Are dental students ready for supercomplex dental practice?

Abstract

Contemporary dental practice requires practitioners who are able to draw upon varying interconnected knowledge and skills, in order to make judgments and take action when faced with multiple, often contradictory, ways of interpreting a situation. However, the curricula that prepare students for dental practice are traditionally based on the theoretical knowledge and technical skills to be gained by students. This is despite evidence in the dental literature of a collective desire for graduates to have more range and depth in their repertoire. Examination of contemporary dental practice through the lens of supercomplexity (Higher Education, 40, 409 and 2000) provides contextual understanding and a platform to explore the types of learning and curriculum approaches that can best prepare students for professional practice. From the insights offered by examples from other professional fields, we, as dental educators, can begin to conceptualise learning dentistry as much more than competency frameworks or descriptions of what students need to know and be able to do. Rather, to equip graduates for contemporary dental practice, the dental curriculum needs to become a vehicle for students to develop personally and professionally as well as teaching the theoretical and technical aspects of dentistry.

What can dental education gain by understanding student experience of the curriculum?

“…The semistructured nature of the interviews allows for the participants to discuss the same phenomenon and to illuminate their experiences through examples that came to mind, but at the same time to pursue angles of understanding that were exposed through the participant responses. The primary questions were derived from aspects of the dental curriculum that have recently been the subject of research, or identified as areas for further research . Table lists the primary and follow‐on interview questions and examples of probing questions.…”

“…The primary questions were derived from aspects of the dental curriculum that have recently been the subject of research, or identified as areas for further research. 2,[12][13][14][15][16][17]20 Table 1 lists the primary and follow-on interview questions and examples of probing questions. Interviews lasted between 35 and 60 minutes, were audio-recorded and verbatim transcripts were produced for analysis.…”

“…The dental curriculum has been the subject of much interest by dental educators over the decades, and particularly since 2000, some innovative curriculum models have been proposed . More recently, this interest is accompanied by efforts to shift focus from curriculum models that are grounded in conceptual and skill‐based learning outcomes, to establish ways to educate dentists who are equipped for contemporary practice The ongoing nature of these calls in dental education invokes Whitehead and her colleagues’ metaphor of the “curriculum carousel” in medical education—and being “captive on the carousel.” They point out that while the desire for change is evident, frequently the same cultural issues and discourses repeatedly circle around efforts to reform education. Revealing historical and cultural influences on and within the educational environment is critical to knowing how to make effective change.…”

Impact of a diagnostic workshop on undergraduate teaching‐learning process for the diagnosis and management of tooth restorations—A randomised controlled study

“…Additionally, the curriculum could be improved by employing additional training. 12 However, the cost-effectiveness of conducting such additional training should also be investigated to support employing this type of educational strategy. In addition, the conduction of a multicentre study to test the applicability of this kind of methodology in other centres and realities seems to be interesting for future perspectives.…”

Supercomplexity and the university: Ronald Barnett and the social philosophy of Higher Education

“…Thus, the book has paved the way for a large host of philosophers of education (Bengtsen & Barnett, in press) who have taken on the more specific aim of conducting philosophy of Higher Education—an aim Barnett has indeed been the main driver of promoting and qualifying during his authorship in the two decades following the publication of the book. Today, the book keeps inspiring new readers (e.g., Leadbeatter & Peck, ; Niekerk, ; Yuen, ) with its stylistic power and conceptual rigour. My own chief aim with this article is to revitalise and reinvigorate the philosophical and social discussions on the university by drawing out Barnett's call for more focus on Higher Education teaching and learning practices as spaces for existential transformation and social agency.…”