Gutiérrez VG, Sánchez-García S, Maldonado-Frías S

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 120-124
PDF size: 164.22 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Basic sciences introduce a series of thematic contents that many students consider distant from clinical practice. Since their main interest is treating patients, they don’t fully understand the importance of this subject in Dental School syllabus. In order to solve this problem, at México’s National University Dental School (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, [UNAM]), we are working on the development of an experimental biochemistry teaching approach to help students better understand the themes that are studied theoretically. Objective: To analyze students’ opinion based on the Experimental Biochemistry Course Survey carried out with students from two different cohorts (2000-2001 and 2001-2002). Material and methods: Two cohorts of students from the first year of Dental School participated in this survey. The questionnaire was answered anonymously and voluntarily. It evaluated six aspects of the Experimental Course: Communication, Evaluation, Development of New Abilities, Organizational Environment, Evaluation of the Teaching-Learning Process and Professor’s Performance. Evaluation of the experimental course was done by ANOVA, Students t-test and chi-square test Statistical analysis was carried out with SPSS. Results: A total of 929 students took part in the survey, 499 from cohort 2000-2001 and 430 from cohort 2001-2002. Mean 2000-2001 vs 2001-2002 categories results were: Communication 75.46 ± 17.25 vs 80.54 ± 15.25, Evaluation 83.21 ± 14.48 vs 88.66 ± 10.93, Development of New Abilities 70.90 ± 21.10 vs 78.38 ± 18.33, Organizational Environment 76.00 ± 18.25 vs 81.17 ± 14.84, Evaluation of Teaching-Learning Process 78.80 ± 17.46 vs 83.51 ± 15.02, Professor’s Performance 85.17 ± 15.54 vs 90.58 ± 11.51. Mean evaluation of experimental teaching in periods 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 were 78.58 ± 14.43 vs 84.04 ± 11.65, respectively. Differences between cohorts were statistically significant (p ‹ 0.001). We conclude that the survey is a useful tool to improve biochemistry experimental teaching process.

REFERENCES

1. Baum BJ. Has modern biology entered the mouth? The clinical impact of biological research. J Dent Educ 1991; 55: 299-303.

2. Baum BJ. Commentary on “education for dental practice in the year 2005: a beginning dialogue”. J Dent Educ 1992; 56: 377-378.

3. Baum BJ. The dental curriculum: what should be new in the 21st century. J Public Health Dent 1996; 56: 286-290.

4. Baum BJ. The absence of a culture of science in dental education. Eur J Dent Educ 1997; 1: 2-5.

5. Baum BJ. Can Biomedical science be made relevant in dental education. A North American perspective. J Dent Educ 2003; 7: 49-55.

6. Nash DA. “And the band played on….” J Dent Educ 1998; 62: 964-974.

7. Maudsley G, Strivens J. Science, critical thinking and competence for tomorrow’s doctors. A review of terms and concepts. Med Educ 2000; 34: 53-60.

8. Mc Manus IC. How will medical education change? The Lancet 1991; 337: 1519-1521.

9. Hendricson WD, Cohen PA. Oral health care in the 21st century: implications for dental and medical education. Acad Med 2001; 76: 1181-1206.

10. Maudsley G, Strivens J. Science, critical thinking and competence for tomorrow’s doctors. A review of terms and concepts. Med Educ 2000; 34: 53-60.

11. Maudsley RF. Role models and the learning environment: essential elements in effective medical education. Acad Med 2001; 76: 432-434.

12. Shepherd KR. Factors influencing pursuit and satisfaction of academic dentistry careers: perceptions of new dental educators. J Dent Educ 2001; 65: 841-848.

13. Mc Manus IC. How will medical education change? The Lancet 1991; 337: 1519-1521.

14. Market RJ. What makes a good teacher? Lessons from teaching medical students. Acad Med 2001; 76: 809-810.

15. Newman MG (ed.). Statement of purpose and methods. K Evid Base Dent Pract 2001; 1: 3A.