https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0056-6752
![Sample our Bioscience journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5925/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Bioscience.jpg"})
Abstract
Introduction
Once considered a supplement to traditional teaching approaches, digital tools now play a pivotal role in building core clinical competencies. This study aims to explore staff and student experiences of navigating the challenges of teaching and assessing clinical skills using digital technology. It also aims to provide insight into what skills, or aspects of skills, may be best suited to digitally enhanced teaching, thereby advancing the future of health science education.
Methods
This qualitative study comprises the second phase of data generation for a mixed-methods research project entitled DEPTH (Digitally Enhanced Practical Teaching in Health Science). Health science staff and students expressed interest in taking part in the current study during the first stage of data collection. Qualitative data was collected in January 2022 through semi-structured group interviews and individual semi-structured interviews. An interpretivist qualitative research design underpinned by a critical realist epistemological position was used. Themes were generated following Braun and Clarke’s 6-step process for reflexive thematic analysis.
Results
Overall, 10 staff and 8 students across 11 health science disciplines participated in this research. Fourteen hours of transcripts were analysed and 4 themes generated. Our findings highlight the suitability of digitally enhanced teaching for low-stake skills requiring visual and auditory training, while skills requiring tactile training require in-person practice to build student competency. Importantly, our findings indicate a desire for increased remote teaching. While our work was not specifically aimed at documenting experiences related to the Covid-19 pandemic, all participants had lived experience teaching or learning during the pandemic and many spoke specifically about this.
Conclusions
The timing of this paper captures a novel moment in the history of clinical pedagogy. Staff and students advocate for the continued integration of technology into health science education generally, and clinical skills teaching specifically. For this to be successful, judicious selection of methods, skills, skill components and technology, that can be appropriately mapped onto specific learning outcomes, is required.
KEY MESSAGES
Staff and students expressed a desire for more hybrid teaching of clinical skills but are sceptical about the suitability of skills, or aspects of skills, for remote teaching.
Clinical skills requiring auditory and visual training can effectively be taught using digital tools while skills requiring haptic awareness and manual dexterity necessitate in-person practice to consolidate learning.
The findings from this paper informed the development of an online, open-access, educational resource to support staff and students in maximising technology to support practical skill acquisition.
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
Acknowledgements
Our sincerest thanks to the participants who gave their time to our research project. We gratefully acknowledge the many contributions of the DEPTH student advisory group in the piloting of the interview guide and to Trinity College Dublin’s Academic Practice team for their contributions. We wish to acknowledge and sincerely thank Ms Mary Chacos, Ms Mary O’Neill and Assistant Professor Ann Nolan whose insight, feedback and contributions to the design and development of the Online Education Resource were invaluable. This research was funded by the National Teaching and Learning Forum as part of the Strategic Alignment of Teaching and Learning Enhancement (SATLE) funding in higher education [9031770].
Authors contributions
CF is responsible for conceptualisation of the study and the overall design. AOB designed the data collection tool and was responsible for data collection. Both authors contributed to the analysis. AOB is responsible for manuscript writing and preparation. CF provided critical feedback during manuscript preparation and approved the final manuscript.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Data availability
A completed Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) checklist is available in the supplementary materials. Participants did not consent to having their data shared on an open repository.