Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15242261

Reflective practice and experiential learning: tools for continuing professional development.

Kirk Simpson·Ruth Freeman
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The models of reflective practice and experiential learning, described within this article, provide the dental practitioner and his/her team with realistic methods by which they can improve their skills and working atmosphere, and also reduce occupational stress. The reflective dentist is one who engages his/her team in a process of discussion regarding a variety of clinical situations, and who learns from both positive and negative clinical experience. This article offers a detailed analysis of reflective practice and experiential learning, and the ways in which application of these procedures can contribute significantly to the continuing professional development of dentists and dental teams.

Explore related subjects

Education, Dental, ContinuingHumansInterprofessional RelationsPractice Patterns, Dentists'Problem-Based LearningJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kirk Simpson, Ruth Freeman. 2004. Reflective practice and experiential learning: tools for continuing professional development.. https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2004.31.5.281

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

The effectiveness of dental postgraduate courses--are we doing the right thing?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of dental postgraduate one-day courses in radiation protection in Wales. DESIGN: Analysis of dentists' performance pre- and immediately post-course training. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Two hundred and eighty-five general dental practitioners took part in eight courses. Identical, validated multiple choice questionnaires were completed anonymously at the start and at the end of each course. Fifty (+62.5%) or above was regarded as a satisfactory standard. Two hundred and fifty-three (89%) paired morning-afternoon records were completed and analysed. Data was compared to that of similar courses five years earlier. RESULTS: The mean (SD) pre- and post-course percentage scores were 33.8 (13.5) and 63.6 (14.6). The mean improvement was 29.8 percentage points (SD 11.7). The pre-post correlation was +0.66. At baseline only six (2.4%) of the 253 practitioners achieved the preset standard. After the course, 146 (57.7%) did so, an improvement of 55.3% (95% CI 48.9-61.3%). The final score and score gain were slightly higher in more recent graduates. The increase in proportion attaining the standard following training was 11.9% higher for IRMER than for POPUMET (p <0.001). CONCLUSION: The level of knowledge in radiation protection was very low at baseline. Whilst attending the approved course led to considerable improvement, it did not invariably result in a satisfactory level of knowledge in fundamental radiation physics and regulations. The prescribed standard was achieved by less than 60% of the attendees. The IRMER course was significantly more effective than its POPUMET predecessor.

Education, Dental, Continuing↗