A Qualitative Analysis of Student Perspectives of Their Post-Secondary Nutrition and Dietetics Program, Courses, and Instructors: Applying a Critical Pedagogies Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Postsecondary dietetics education is in a time of transition in Canada and specifically in Manitoba. We sought to qualitatively investigate this cohort’s perspectives on the University of Manitoba’s dietetics program. In 2020/21, interviews were conducted with undergraduate dietetics students as well as dietetics interns and graduate students who had recently completed the undergraduate dietetics program. We recruited 25 participants, all of whom self-identified as female, with 60% identifying as white, with an average age of 25 years old. Informed by critical pedagogy, our analysis yielded four themes: motivations for studying dietetics; learning outside the classroom; development of critical awareness; and uncertain career futures and training improvements. Social media featured in each of the themes, particularly in how it exposed participants to various social justice movements. While students acknowledged developing more critical awareness in their programs, they nonetheless felt a disconnect between what they perceived they needed to learn and what was taught. Participants also described uncertainty associated with the future directions of their program or career. Analysis of their perspectives reveal ways dietetics and dietetics education could further incorporate critical pedagogies that highlight social justice issues, enhancing the field’s potential to contribute to public health and health promotion. In this time of transition for dietetics education in Manitoba, drawing inspiration from perspectives of this cohort, there is an opportunity for dietetics and pedagogy to evolve. There is also potential to apply critical pedagogy to analyze trainee perspectives of other health professional education and training 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 | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".