Grading Dental Students in a “Nongraded” Clinical Assessment Program

Abstract

This article details how Baylor College of Dentistry (BCD) merges graded and nongraded aspects of student assessments into grade point averages (GPAs); explains the use of its assessment tools to evaluate students, faculty, and curriculum simultaneously; and calls for continuous progress and quality improvement toward educational excellence among all levels of the oral health education community. “Nongraded” student assessments at BCD are only applicable to preclinical and chairside activities that involve direct patient care. We further summarize how we have attempted to improve the accuracy of grading while providing objective numeric grades to measure student performance and generate a class rank. We suggest that faculty evaluation and curricular change require appropriate evaluation methods and continuous quality improvement based on the chosen assessment methodologies. We then summarize how we merge graded and nongraded assessments into a final student evaluation that realistically discriminates among students’ performance and present our numeric‐to‐letter grade conversion table. We conclude that 1) multiple strategies are required, available, and adequate to provide graduates with the numerical GPAs demanded by postdoctoral programs and that 2) continuous quality improvement among all levels of the oral health education community should be vigorously pursued by administration and faculty alike.

The academic environment: the students’ perspective

“…This is an excellent way to increase his/her self‐belief and confidence for individual practice; whereas, in a different (traditional) system, the student would rather think how to perform the last five cavity preparations needed to fulfil the quota and go home. Research has confirmed that emphasis on qualitative criteria and non‐graded clinical systems are preferred by students (54–56) and that, even in the absence of quotas, the productivity of a dental student clinic may be maintained or even increased (57, 58). It is crucial that the above criteria and clinical requirements for graduation are clearly communicated to students, and are reasonable and achievable.…”

Should Pass/Fail Grading Be Used Instead of Traditional Letter Grades in Dental Education? Two Viewpoints

“…Information is based on observations in such health professions programs as medicine, nursing, dentistry, and dental hygiene 26 – 28 . Some of the reports are based on investigations and studies, 14 , 27 , 29 – 31 while others express experts’ opinions and observations 15 , 25 , 26…”

“…The letter grading system conveys to students the level of their performance in detail. As Taleghani et al explained, with the letter grading system, students know how close or far they are from the optimal performance (usually the A grade) or from the minimally acceptable passing level 14 . As such, those who are marginally passing can use this information and, with self‐direction, apply greater effort and time to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to be successful.…”

Can undergraduate student learning in prevention influence oral health self‐care practices? – a report from a South African University

“…The theoretical basis for critical theory, metacognition and competency‐based curriculum can contribute to curricular theory , and this in turn could be applied to oral health‐related curricular development. Reflexivity and self‐awareness in adult learning are widely recognized as important considerations in competency‐based curricular theory . Metacognition refers to the ability to reflect on one's own thoughts and relate this to past (prior learning) and future experiences (building on new knowledge) .…”