The Role of Peer Teachers in Dental Skills Education - A Phenomenological Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning a new clinical skill in dentistry is stressful as it is, coupled with large student to teacher ratios, this can sometimes lead to students being overlooked. Peer teaching was piloted at The Faculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences (FoDOCS) and seemed to be positively received amongst the students. Furthermore, cross collaboration with data from Harvard School of Dental Medicine (HSDM) helped to understand the lived experience of the students in relation to peer teaching from both the student’s point of view and the peer teacher’s point of view. The hope was to identify from the student’s perspective, if the scheme had any benefits and/or if improvements were needed. The study group consisted of 10 students from FoDOCS and 9 students from HSDM who were interviewed after clinical skills sessions with both staff teachers and peer teachers. Data was analysed using interpretive phenomenological analysis to identify key themes. A number of important themes were identified that highlight the overall positive effect that peer teaching has had on both students and peer teachers.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".