Dental Hygiene Clinical Instructors’ Pedagogical Beliefs and Described Practices About Student‐Centered Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this study were to understand dental hygiene clinical instructors' teaching and learning perspectives regarding their described pedagogical beliefs, perceived roles in facilitating learning, and factors that influenced those perspectives and to assess how their espoused beliefs matched their instructional practice in relation to student-centered competency-based education. The Theory of Planned Behavior was used as a theoretical framework to guide the qualitative study design and analysis. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 15 dental hygiene clinical instructors at a Canadian university in 2014. Transcript data derived from the interviews were coded for thematic analysis. In the results, these dental hygiene clinical instructors reported a spectrum of pedagogical beliefs, with one end defined as student-centered and the other end teacher-centered. While the instructors tended to describe their teaching as student-centered, their responses in the simulated teaching scenarios of the interview were closer to teacher-centered practices. Interview-analysis results showed that the process by which the instructors developed their approaches to teaching was multifactorial. Factors included instructors' perceptions of their own learning experiences, experiences of inter-instructor collaboration, and methods of supporting students' self-efficacy in learning. Given the emergence of support for student-centered education ideology and the program's adoption of this ideology, this exploratory study suggests that uncovering the teaching and learning beliefs of instructors is crucial prior to designing faculty development programs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".