Premium
Improving the quality of educational strategies in postgraduate dental education using student and graduate feedback: findings from a qualitative study in N ew Z ealand
Author(s) -
Subramanian J.,
Anderson V. R.,
Morgaine K. C.,
Thomson W. M.
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
european journal of dental education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.583
H-Index - 41
eISSN - 1600-0579
pISSN - 1396-5883
DOI - 10.1111/eje.12006
Subject(s) - medical education , graduate students , psychology , quality (philosophy) , qualitative research , dental education , medicine , sociology , physics , social science , quantum mechanics
Research suggests that students' perceptions should be considered in any discussion of their education. However, to date, there has been no systematic examination of N ew Z ealand postgraduate dental students' learning processes in both the research and clinical settings. This study aimed to obtain in‐depth qualitative insights into student and graduate perspectives of effective and ineffective learning experiences during their postgraduate dental education. Methods Data were collected in 2010 using semi‐structured individual interviews. Participants included 2010 final‐year students and 2009 graduates of the U niversity of O tago Doctor of Clinical Dentistry programme. Using the Critical Incident Technique, participants were asked to describe at least one effective and one ineffective learning experience in detail. Interview transcripts were analysed using a general inductive approach. Results Broad themes which emerged included supervisory approaches, characteristics of the learning process and characteristics of the physical learning environment. The focus of this article is to report and discuss the learning processes that participants identified as promoting and precluding effective learning experiences in the clinical and research settings. Students and graduates in the study had largely similar perspectives of learning processes likely to result in effective clinical and research learning. These included self‐directed and collaborative learning; timely, constructive and detailed feedback with directions for further improvement; and discreet clinical feedback. Learning processes that precluded effective learning included unsupported and isolated learning, delayed and overly critical/destructive feedback and open criticism in the clinical context. Conclusion The in‐depth findings of this study contribute to the scientific literature that identifies learning process characteristics which facilitate effective learning from N ew Z ealand postgraduate students' and graduates' perspectives. Additional cross‐sectional and longitudinal studies (both qualitative and quantitative) would lead to a better understanding of what constitutes effective teaching in postgraduate dental education.