How does culture affect experiential training feedback in exported Canadian health professional curricula?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore feedback processes of Western-based health professional student training curricula conducted in an Arab clinical teaching setting. METHODS: This qualitative study employed document analysis of in-training evaluation reports (ITERs) used by Canadian nursing, pharmacy, respiratory therapy, paramedic, dental hygiene, and pharmacy technician programs established in Qatar. Six experiential training program coordinators were interviewed between February and May 2016 to explore how national cultural differences are perceived to affect feedback processes between students and clinical supervisors. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded according to a priori cultural themes. RESULTS: Document analysis found all programs' ITERs outlined competency items for students to achieve. Clinical supervisors choose a response option corresponding to their judgment of student performance and may provide additional written feedback in spaces provided. Only one program required formal face-to-face feedback exchange between students and clinical supervisors. Experiential training program coordinators identified that no ITER was expressly culturally adapted, although in some instances, modifications were made for differences in scopes of practice between Canada and Qatar. Power distance was recognized by all coordinators who also identified both student and supervisor reluctance to document potentially negative feedback in ITERs. Instances of collectivism were described as more lenient student assessment by clinical supervisors of the same cultural background. Uncertainty avoidance did not appear to impact feedback processes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that differences in specific cultural dimensions between Qatar and Canada have implications on the feedback process in experiential training which may be addressed through simple measures to accommodate communication preferences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".