valued, the self-study phase received the highest ratings in promoting program quality (great value 41% and much value 41%). The accreditation process appears to be the most important factor in understanding the relationship between accreditation and program quality. The process provides the catalyst for transforming accreditation standards into quality elements within programs. While accreditation influences program quality, educational institutions mainly seek accreditation to facilitate licensure and portability of graduates. If the link between licensure and accreditation decreases, the support of the educational institutions may wane.
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».