ARTICLE INFO

Article Type

Qualitative Study

Authors

Gharaei   Sh. (1)
Kargozar   S. (*)
Amirchakhmaghi   M. (2)
Gholami   H. (3)






(*) Dental Faculty, Dental Faculty, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
(1) Dental Faculty, Dental Faculty, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
(2) “Oral and Maxillofacial Diseases Research Center” and “Oral Medicine Department, Dentistry Faculty”, “Oral and Maxillofacial Diseases Research Center” and “Oral Medicine Department, Dentistry Faculty”, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
(3) Medical Education Department, Medicine Faculty, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

Correspondence

Address: Mashhad Dental School, Across from Mellat Park, Vakilabad Boulevard, Mashhad, Iran. Postal Code: 99177948564
Phone: +985138829501
Fax: +985138829500
kargozars881@mums.ac.ir

Article History

Received:  March  9, 2015
Accepted:  May 1, 2015
ePublished:  June 6, 2015

BRIEF TEXT


… [1, 2] Since the students are the main audiences of education and directly related to it, they seem to be the most important source to gain information about strengths and weaknesses of the educational system [3, 4]. … [5]

Educational program and evaluation methods for the clinical units have been studied, showing that there are needs for some reforms in language teaching [1], research methods [1], and educational curriculum [6], as well as providing required tools in the clinical units [6]. … [7-14]

The aim of this study was to evaluate the educational problems from the viewpoints of the students of Mashhad Dentistry Faculty.

This is a qualitative study.

Dentistry students of different courses of Mashhad Dentistry Faculty (Iran) were studied in 2012.

25 students of three educational levels of the dentistry faculty, including Basic Sciences, Physiopathology, and Training were called for centralized group discussions. The students were selected via Purposive Sampling Method. Students with critical viewpoints to education were preferred.

Data was analyzed and the qualitative findings were quantified, using Q methodology. Centralized Group was used to achieve the students’ viewpoints. There were 3 groups. 5 students of Basic Sciences (2nd year students), 12 students of Physiopathology (3rd and 4th years students), and 8 students of Training Course (5th year students) were participated in the sessions. There were semi-structured interviews with open questions. Data was prepared at first as qualitative study (Phenomenology) and then, for Q Analysis. 32 primary statements were formed as Primary Q. To advance the statement list, 16 other statements were added by the study group based on the studies about the educational problems. At last, based on the experts’ viewpoints (including viewpoints of 2 teachers and 2 students), a 43-statement list was prepared about the most important educational problems in the dentistry faculty. The participants were ask to divide the statements into three groups including the statements with priority based on the person’s viewpoint (1st group), statements without any priority (2nd group), and statements which received no viewpoints or in which the students were not experts. In the first group, the statements were put into Q Diagram from degree 4 to degree 1 based on the importance of each statement. In the second group, the statements were put in Q Diagram successively from -4 to -1 with a reduction in importance. In the 3rd group, all statements were on zero degree. To identify the mental patterns, classification and regulation of Q were done by experts. Data was analyzed, using SPSS 11 software. Q Factor Analysis was done through Q Special Method.

There were 25 participants, including 17 female (68%) and 8 male (32%), in Q regulation. 15 persons (60%), 4 persons (16%), and 6 persons (24%) were physiopathology students, externs, and interns, respectively. The GPAs of 14 persons (56%) and 11 persons (44%) were more and less than 17, respectively. At the first stage, data was analyzed through Exploratory Factor Analysis Method based on Main Factors Analysis Method and with Varimax Rotation (with Kaiser Normalization). 8 factors with eigenvalues more than 1 were obtained. There were significant correlations between the data matrices. Accordingly, the different mentalities of the persons were divided into 8 groups. The factors having been derived and Varimax Method having been applied, factor scores and arrangements were computed via Regression Method. Since there was partial correlation based on the correlation between the statements and the factors, at the second stage, the correlation matrices were investigated and the primary matrices were transposed, without much help from Exploratory Factor Analysis Method and SPSS 11 software to classify the statements (factor formation). The cause was partial correlation between the statements. In phenomenology, at first, 77 primary codes were derived from group discussions through reviewing the data. Common items and similar codes having been merged, 32 codes remained. At the last stage, the findings were classified in 4 main themes, including professionalism, educational equipment and tools, educational management (theoretical and practical educations), and evaluation (Table 1). The most important educational problems in the faculty, mostly repeated and emphasized in the interviews, were lack of enough education in the professional ethics, disproportionate number of the students and educational facilities at the phantom and ward, bad scientific library, no utilization of the student participation techniques, some inadequate clinical units, and scoring without any specified criterion.

The students agreed on unworthy treatments from the teachers and stated that such behaviors, especially in the clinical environments, put the students on a stressful situation. No respect to the ethical aspect of interaction between teachers and students affects the quality of education [15]. Worthy interaction between instructors and students in the wards is one of the most strengths of clinical education [16]. Unfair interaction between teachers and patients in some wards was emphasized by the students. More than half of the factors leading to patients’ dissatisfaction are related to the physician’s behavior [17]. Weak interaction between students and teachers in the basic sciences course was emphasized by the students and they stated that there was no respect to the students’ feedbacks. Many and unnecessary lessons in the basic sciences course and teachers’ too emphases on the details are factors leading to students’ dissatisfaction [15]. Disproportionate number of the students and educational facilities in the phantom and the wards were emphasized. Physical tools of the children ward have been assessed unfavorable by 34.5% of the students. However, other wards’ equipment has been assessed favorable or, even, excess by most of them [6]. Equipment and tools have been assessed sufficient and favorable by the graduates [1]. … [18] Physical tools of periodontics ward and prosthesis equipment have been reported not enough by 45% and 60% of the dentistry students, respectively [19]. The disadvantages of the scientific library, according to the students’ viewpoints, were limited work-time, no updated sources, no good light and air-conditioning, no space for group discussion, and no access to internet. Educational environment has been assessed unfavorable due to unfavorable quantity and quality of the educational tools and books, no updated sources, and no easy access to internet and scientific sources [20]. The quality of education in some clinical wards was assessed inefficient by the students. Clinical education length in the orthodontics ward has been assessed short by the students [19]. … [21] Prescribing training was not enough. Medical students have assessed the prescribing trainings insufficient [22]. Based on the students’ viewpoints, there was no specific criterion to evaluate some of the general courses, as well as clinical education. Clinical evaluation has been assessed unfavorable by most of the nursing and midwifery students (41%), and the term “one evaluation system for the students” has received the lowest mean score [23]. … [24]

More studies should be conducted through the method, to classify the factors related to the educational problems.

Quantifying the qualitative findings through Q Method was limited. Therefore, Phenomenology Method was used as a way to analyze the qualitative studies.

Based on the viewpoints of the students of Mashhad Dentistry Faculty, the educational problems are classified as “professionalism”, “educational tools and equipment”, “educational management (theoretical and practical educations)”, and “evaluation”. From the students’ viewpoints, the most important educational problems of the faculty are “no enough training in the professional ethics”, “disproportionate number of the students and educational facilities at the phantom and the ward”, “bad scientific library”, “no utilization of the student participation techniques”, “some inadequate clinical units”, and “scoring without any specified criterion”.

Research Deputy of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Student Council Committee of Dentistry Faculty of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, and the participating students are appreciated.

The study has no conflict with the interests of any organization or person.

All students participated in the study voluntarily. Personal information was secret. The participants were assured on non-publishing their own individual statements except as a group viewpoint.

The medical university funded the study.

TABLES and CHARTS

Show attach file


CITIATION LINKS

[1]Ahangari Z, Rahmani M, Sohrabi Z, Kharazifard MJ. Dental curriculum according to views of the graduates of dental schools of the country during the last 5 years. J Dent Sch. 2010;28(2):80-7.
[2]Pakshir HR. Dental education and dentistry system in Iran. Med Princ Pract. 2003;12 Suppl 1:56-60.
[3]Hughes O, Wade B, Peters M. The effects of a synthesis of nursing practice course on senior nursing students' self-concept and role perception. J Nurs Educ. 1991;30(2):69-72.
[4]Zaighami R, Fasele M, Jahanmiri SH, Ghodsbin F. Nursing student's viewpoints about the problems of clinical teaching. J Qazvin Univ Med Sci. 2004;30:51-6. [Persian]
[5]Tiwari A, Lam D, Yuen KH, Chan R, Fung T, Chan S. Student learning in clinical nursing education: perceptions of the relationship between assessment and learning. Nurse Educ Today. 2005;25(4):299-308.
[6]Sanatkhani M, Molla Z, Akbari M. Evaluation of the students' perception about clinical education and examination in Mashhad school of dentistry (Iran) in 2009. J Mashhad Dent Sch. 2012;36(3):211-22. [Persian]
[7]Cross RM. Exploring attitudes: The case for Q methodology. J Health Educ Res. 2005;20(2):206-13.
[8]Wallenburg I, Van Exel J, Stolk E, Scheele F, De Bont A, Meurs P. Between trust and accountability: Different perspectives on the modernization of postgraduate medical training in the Netherlands. Acad Med. 2010;85(6):1082-90.
[9]Liu CC, Chen JCH. Using Q methodology to explore user’s value types on mobile phone service websites. Expert Syst Appl. 2013;40(3):5276-83.
[10]Valenta AL, Wigger U. Q-methodology: Definition and application in health care informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1997;4(6):501-10.
[11]Chinnis AS, Paulson DJ, Davis SM. Using Q methodology to assess the needs of emergency medicine support staff employees. J Emerg Med. 2001;20(2):197-203.
[12]Khosravi S, Pazargadi M, Ashktorab T. Nursing students` viewpoints on challenges of student assessment in clinical settings: A qualitative study. Iran J Med Educ. 2012;11(7):735-49. [Persian]
[13]Halcomb EJ, Gholizadeh L, DiGiacomo M, Phillips J, Davidson PM. Literature review: Considerations in undertaking focus group research with culturally and linguistically diverse groups. J Clin Nurs. 2007;16(6):1000-11.
[14]Khosravi SH, Abedsaeedi ZH. Focus group: A data gathering method. Iran J Nurs. 2011;23(68):19-30. [Persian]
[15]Siabani S, Moradi MR, Siabani H, Rezaei M, Siabani S, Amolaei KH, et al. Students’ view points on the educational problems in medical school of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences (2007). J Kermanshah Univ Med Sci. 2009;13(2):162-71. [Persian]
[16]Baraz Pordanjani SH, Fereidooni Moghadam M, Loorizade M. Clinical education status according to the nursing and midwifery students’ point of view, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2009;5(2):102-12.
[17]Afkham Ebrahimi A, Nasr Esfahani M, Saghafi N. Patients’ expectations and satisfaction with their treating physician. Razi J Med Sci. 2004;11(41):367-75. [Persian]
[18]Zafarghandi N, Davati A, Ghurchian M, Sadat Bateni F, Hadavand S. Necessity of medical education amendment in Shahed University according to educators and students viewpoints. Daneshvar Shahed J syst. 2011;18(92):63-8. [Persian]
[19]Borhan Mojabi K. Evaluation of clinical skills in Qazvin Faculty of Dentistry through the students and teachers’ points of view. J Qazvin Univ Med Sci. 2002;6(2):48-55. [Persian]
[20]Sharifi B, Ghafarian Shirazi HR, Momeninejad M, Saniee F, Hashemi N, Jabarnejad A, et al. A survey of the quality and quantity of clinical education from the viewpoint of medical students. J Jahrom Univ Med Sci. 2012;10(2):57-64. [Persian]
[21]Julian TM. A graduating medical school class evaluates their educational experience. WMJ. 1998;97(2):56-62.
[22]Khorasani GHA, Mahmoudi M, Vahidshahi K, Shahbaznejad L, Ghafari M. Evaluation of faculty members’ and students’ attitude towards ambulatory teaching quality. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci. 2007;17(58):87-100. [Persian]
[23]Hadizadeh F, Firoozi M, Shamaeyan Razavi N. Nursing and midwifery students perspective on clinical education in Gonabad university of medical sciences. Iran J Med Educ. 2005;5(1):70-8. [Persian]
[24]Wilkerson L, Uijtdehaage S, Relan A. Increasing the pool of educational leaders for UCLA. Acad Med. 2006;81(11):954-8.