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.
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.
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).
Based Learning (PBL) curricula throughout the D1 and D2 years. Students meet in groups of 8, with a faculty facilitator, for two 3-hour sessions each week. Working together, students "construct and co-construct knowledge through social interactions and self-directed learning," while developing their collaborative, reflective, and critical thinking skills. 1 How to cite this article: Haley CM, Brown B. Adapting Problem-based learning curricula to a virtual environment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.