Transitioning into an online dental hygiene degree‐completion program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The University of British Columbia's (UBC) Dental Hygiene Degree-Completion (DC) program has offered an academic pathway for dental hygienists to earn a degree exclusively through an online delivery format since 2006. The students' experiences transitioning to online learning and related student support needs have not been previously studied. Thus, this study investigated students' experiences as they entered an online dental hygiene DC program METHODS: An online survey with open-ended and closed-ended questions was distributed to all 53 currently enrolled dental hygiene DC students in September 2019 RESULTS: Thirty-two students completed the survey for a 60% response rate. Most student respondents (78%) had no prior experience with online education. Only 59% of respondents were confident in their abilities to navigate a Web-based learning environment. Three-quarters (75%) of respondents felt like a valued member of the Faculty of Dentistry community but only 47% felt they belonged to the larger university community. Most (72%) were familiar with the support resources within the Faculty but fewer than half (41%) were aware of additional resources outside of the Faculty. Students aged 30 years and older felt more comfortable reaching out to faculty and staff members (90% vs. 55%; P = 0.05). Students with prior online learning experience were more aware of student support resources outside of the Faculty (57% vs. 36%; P = 0.05) CONCLUSION: Lessons learned from this study have informed several recommendations to better support student transition to online learning that can be applicable to this program and in other institutions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".