The aims of this study were to compare third‐year dental students’ satisfaction and level of learning in case‐based learning (CBL) versus team‐based learning (TBL) and the resources required in those two methodologies. Level of learning was assessed for both knowledge and application, and resources were defined as student and faculty time and rooms. In academic year 2018‐19, all 68 third‐year dental students in one U.S. dental school were enrolled in two sequential semester‐long courses; the first used CBL, and the second used TBL. After each course, students and faculty facilitators completed surveys, and data from students’ knowledge and application exams were collected. The student surveys asked students to report their satisfaction with the learning methodology (CBL or TBL); the faculty surveys asked the faculty facilitators to report the resources used for each methodology. Forty‐five of 68 students (66%) consented to participate; however, a larger number of students completed surveys in the two semesters (69% for CBL and 87% for TBL). Fourteen of 16 (88%) faculty facilitators completed the CBL survey, and five of the six (83%) completed the TBL survey. Overall, the results showed that students’ satisfaction was higher with CBL than TBL (Mann‐Whitney U = 882.0; p<0.001), and students reported having a better understanding of concepts after CBL than TBL (U = 899.0; p<0.001). The students performed better on knowledge exam items in TBL than CBL (86% vs. 82%) but the same on application items (both 86%). Resource requirements for both methods were extensive, with TBL requiring fewer facilitators and rooms than CBL but requiring more time from both students (2.6 vs. 2.3 hours weekly) and faculty members (2.3 vs. 1.4 hours weekly). In this study, students preferred CBL to TBL but had higher knowledge scores in the TBL course. The resources needed for both CBL and TBL were said to be extensive, with infrastructure use higher for CBL but time for students and faculty higher for TBL.

No abstract

Case-writing within an integrated, systems-based health professions education curriculum presents many unique challenges. Specifically, case-writing in this context must consider integration of multidisciplinary learning objectives and synthesis of biomedical and clinical sciences. Establishing an effective process for content integration and determining who should be involved in the case-writing process can be a daunting task and this specific context requires a new model for effective casewriting. This paper provides a model for the cycle of case development, implementation, evaluation and modification in an integrated, systems-based health professions curriculum. We highlight how this collaborative case-writing model parallels the social constructivist approach promoted by the problem-based learning process in which our students engage.

There is a great deal of excitement in higher education about the value of adaptive learning to personalize learning paths according to students' individual needs. The authors explored the impact of an Adaptive Learning Platform (ALP) on learning, by comparing learning effectiveness between dental students who used the ALP in a blended learning environment formatively and summatively compared with students who did not use the ALP (i.e., face-to-face), as measured by students' performance on the final exam in a single review preparatory course during the academic years 2013-2018. Paired t-tests showed significant improvement in post-test scores across different course instructional modalities (P < 0.01). The learning gain was greater for students who studied using the ALP summatively (t = 26.20) than those who used it formatively or studied using a faceto-face format (t = 13.10 and 14.13, respectively). Controlling for pre-test scores, analysis of covariance tests indicate that: (1) intervention groups (formative and summative ALP) scored significantly higher than the traditional group (B = 9.34 points, P < 0.01, for summative ALP group) and (B = 4.47 points, P < 0.05, for formative ALP group), and (2) summative ALP group scored significantly higher than formative ALP group (B = 4.84 points, P < 0.05). This study provides empirical evidence that an adaptive learning intervention can have a significant impact 1294

Purpose Dental schools can support diversity and inclusion efforts through curricula targeted at providing a safe space for students to learn from each other and about themselves. Opportunities to learn about different backgrounds can improve levels of cultural sensitivity and improve inclusion. The aim of this study was to describe the implementation of a diversity dialogue tool for second‐year dental students and evaluate student responses to this activity. Methods Following a 3‐h small group diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) dialogue, students completed a 3‐2‐1 reflective activity to determine new ideas that they encountered, ideas they would like to try, and things that they would like to know more about. Results Of the 66 students that participated in the DEI dialogue, 44 participated in the reflective activity for a response rate of 66%. Four significant new ideas were encountered including the concept of intersectionality (25%), the effects of race, racism, and identity on health (20.5), how to react to bias or discrimination (20.5%), and identity and their effect on perceptions of health and wellness (15.9). Three ideas students might try included being more open to learning about others' identity (52.3%), communicating openly with patients and peers (34.1%), and communicating calmly when dealing with bias or discrimination (13.6%). Two things students would like to know more about included how to handle situations of discrimination and bias (27.3%) and the existence of health disparities and how to address them (15.9%). Conclusion Creating an opportunity for a DEI dialogue led to students encountering new information (intersectionality; effect of bias on health), identified targeted areas of future behavioral change (open and calm communication with others), and provided insight into areas of student interest (dealing with bias and addressing health disparities).