The learning environment in professional doctorate and postgraduate dental education: a qualitative study. (28th May 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Subramanian, J.; Thomson, W. M.
• Is Part Of: European journal of dental education. Volume 21:Number 4(2017:Nov.)
• Page Start: 261
• Page End: 271
• Publication Date: 2016-05-28
• Subjects: dental education -- qualitative research -- specialist training -- postgraduate students -- professional doctorate -- medical education -- graduate dental education -- graduate medical education -- supervision -- curriculum -- higher education -- educational measurement; Dentistry -- Study and teaching -- Europe -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals; 617.60071
• DOI: 10.1111/eje.12209
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1396-5883

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Currently, there is a lack of studies focusing on professional doctoral students' and graduates' perceptions of their learning environment, in particular, using a qualitative approach to elicit in‐depth information. This article aims to contribute to the existing body of knowledge by systematically exploring, critically analysing and getting a deeper understanding of professional doctorate dental students' and graduates' insights into effective and ineffective clinical and physical learning environment characteristics. Methods: The study included a total of 20 participants. Participants included 16 final‐year Doctor of Clinical Dentistry (DClinDent) students and four dental specialists (graduates of the DClinDent programme). Semi‐structured, individual interviews were used. Participants were asked to reflect upon and describe in detail their effective and ineffective learning environment experiences. The critical incident technique was used to guide the data collection. Data were analysed using a general inductive qualitative approach. Results: Learning environment characteristics which participants associated with effective learning included the following: sufficient opportunities for comprehensive treatment planning; introduction to a number of patient treatment philosophies; a sufficient number of complex cases; clinically oriented research and assignment topics; a focus on clinical training in the programme generally; a research topic of a realistic depth and breadth, suitable for their 'specialist training' degree; and a well‐resourced and updated physical infrastructure. On the other hand, most participants indicated that the absence of an adequate number of clinical cases, an overemphasis on research (as opposed to clinical practice) in the DClinDent programme and an 'outdated' physical infrastructure in the dental school clinics could hamper effective clinical learning. Conclusion: These findings contribute to the meaningful advancement of the literature on learning environment strategies through the exploration of (and in‐depth qualitative insights into) what facilitated effective learning by New Zealand professional doctorate candidates and graduates. These findings provide a starting point for reflection by international academic directors, educational developers, curriculum planners, programme managers and clinical teachers in respect of the further development of the learning environment. Although the findings from this study may not be directly transferable to all international contexts, they have the potential to contribute to the further development of theory in this area.