Farklı Akademik Dönemlerdeki Diş Hekimlığı Öğrencilerin Öğrenme Koşulları İle İlgili Tercihleri

Diş hekimliği, etkili öğretimin çok önemli olduğu ve diş hekimliği öğrencilerinin kültür, deneyim, kişilik ve öğrenme tercihlerinde farklılık gösteren profesyonel bir alandır. Bu durumda öğrencilerin tercihleri daha fazla dikkate alınmalı ve eğitimciler öğrencilerin öğrenme ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak için koşulları iyileştirmeye çalışmalıdır. Diş hekimliği öğrencilerinin ders bileşenleri, sınavlar, devam ve mesleki gelişim konusundaki tercihlerini araştırmak için Mayıs 2020’de Classroom uygulaması aracılığıyla Kıbrıs Sağlık ve Sosyal Bilimler Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesindeki 190 öğrenciye anket gönderildi. Sonuçlar beş kategoride değerlendirildi; demografik bileşenler, ders bileşenleri, sınavlar, derslere katılım ve mesleki gelişim. Geri dönüş oranı %66,8 oldu. Katılımcıların çoğunluğu 40 dakikalık sabah dersi ve çoktan seçmeli sınavı tercih etti ve devam zorunluluğunun olmaması gerektiğini belirtti. Çoğu öğrenci, derslerin PowerPoint sunumları aracılığıyla verilmesinin ve öğrencilerin ders konuları hakkında önceden bilgilendirilmesinin dersleri daha verimli hale getirdiğini ve teorik dersten sonra bilgiyi pekiştirmek için uygulamalı derslerin gerekli olduğunu kabul etti. Bir kısım öğrenci ödevin dersi desteklemek açısından yararlı olduğu konusunda hemfikirdi. Öğretim araç ve yöntemlerinde değişiklik ve iyileştirmeler artık her zamankinden daha gereklidir ve araştırmamızın sonuçları bu değişikliklere ışık tutabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

diş hekimliği eğitimi, protetik diş tedavisi, öğrenci tercihleri, öğretim

The Preferences of Dentistry Students in Different Academic Period On Learning Conditions

Dentistry is a professional field which effective teaching is very important and dentistry students differ in their culture, experience, personality and learning preferences. In these circumstances, students' preferences should be considered more and educators should try to improve conditions to meet students' learning needs. To investigate the preferences of dental students about lecture components, exams, attendance, and professional development a survey has been sent to 190 students at the Faculty of Dentistry, Cyprus Health, and Social Sciences University via the Classroom application as of May 2020. Results were evaluated in five categories; demographic components, lecture components, exams, attendance, and professional development. The respondent rate was 66.8%. Majority of the respondents preferred 40-minutes morning lectures and multiple-choice exam and thought the attendance should not be compulsory. Most students agreed that having lectures delivered through PowerPoint presentations and informing students in advance regarding the course topics make the lectures more efficient and thought practical course is necessary to consolidate knowledge after the theoretical course. Some of them agreed that homework is useful for supporting the course. Changes and improvements in teaching methods and channels are now more necessary than ever, and the results of our research can shed light on these changes.

Keywords:

dental education, prosthodontics, student preferences, teaching,

PDF

___

1) Miller P. Learning styles the multimedia of the mind. Educational Resources Information Center ED 451 140, 2001.
2) Murphy RJ, Gray SA, Straja SR, and Bogert MC. Student learning preferences and teaching implications. J Dent Educ 2004; 68(8): 859–866.
3) Lujan HL, Dicarlo SE. First-year medical students prefer multiple learning styles. Advances in Physiology Education 2006; 30(1): 13–16.
4) Aleamoni LM. Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998. J Personnel Eval Educ 1999;13(2): 153–66.
5) Jahangiri L, Mucciolo TW, Choi M, Spielman AI. Assessment of teaching effectiveness in U.S. dental schools and the value of triangulation. J Dent Educ 2008;72(6): 707-18
6) Henzi D, Davis E, Jasinevicius R, et al. Appraisal of the Dental School Learning Environment: The Students’ View J Dent Educ 2005; 69(10); 1137-47
7) Asiry MA. Learning styles of dental students. The Saudi Journal for Dental Research 2016;7(1); 13-17
8) Sikora, D. What great teachers do (or should do): innovative brain-based instructional strategies.Athttps://www.thefreelibrary.com/What+great+teachers+do+(or+should+do)%3A+innovative+brain-based...-a0345613798, 2013.
9) Eze C, Edward OM. Lecture duration: A risk factor for quality teaching and learning in Higher Education. Integrity Journal of Education and Training 2017;1(1): 1-5.
10) Parolia A, Mohan M, Kundabala M, Shenoy R. Indian Dental Students’ Preferences Regarding Lecture Courses. J Dent Educ 2012;76(3): 366-71.
11) Biggers JL. Body Rhythms, the School Day, and Academic Achievement. Journal of Experimental Education 1980;49(1);45-47.
12) Ammons TL, Booker Jr JL, Killmon CP. The Effects of Time of Day on Student Attention and Achievement. Reports Research/Technical 1995;143: 66p.
13) Susskind JE. PowerPoints power in the classroom: enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes. Computers & Education 2005;45; 203–15.
14) Szaboa A, Hastings N. Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: should were place the blackboard with PowerPoint? Computers & Education 2000;35: 175-87.
15) Kiewra KA. A Review of Notetaking: The Encoding-Storage Paradigm and Beyond. Educational Psychology Review June 1989; 1(2): 147-172.
16) Chen J, Lin T-F. Does downloading PowerPoint slides before the lecture lead to better student achievement? International Review of Economics Education 2008;7(2): 9–18.
17) Babb KA, Ross C. (2009). The timing of online lecture slide availability and its effect on attendance, participation, and exam performance. Computers & Education 2009;52; 868–81.
18) Hayward, Jennifer M. The Effects of Homework on Student Achievement. Education and Human Development Master's Theses. 2010.
19) Deveci T. Homework vs. Home-learning: A Lifelong Learning Perspective and Student Perceptions. ESBB 2019;5(1): 57-80.
20) Perrin RW, Laing GK. The lecture: a teaching strategy through the looking glass. The E-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching 2014;8(1): 67-77.
21) Scouller K. The Influence of Assessment Method on Students' Learning Approaches: Multiple Choice Question Examination versus Assignment Essay Higher Education 1998;35(4): 453-472. (Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Sydney, 4-7 December 2000).
22) Theophilides C, Koutselini M. Study Behavior in the Closed Book and the Open Book Examination A Comparative Analysis Educational Research and Evaluation 2000;6(4): 379-393.
23) Anaya L, Evangelopoulos N, Lawani U. AC 2010-2137: Open-book vs. closed-book testing: an experimental comparison. American Society for Engineering Education 2010.
24) Halperin N. The impact of attendance and student characteristics on academic achievement: findings from an undergraduate business management module Journal of Further and Higher Education 2007:31(4): 335–349.
25) Devadoss S, Foltz JC. Evaluation of Factors Influencing Student Class Attendance and Performance. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1996;78, 499- 507.
26) Stanca L. The effects of attendance on academic performance: panel data evidence for Introductory Microeconomics. Working Paper Series No. 78, 2004.
27) Volkov A, Volkov M. Computer-Mediated Education: The Relationship between Computer Access, Tutorial Attendance and Student Grades. e-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching 2009;3(1): 18-24.
28) Zitzmann NU, Matthisson L, Ohla H, Joda T. Digital Undergraduate Education in Dentistry: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020;17; 3269.
29) Towers A, Field, J, Stokes C, et al. A scoping review of the use and application of virtual reality in pre-clinical dental education. Br. Dent. J. 2019;226(5):358–366.
30) Alexander CD, Bayer H, Brownson AB, et al. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Resource allocation practices and student achievement: An examination of district expenditures by performance level with interviews from twenty-one school districts. Austin, TX, 2000; 1-52.