The role of educators, mentors, and motivation in shaping dental students to become life‐long learners: A pan‐Canadian survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The core values taught in dental school will arguably stay with the student for their whole career. An instructor has the power to influence a student's education through guidance, mentorship, and encouragement. This influence could be the factor that determines whether a student will become a motivated practitioner. The aim of this study was to identify whether dental schools are providing motivation to students to excel in their career and to become life-long learners. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire was distributed electronically during 2020-2021 to Canadian dental students via email, social media, etc. The questionnaire included questions on demographics, the dental school environment, instructor evaluation, and dental student perspectives on education. RESULTS: Of the 318 participants, 95.7% indicated their school follows a pass/fail system in some to all courses. Note that 61.2% found didactic components were weighted more heavily than clinical components. A greater number of participants found that their clinical instructors were more invested than their didactic instructors, in seeing their students become successful (53.0%) and excellent (44.6%) in their future careers. A total of 84.7% have not found a mentor, and 76% are not interested. Most participants indicated they are "moderately" motivated by their instructors to take continuing education courses (41.3%) and "not at all" motivated to continue their studies in a hospital (42.1%) or speciality residency program (56.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Instructors, educators, and mentors play a vital role in shaping dental student motivation in didactic and clinical courses, and beyond the school environment. Teaching institutions should incorporate opportunities for mentorship and student feedback to improve the delivery of dental education. Further studies may include assessing the role of mentorship at dental schools.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".