A preclinical hybrid curriculum and its impact on dental student learning outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to measure how the implementation of an online, preclinical hybrid curriculum impacts dental student clinic readiness, the outcomes of grades, critical thinking skills, and student and faculty perceptions respectively. METHODS: This longitudinal comparative and descriptive study used objective data and subjective (survey) data for 4 dental class cohorts. Groups A and B experienced a traditional lecture-based curriculum, while Groups C and D experienced a hybrid curriculum that was lecture-free and implemented active learning. The Health Sciences Reasoning Test (HSRT), an objective assessment, was used to measure students' critical thinking skills. RESULTS: Dental student outcomes have either remained steady or improved with the transition to a new hybrid curriculum. According to the student and faculty survey results, the hybrid curriculum promoted student learning, independence, critical thinking, initiative and self-motivation, and clinic practice readiness. Group C (N = 68) Total Online Platform mean scores demonstrated a significant and moderately strong correlation with the preclinical course mean grades (r = 0.68, P = 0.00). Group D HSRT (n = 63) for Attempt 1 (end of year 1) and Attempt 2 (end of Year 2) paired T test resulted in HSRT Overall (mean difference = -2.27, SD = 7.21, t = -2.5, P = 0.02) for the second preclinical year. CONCLUSION: The hybrid curricular approach afforded many benefits. Faculty took an active role in imparting knowledge when compared to the lecture hall. Having students immersed in continual assessment through an online adaptive platform and active learning promoted self-motivation, deeper learning, applied knowledge, and discouraged superficial memorization.

Comparison of Dental Students' Perceived Value of Faculty vs. Peer Feedback on Non-Technical Clinical Competency Assessments.

Although reviewing dental students' clinical competency assessments is an important aspect of instruction, finding time to give individual feedback to each student poses a challenge for faculty members, and some students may prefer to receive feedback from a peer. The aim of this study was to explore dental students' perceived value of feedback on their performance in a simulated patient care activity from either a faculty member or a peer. Participants were third- and fourth-year dental students who had completed two years of interprofessional instruction and a videotaped objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) with standardized patients. Participants in two cohorts were randomly assigned to a faculty or peer feedback group. Cohort one (2015-16) consisted of 66 students: 21 in faculty-led groups, and 45 in peer-led groups. Cohort two (2017) consisted of 60 students: 17 in faculty-led groups, and 43 in peer-led groups. In both types of pairings, the protocol consisted of jointly observing a video recording of student performance in the simulated patient encounter and discussing questions about the student's performance in non-technical competencies such as communication, patient safety, scope of practice, and conflict resolution. For cohort two, prior to the feedback sessions, students in the peer feedback groups received a 60-minute training on providing constructive feedback. All 126 students in the two cohorts completed an evaluation questionnaire after the experience. The results showed that students in both types of feedback sessions perceived value in the feedback and believed it enhanced their skills. However, students rated faculty feedback significantly higher (p<0.05) than peer feedback on nearly all dimensions. Perceived value did not differ by age, gender, class year, or OSCE performance. These results provide support for the value of peer feedback on nontechnical clinical competency assessments, though not as a substitute for faculty feedback.

Assessing the Professional Identity of Dental School Faculty: An Exploratory Study.

Experts have argued that dental education needs to shift from a teacher-centered paradigm to a learner-centered paradigm. Assisting faculty members to self-identify as educators may be a key to reaching that goal. The aim of this exploratory study was to assess how dental faculty members described their professional identity (educator or clinician) and the effect of their self-defined identity on their motivation to pursue professional development as educators. A 14-question anonymous survey was distributed electronically to all 536 part-time and full-time dental faculty members at two U.S. dental schools; 114 responses were recorded for a 21.5% response rate. Just over half of the survey respondents (53.5%, n=61) self-identified as educators, and the other 46.5% (n=53) self-identified as clinicians. A lower percentage of the self-identified clinicians were full-time employees (37.3%, n=25) than the self-identified educators (60.7%, n=42); the difference was statistically significant (p=0.0143). Among respondents who self-identified as educators, 53.2% (n=25) had taken four or more courses on teaching vs. 24.2% (n=8) of those who self-identified as clinicians (p=0.0321). Also, 50% (n=30) of the self-identified educators prioritized future teaching courses as their continuing education plan vs. 20.8% (n=11) of the self-identified clinicians (p=0.0013), and 49.2% (n=30) of the self-identified educators had attended at least one ADEA Annual Session vs. 15.4% (n=8) of the self-identified clinicians (p=0.0011); both of those differences were statistically significant. This study found that only about half of the respondents from two dental schools self-identified as educators, but nearly all viewed learning about teaching concepts and techniques as very or somewhat important. Administrators can use these findings to promote their faculty training initiatives and find ways to encourage and support educator identification.