Am I Being Understood? Veterinary Students’ Perceptions of the Relationship between Their Language Background, Communication Ability, and Clinical Learning

Abstract

During clinical workplace learning, effective communication between veterinary students and clinical staff is of paramount importance to facilitating learning, assessment, and patient care. Although studies in health sciences education have indicated that students may experience communication difficulties as a result of linguistic, cultural, and other factors and that these difficulties can affect clinical learning and academic outcomes, this has not yet been explored in veterinary clinical educational contexts. In this study, the authors sought to identify whether final-year veterinary students perceived that their communication ability influenced their clinical learning and, if so, whether language background was of significance. Seventy-one students from a final-year cohort at an Australian veterinary school completed a student perception survey at the end of their clinical training. Exploratory factor analysis was used to investigate the extent to which learners perceived that their communication ability influenced their clinical learning. Two factors explained 72.3% of total variance. Factor 1 related to communication ability as a source of concern; Factor 2 related to comprehending and contributing to clinical conversations. Communication ability as a source of concern differed significantly ( p < .001) between students who did and did not have an English-speaking background, but there was no significant difference between these two student groups for Factor 2. Although language background was associated with self-perceived communication ability, evidence also emerged that students may experience communication challenges during clinical learning, irrespective of their language background.

A Bibliometric Review of Research on International Students’ Mental Health: Science Mapping of the Literature from 1957 to 2020

“…First, there was a stronger emphasis on a group of students or study destination. For example, in recent years, the research on international students’ mental health showed a strong focus on the Chinese [ 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 ], Japanese [ 84 , 85 ], and medical international students [ 86 , 87 , 88 ]. Meanwhile, Australia has received more attention as a study destination [ 83 , 89 , 90 , 91 ].…”

Comparing veterinary students’ and practitioners’ perceptions of communication in a bilingual context

“…23 Consequently, there is an urgent need to incorporate communication training that reflects the unique circumstances in the field of veterinary medicine 3 into the veterinary curriculum, to better prepare new practitioners for clinical settings. In addition, King et al 24 found that veterinary students may encounter communication challenges during their clinical education regardless of their linguistic backgrounds. For example, little attention has been paid to how veterinarians communicate in their duties with a multilingual team at handover while passing on information about patients to another team in a discursive way when changing shifts.…”

Learning to interact and interacting to learn: a grounded theory of clinical workplace learning for diverse cohorts

“…(Phase 1 survey respondent #3) In the Phase 1 survey, over one third of the 71 final year students surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that they sometimes missed out in clinical discussions because it took them longer to process information. An exploratory factor analysis later conducted on this survey data showed that there was no statistically significant difference between EALD and EES respondents in this regard (King, Henning, Green, Turpin, & Schull, 2019). In the next chapter, I will explore the consequences of having a need for more processing time.…”

“…In my research this took the form of (i) method triangulation, since several different types of data (quantitative and qualitative survey data, interview and diary data) were collected; (ii) source triangulation, since data were collected from two different student cohorts and clinical educators; (iii) analyst triangulation, since theory generation was influenced by engagement with critical peers from a range of relevant disciplines and participant member checking; and (iv) theory/perspective triangulation, since relevant existing theories and literature were considered against the analysis at all stages of the project. A further form of triangulation was achieved when an exploratory factor analysis was conducted on a subset of the quantitative survey data, which was published elsewhere (King, Henning, et al, 2019). This study found that no significant difference existed between EALD and EES participants regarding difficulties comprehending and contributing to clinical conversations, which substantiated a key premise of the LIIL theory: that certain interactive challenges may be common to both EALD and EES students.…”