Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Method 300: a complementary teaching methodology in Dentistry

2021, Odontology

https://doi.org/10.1007/S10266-021-00669-2

Abstract

This study evaluated Method 300, a complementary teaching methodology in Dentistry. Thirty participants were divided into 6 groups according to the scores obtained in a placement test ranging from 0 to 10. Students with scores lower than 6 were classified as having poor academic performance; students with scores equal to or greater than 6 were considered as having good academic performance. Each group included at least one student with good performance. Our methodology consisted of two application cycles, each including one different test; however, only students with low performance could undergo the second testing. Students held meetings twice a week for one hour and thirty minutes. Of the 54 students initially enrolled in the subject, 24 dropped out, leaving 30 students who completed all the proposed activities. In cycle 1, 24 (80%) students showed poor academic performance and 6 (20%) good. Students with poor performance in P1 significantly improved after P1 300 test application (P < 0.001). After cycle 1 activities, all 30 participants showed significant improvement. In cycle 2, the number of students with good performance tripled when compared to cycle 1, resulting in a decrease in the number of students with poor performance (P = 0.205). Results show that the Method 300 is an important teaching-learning resource in Dentistry, to be used as a complementary methodology to lectures.

References (25)

  1. Kassebaum DK, Tedesco LA. The 21st-Century dental curricu- lum: a framework for understanding current models. J Dent Educ. 2017;81(8):eS13-21.
  2. Gordy XZ, Zhang L, Sullivan AL, Bailey JH, Carr EO. Teaching and learning in an active learning classroom: a mixed-methods empirical cohort study of dental hygiene students. J Dent Educ. 2019;83(3):342-50.
  3. Khatoon B, Hill K, Walmsley AD. Mobile learning in dentistry: challenges and opportunities. Br Dent J. 2019;227(4):298-304.
  4. Kuhn S, Frankenhauser S, Tolks D. Digitale Lehr-und Lernange- bote in der medizinischen Ausbildung: Schon am Ziel oder noch am Anfang? [Digital learning and teaching in medical education: already there or still at the beginning?]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2018;61(2):201-9.
  5. Montrezor LH. Performance in physiology evaluation: possible improvement by active learning strategies. Adv Physiol Educ. 2016;40(4):454-7.
  6. Wang G, Tai B, Huang C, Bian Z, Shang Z, Wang Q, Song G. Establishing a multidisciplinary PBL curriculum in the School of Stomatology at Wuhan University. J Dent Educ. 2008;72(5):610-5.
  7. Donner RS, Bickley H. Problem-based learning in Ameri- can medical education: an overview. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1993;81(3):294-8.
  8. Finucane PM, Johnson SM, Prideaux DJ. Problem-based learning: its rationale and efficacy. Med J Aust. 1998;168(9):445-8.
  9. 9. do Mendes MSSF, Valente MPB, Rodrigus EC, da Siqueira JAS, da Silva EBA, Santos NCN, Flório FM, Zanin LS, Oliveira AMG. Perfil dos estudantes que ingressam no curso de Odontologia: motivos da escolha. Revista Da ABENO. 2018;18(4):120-9.
  10. Fragelli RR. Trezentos: Aprendizagem ativa e colaborativa como uma alternativa ao problema da ansiedade em provas. Revista Eletrônica Gestão Saúde. 2015;6(2):860-72.
  11. Fragelli TBO, Fragelli RR. Método Trezentos: Uma experiên- cia da aplicação na área da saúde. Educação Ciência e Saúde. 2016;3:1-10.
  12. Tiradentes Souto V, Ramos Fragelli R, Henrique Veneziano W. Designing an innovative collaborative learning application: the case of method 300. In: Marcus A, Rosenzweig E, editors. Design, user experience, and usability. Case Studies in Public and Personal Interactive Systems. HCII 2020 Lecture Notes in Computer Sci- ence, vol. 12202. Cham: Springer; 2020. p. 552-65.
  13. Abela J. Adult learning theories and medical education: a review. Malta Med J. 2009;21(1):11-8.
  14. Bergmann J, Sams A. Flip your classroom: reach every student in every class every day. Eugene, Alexandria: International Society for Technology in Education; 2012.
  15. Ten Cate O. Perspective Paper/Perspektive: peer teaching: from method to philosophy. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2017;127:85-7.
  16. Yu T-C, Wilson NC, Singh PP, Lemanu DP, Hawken SJ, Hill AG. Medical students-as-teachers: a systematic review of peer- assisted teaching during medical school. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2011;2:157.
  17. Secomb J. A systematic review of peer teaching and learning in clinical education. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17(6):703-16.
  18. Dolmans DH, Gijselaers WH, Moust JH. Grave WSd, Wolf- hagen IH, Vleuten CPvd: trends in research on the tutor in problem-based learning: conclusions and implications for educa- tional practice and research. Med Teach. 2002;24(2):173-80.
  19. Obarisiagbon A, Azodo C, Omoaregba J, James B. Do stages of dentistry training affect anxiety provoking situations? Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2014;4(6):869-74.
  20. Chandrasekaran B, Cugati N, Kumaresan R. Dental students' perception and anxiety levels during their first local anesthetic injection. Malays J Med Sci. 2014;21(6):45-51.
  21. Bugaj TJ, Blohm M, Schmid C, et al. Peer-assisted learning (PAL): skills lab tutors' experiences and motivation. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19:353.
  22. Polychronopoulou A, Divaris K. Dental students' per- ceived sources of stress: a multi-country study. J Dent Educ. 2009;73(5):631-9 (PMID: 19433538).
  23. Polychronopoulou A, Divaris K. A longitudinal study of Greek dental students' perceived sources of stress. J Dent Educ. 2010;74(5):524-30.
  24. Alzahem AM, van der Molen HT, Alaujan AH, Schmidt HG, Zamakhshary MH. Stress amongst dental students: a systematic review. Eur J Dent Educ. 2011;15(1):8-18.
  25. Fonseca J, Divaris K, Villalba S, Pizarro S, Fernandez M, Cod- jambassis A, Villa-Torres L, Polychronopoulou A. Perceived sources of stress amongst Chilean and Argentinean dental stu- dents. Eur J Dent Educ. 2013;17(1):30-8.