Uncovering the Perceptions of Grades in Dentistry Students – How Grades are Impacting Learning & Clinical Development
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Grades in healthcare professional schools may be doing more harm than good. In fact, educators and researchers suggest grades have lasting negative impacts on professional development and the ability to navigate clinical settings (i.e., impairs self‐regulated learning, interferes with developing patient‐care competencies, and decreases levels of empathy). Although some studies have incorporated grade perceptions into their investigations, we lack research dedicated to primarily understanding the student’s perception of grades, and whether they think grades help or hinder the quality of their clinical learning. Aims The first aim of this study is to identify the most prevalent grade perceptions among dentistry students. The second aim is to explore the underlying contributing factors and to determine how dentistry students’ grade perceptions are influencing their learning and clinical development. Methods To address the first aim, we distributed an online survey to dentistry students at the Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry. To address our second aim, we conducted virtual semi‐structured interviews and a focus group on the same population of dentistry students. Survey results guided and informed interview/focus group discussions. Qualitative data was analyzed through an inductive thematic process. Results Fourteen grade perception themes were identified. The three most frequent perceptions were grades as a tool for ranking students, an evaluation tool to test knowledge and comprehension, and a feedback tool on comprehension. Seventy students participated in the survey; 70% agreed that grades guided their learning/studying strategies; 91% agreed grades reflected their ability to memorize content; 85% did not think grades accurately represented their practical skills; and 89% agreed that grades determined their acceptance into specialty/residency programs. Nine students participated in the interviews/focus group. Emerging topics included the importance of grades during specialty/residency applications, the disconnect between grades on a 0‐100% scale and clinical development, and mixed opinions about grades facilitating learning. Characterization of dentistry students’ perceptions towards grades in a clinical learning environment is ongoing. Conclusion Dentistry students commonly perceive grades as a ranking tool because of its central role in specialty/residency applications. While some note that grades help their learning, the majority of students agree that grades reflect memorization of content. Our data also suggest students do not find grades on the 0‐100% scale helpful in their clinical development because it does not indicate whether professionally acceptable standards are met. Findings obtained from our study brings students’ voices to the forefront of the ongoing discussion about grades, and may provide important considerations for future healthcare professional curricula.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,020 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».