The purpose of this book is to offer practical strategies for transforming courses from instructor-centered to learner-centered. With learner-centered approaches, the teacher shifts from giver of information to facilitator of learning or creator of an environment for learning. Students shift from passivity to taking responsibility for their own learning, with the outcomes of improved learning and retention. Tools are provided in the book for planning and tracking course changes, as well as using the transformation process for scholarly activity.The genesis for this book was the author's experiences with helping faculty members develop learner-centered courses. She discovered they needed very concrete tools to help them make the change and so developed the rubrics that are the central feature of this text. The rubrics can be used to assess a course or curriculum or for peer assessment and teaching dossiers. In addition, there is a transformation planning sheet to facilitate the development of a change plan for a course. This involves a very reflective exercise about what and how much you want to change, potential challenges, resources needed, and benefits. The author also provides many examples of learner-centered approaches from different disciplines that show the application of the rubric principles to the real world of teaching.There is a rubric for each of five dimensions of learner-centered teaching: 1) function of content, 2) role of the instructor, 3) responsibility for learning, 4) purposes and processes of assessment, and 5) the balance of power. Each rubric (presented in a matrix) contains four to seven components of learning-centered teaching (vertical column); each of these has four increments that characterize the transition from instructor-centered to learner-centered instruction (horizontal row). Thus, an instructor can assess how far along his or her course is on the continuum toward learner-centered teaching for each of the components. For example, the function of content dimension has four components: 1) varied uses of content, 2) level to which students engage in content, 3) use of organizing schemes, and 4) use of content to facilitate future learning. Each of these could be assessed at a different increment on the instructor-to learner-centered scale.The author provides many useful ideas in her lengthy discussion of each dimension. Regarding the function of content dimension, for instance, she stresses that, in addition to building a knowledge base, the instructor should help students know why they need to learn content. As we know, dental students often question why they need to take so many science classes, so her ideas will be especially useful there. She also states that students need discipline-specific learning methods, such as evidence-based dentistry.For the role of the instructor dimension, the author presents a rubric to help faculty members align course objectives, teaching/learning methods, and assessment methods so they address the same level of learning. This rubric will be a val...

This project was conducted to identify student preferences for e-teaching and learning. An online Student Preferences for Learning with E-Technology Survey was developed to assess computer experiences, the use and effectiveness of e-resources, preferences for various environments, need for standardization, and preferred modes of communication. The survey was administered in May 2008 to all dental and dental hygiene students at Baylor College of Dentistry. There was an 85 percent response rate (n=366/432). About two-thirds of the students found college e-resources effective for learning. They preferred printed text over digital (64 percent) and wanted e-materials to supplement but not replace lectures (74 percent). They reported e-materials would "extensively" enhance learning, such as e-lectures (59 percent), clinical videos (54 percent), and podcasts (45 percent). They reported the need for a central location for e-resources (98 percent) and an e-syllabus for every course (86 percent) in a standard format (77 percent). One dificulty reported was accessing e-materials from external locations (33 percent). Students commented on the need for faculty training and standardization of grade posting. A qualitative theme was that e-resources should not replace interactions with faculty. Some infrastructure problems have been corrected. Planning has begun for standardization and expansion of e-resources. These improvements should enhance learning and increase the options for individualizing instruction, study strategies, and course remediation.

The purpose of this study was to determine the nonmedical use of prescription attention deicit disorder (ADD) stimulant medication among dental and dental hygiene students. A questionnaire was used to examine demographic information, student experiences, and perceptions of prescription stimulant medication and to determine if students used a prescription stimulant nonmedically. In 2008, 401 surveys were mailed to dental education institutions in the south-central region of the United States, and 243 surveys (61 percent) were returned. The survey found that 12.4 percent of these students used a prescription stimulant nonmedically and, of those, 70 percent took it to improve attention and/or concentration. The most commonly reported stimulant medication used nonmedically was Adderall (77 percent). The majority (87 percent) of the students obtained the medication through friends, and 90 percent began using the drug in college. Even though 74 percent of the students reported being stressed, chi-square analysis found no signiicant association between nonmedical use of ADD stimulant medication and stress level (p=0.585). Sixteen percent of the students surveyed felt it was easy to obtain stimulant medication for nonmedical use at their school, and 17 percent thought it was a problem within their institution. These results may help administrators and faculty members become aware of potential problems with the misuse of ADD stimulant medication.

It is well known that there is a large disparity between the proportions of African Americans, Hispanics, and American

It is widely acknowledged that clinical problem-solving is a key skill for dental practitioners. The aim of this study was to determine if students in a hybrid problem-based learning curriculum (h-PBL) were better at integrating basic science knowledge with clinical cases than students in a traditional, lecture-based curriculum (TC). The performance of TC students (n=40) was compared to that of h-PBL students (n=31). Participants read two clinical scenarios and answered a series of questions regarding each. To control for differences in ability, Dental Admission Test (DAT) Academic Average scores and predental grade point averages (GPAs) were compared, and an ANCOVA was used to adjust for the signiicant differences in DAT (t-test, p=0.002). Results showed that h-PBL students were better at applying basic science knowledge to a clinical case (ANCOVA, p=0.022) based on overall scores on one case. TC students' overall scores were better than h-PBL students on a separate case; however, it was not statistically signiicant (p=0.107). The h-PBL students also demonstrated greater skills in the areas of hypothesis generation (Mann-Whitney U, p=0.016) and communication (p=0.006). Basic science comprehension (p=0.01) and neurology (p<0.001) were two areas in which the TC students did score signiicantly higher than h-PBL students.