Perspectives of Usak University faculty of medicine and dentistry students to biochemistry course

Aim: In this study, it is aimed to learn the opinions and thoughts of Uşak University Faculty of Medicine and Faculty of Dentistrystudents about biochemistry education and teaching and to contribute to the planning and changes of medical education program.Material and Methods: The volunteers who participated in the study consisted of students of Uşak University Faculty of Medicine andFaculty of Dentistry. The study is descriptive. Fifty students from Faculty of Medicine and 60 students from Faculty of Dentistry wereincluded in this study. In the face-to-face survey, the data were collected by asking a total of 40 questions, including demographic(14 questions) and biochemistry lesson satisfaction survey (26 questions).The feedbacks were structured using a Likert-type scale.Results: The age range of the participating students was determined as 17-23 years. Sixty six of the students who participated in thestudy were female and 44 were male. It was observed that 58.6% of the students of the Faculty of Medicine and 61% of the studentsof dentistry found the number and duration of theoretical courses sufficient. The students of the Faculty of Medicine (20%) and thestudents of Dentistry (25%) gave the answer to the question “I come out of the class with an understanding of the subject”. Theystated that the biochemistry course was explained by associating it with clinical courses (67%) and although they were indecisive,they did not see their education as a waste of time in 57% of the faculty of medicine and 44% of the dentistry.Conclusion: T: It was observed that all participants were concerned about the lack of theoretical lecture hours. However, althoughthey said that they had difficulty in learning the biochemistry course, it was surprising that they were described in relation to clinicalcourses and did not see it as a waste of time. It is planned to make arrangements in the curriculum of both faculties considering theresults of our study.

PDF

___

1. Sayek İ, Durak Hİ. Akreditasyon: Tanımı, Dünyadaki ve Türkiye’deki Süreç Paneli, Tıp Eğitiminde Akreditasyon ve Program Değerlendirme Sempozyum Kitabı 2009;6-12.
2. Erkoç F, Sepici-Dinçel A, Kayrın L, ve ark. 2013. The multidisciplinary approach to biochemistry laboratory education. Türk Biyokimya Dergisi (Turk J Biochem) 2013;38;506–12.
3. Bottomley D, Denny P. A Participatory Learning Approach to Biochemistry Using Student Authored and Evaluated Multiple-choice Questions. Biochem Mol Biol Educ 2011;39:352–61.
4. Şahin H, Baser A. Does National Core Curriculum İnclude The Problems of Family Physician Practice? Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası 2019;18:44-62.
5. Schwartz MD, Linzer M, Babbott D, et al. Medical student interest in internal medicine. Initial report of the Society of General Internal Medicine Interest Group Survey on Factors Influencing Career Choice in Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med 1991;114:6-15.
6. Devebakan N, Kodor H, Musal B, ve ark. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsünde Lisansüstü Eğitim Kalitesinin Arttırılması Kapsamında Öğrencilerin Eğitime ilişkin Görüşlerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 2003;5:30-44.
7. Morren KK, Gordon SP, Sawyer BA. The relationship between clinical instructor characteristics and students perceptions of clinical instructor effectiveness. Phys Ther Educ 2008;22:52-63.
8. Housel N, Emeritus GCS, Gandy J, et al. Clinical Instructor Credentialing and Student Assessment of Clinical Instructor Effectiveness. Phys Ther Educ 2010;24.
9. Weathrbee E, Peatman N, Keneddy D, et al. Standarts for clinical education: Av Physiother 2008;10:2-8.
10. Alexandria VA. Guidelines and self-assessements for clinical education. American Physical Therapy Association 2004.
11. Kelly SP. The Examplary clinical instructor: a qualitative case study. Phys Ther Educ 2007;21:63-9.
12. Boomsma, A. The robustness of LISREL against small sample sizes in factor analysis models. In K. G. Jöreskog & H. Wold (Eds.) Systems under indirect observation: Causality, structure, prediction; Amsterdam: North-Holland 1982;1:149–73.
13. Harris M. and Schaubroeck J. Confirmatory modeling in organizational behavior human resource management: Issues and applications. J Management 1990;6:337-60.
14. Sümbüloğlu V, Sümbüloğlu K. Sağlık Bilimlerinde Araştırma Yöntemleri, Ankara: Hatipoğlu Basım ve Yayım San. Tic. Ltd.Şti; 2005;157-203.
15. Brown TA. Brown Confirmatory factor analysis: for applied research. The Guilford Press: New York. AT 2006.
16. Uygur R, Caglar V, Topcu B, et al. The Assessment of the Students’ Opinions about Anatomy Education. Int J Basic Clin Med 2013;1:94-106.
17. Lempp H, Seale C. The hidden curriculum in undergraduate medical education: qualitative study of medical students’perceptions of teaching. BMJ 2004;329:770–3.
18. Alexandre B. Se´, Renato M. Passos, Andre´ H. Ono, et ol.The use of multıple tools for teaching medical biochemistry. Adv Physiol Educ 2008;32:38–46.
19. Çay M, Bakırcı S. The views of Usak University Dental Faculty academic staff on anatomy education. Ann Med Res 2019;26:681-4.