The student narrative of undergoing academic difficulty and remediation in a medical programme: Indigenous Māori and Pacific Admission Scheme (MAPAS) and international student perspectives at The University of Auckland.

Le résumé fourni par la source

AIMS: To understand the medical student perspective and experiences of academic difficulty and remediation in years' 2-6 at The University of Auckland (UoA), Aotearoa New Zealand, who were admitted via the Indigenous Māori and Pacific Admission Scheme (MAPAS) and international student pathways. METHODS: A qualitative study which undertook one-on-one, semi-structured interviews using case study as the research method within Kaupapa Māori and Pacific research frameworks. Two student groups were interviewed during 2017: MAPAS and international medical students. An email invitation was sent to all students, inviting those who had failed a year, or at least one examination, assessment, module or domain in UoA Medical Programme during 2014-2016 to participate in the study. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed with an inductive approach. RESULTS: Fourteen medical students at UoA were included in the study, with ten from MAPAS and four from the international student admission pathway. There were six major themes identified. Three themes related to academic difficulty: the set curriculum, the hidden clinical curriculum and life complexities. Three related to the student perspectives of remediation: the impact of MAPAS support, enhanced resilience (particularly the MAPAS cohort) and stigmatisation from failing. CONCLUSIONS: This study has investigated the MAPAS and international medical student experience of academic difficulty and remediation at UoA. The student dialogue offered a rich insight to deepen our understanding into the remediation process to ensure it is not only culturally safe but also fit for purpose. Tertiary institutions that offer undergraduate medical education can (and should) better support their at-risk medical student cohorts.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.