Journal of Technologic Dentistry 2024; 46(4): 174-181
Published online December 30, 2024
https://doi.org/10.14347/jtd.2024.46.4.174
© Korean Academy of Dental Technology
이선경
신한대학교 보건대학 치기공학과
Department of Dental Technology, College of Biotechnology & Health, Shinhan University, Uijeongbu, Korea
Correspondence to :
Sun-Kyoung Lee
Department of Dental Technology, College of Biotechnology & Health, Shinhan University, 95 Hoam-ro, Uijeongbu 11644, Korea
E-mail: oksk3737@hanmail.net
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7025-7483
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop a field training instructor model by analyzing factors influencing satisfaction and dissatisfaction with field training for dental technicians and college students. The aim was to provide useful data for optimizing field training operations.
Methods: An online survey was conducted from July 21 to July 23, 2024, targeting dental technology students across the country who had experienced field training. A total of 111 responses were analyzed. The reliability of the satisfaction factor items for field training was Cronbach’s α=0.853, and for the dissatisfaction factor items, Cronbach’s α=0.850. Data were statistically analyzed using SPSS 21.0 (IBM).
Results: Higher satisfaction with field training resulted in stronger, positive, statistically significant correlations with educational content (p=0.001), expertise and program (p=0.003), communication (p=0.001), and other factors, such as evaluation and ethics (p=0.004). Negative correlations were observed between satisfaction with field training and dissatisfaction factors related to educational content (p=0.020), distance (p=0.038), environment (p=0.026), and welfare (p=0.034).
Conclusion: Competency indicators and behavioral characteristics of field training leaders were identified. The final result included five competencies and 14 behavioral indicators.
Keywords: Dental technicians, Dissatisfaction factors, Field training, Instructor, Satisfaction factor
Journal of Technologic Dentistry 2024; 46(4): 174-181
Published online December 30, 2024 https://doi.org/10.14347/jtd.2024.46.4.174
Copyright © Korean Academy of Dental Technology.
이선경
신한대학교 보건대학 치기공학과
Department of Dental Technology, College of Biotechnology & Health, Shinhan University, Uijeongbu, Korea
Correspondence to:Sun-Kyoung Lee
Department of Dental Technology, College of Biotechnology & Health, Shinhan University, 95 Hoam-ro, Uijeongbu 11644, Korea
E-mail: oksk3737@hanmail.net
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7025-7483
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop a field training instructor model by analyzing factors influencing satisfaction and dissatisfaction with field training for dental technicians and college students. The aim was to provide useful data for optimizing field training operations.
Methods: An online survey was conducted from July 21 to July 23, 2024, targeting dental technology students across the country who had experienced field training. A total of 111 responses were analyzed. The reliability of the satisfaction factor items for field training was Cronbach’s α=0.853, and for the dissatisfaction factor items, Cronbach’s α=0.850. Data were statistically analyzed using SPSS 21.0 (IBM).
Results: Higher satisfaction with field training resulted in stronger, positive, statistically significant correlations with educational content (p=0.001), expertise and program (p=0.003), communication (p=0.001), and other factors, such as evaluation and ethics (p=0.004). Negative correlations were observed between satisfaction with field training and dissatisfaction factors related to educational content (p=0.020), distance (p=0.038), environment (p=0.026), and welfare (p=0.034).
Conclusion: Competency indicators and behavioral characteristics of field training leaders were identified. The final result included five competencies and 14 behavioral indicators.
Keywords: Dental technicians, Dissatisfaction factors, Field training, Instructor, Satisfaction factor
Table 1 . General characteristics of the subjects (n=111).
Characteristic | n (%) |
---|---|
Grade | |
2 | 15 (13.5) |
3 | 76 (68.5) |
4 | 20 (18.0) |
Field training location | |
Dental laboratory | 91 (82.0) |
Dental clinic laboratory | 7 (6.3) |
Dental hospital laboratory | 6 (5.4) |
Foreign country | 4 (3.6) |
Other (research institute, material store) | 3 (2.7) |
Field training period (wk) | |
≤4 | 58 (52.3) |
5~8 | 39 (35.1) |
≥9 | 14 (12.6) |
Main tasks during field training* | |
Practice work | 58 (37.7) |
Model work | 52 (33.8) |
Field work | 38 (24.7) |
Other (research, materials) | 6 (3.8) |
*Multiple responses (total=154)..
Table 2 . Field training satisfaction (n=111).
Characteristic | n (%) | Mean±SD |
---|---|---|
Very dissatisfied | 8 (7.2) | 4.08±1.15 |
Dissatisfaction | 1 (0.9) | |
Usually | 18 (16.2) | |
Satisfied | 31 (27.9) | |
Very satisfied | 53 (47.7) |
Likert 5-point scale (maximum=5, minimum=1)..
SD: standard deviation..
Table 3 . Factors of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with field training.
Characteristic | Factor, n (%) | |
---|---|---|
Satisfaction | Dissatisfaction | |
Educational content | 48 (22.9) | 29 (29.0) |
Distance | 30 (14.3) | 22 (22.0) |
Environment | 33 (15.7) | 11 (11.0) |
Expertise and Programs | 17 (8.1) | 11 (11.0) |
Communication | 42 (20.0) | 17 (17.0) |
Welfare | 30 (14.3) | 5 (0.5) |
Other (evaluation, ethics) | 10 (4.7) | 5 (0.5) |
Total | 210 (100.0) | 100 (100.0) |
Multiple responses..
Table 4 . Correlation between field training satisfaction and training satisfaction factors (n=100).
Factor | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | 1 | |||||||
B | 0.297** | 1 | ||||||
C | 0.116 | 0.083 | 1 | |||||
D | 0.160 | 0.148 | 0.314** | 1 | ||||
E | 0.275** | 0.386** | 0.586** | 0.654** | 1 | |||
F | 0.301** | –0.081 | 0.194* | 0.224* | 0.442** | 1 | ||
G | 0.151 | 0.083 | 0.178 | 0.226* | 0.417** | 0.111 | 1 | |
H | 0.133* | 0.171* | 0.151 | 0.218* | 0.318** | 0.212 | 0.045 | 1 |
A: field training satisfaction, B: educational content, C: distance, D: environment, E: expertise and programs, F: communication, G: welfare, H: other (evaluation, ethics)..
*p<0.05, **p<0.01..
Table 5 . Correlation between satisfaction with field training and factors of dissatisfaction with field training (n=100).
Factor | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | 1 | |||||||
B | –0.221* | 1 | ||||||
C | –0.162* | –0.296** | 1 | |||||
D | –0.029* | –0.197* | –0.165* | 1 | ||||
E | –0.076 | 0.558** | –0.165 | –0.110 | 1 | |||
F | –0.117 | 0.373** | –0.211* | –0.141 | 0.780** | 1 | ||
G | –0.108* | –0.081 | –0.067 | –0.045 | –0.045 | –0.058 | 1 | |
H | –0.099 | –0.098 | –0.021 | –0.061 | –0.033 | –0.047 | –0.054 | 1 |
A: field training satisfaction, B: educational content, C: distance, D: environment, E: expertise and programs, F: communication, G: welfare, H: other (evaluation, ethics)..
*p<0.05, **p<0.01..
Table 6 . Demand for continuing education for dental technicians.
Capability | Definition and behavioral indicator | |
---|---|---|
Educational guidance | Mentoring | Ability to share the experience of a practicum leader with the trainees and give advice |
Major knowledge | Providing expertise of dental technicians in the field | |
Life guidance | Guidance on on-site living rules, safety attire, etc. | |
Program | Rich training content to enable diverse and smooth practice | |
Environment creation | Equipment | Introduce hands-on equipment and technology to improve the practice environment |
Environment | Providing a safe space and space for trainees | |
Welfare | Accurate guidance of commuting time and lunch and break times | |
Communication | Communication | Guidance to clearly understand and communicate the understanding, requirements, and problems of the work |
Comradeship | Ability to have a sense of comradeship and respect for trainees | |
Ability to collaborate | Teach them to understand and take responsibility for their roles through collaboration | |
Evaluation system | Feedback | Introduce a regular evaluation and feedback system to promote the development of trainees |
Improvement through assessment | Objectively evaluate trainees’ evaluations and clearly suggest improvement points | |
Ethical considerations | Protecting students’ rights | Report on the rights and safety of trainees and ensure that they are not treated unfairly Keep your personal information confidential |
Ethical conduct | All work must be carried out ethically and legally Educate trainees on the importance of ethical work practices |
Sun-Kyoung Lee
Journal of Technologic Dentistry 2024; 46(4): 182-188 https://doi.org/10.14347/jtd.2024.46.4.182Seon Mi Oh
Journal of Technologic Dentistry 2024; 46(4): 133-140 https://doi.org/10.14347/jtd.2024.46.4.133Jae-Kyung Ryu, Nam-Joong Kim, So-Min Kim, Sun-Kyoung Lee
Journal of Technologic Dentistry 2024; 46(2): 42-48 https://doi.org/10.14347/jtd.2024.46.2.42