Comparison of Digital Self-Assessment Systems and Faculty Feedback for Tooth Preparation in a Preclinical Simulation

Background: Regarding the new dental licensing regulations in Germany (AOZ), this study evaluated the effectiveness of two different digital tooth preparation validation systems in comparison to traditional faculty feedback. Methods: Participants were randomly divided into groups: Faculty Feedback (FF: n = 33), PrepCheck® (PC: n = 32) and Dental Teacher™ (n = 32). Students had the task to prepare tooth 16 for a retentive full-cast crown. Preparations could be repeated as often as desired. Feedback was provided either by faculty staff or by digital validation systems only. Exams were conducted and graded by two independent and experienced examiners. A survey was performed to evaluate the assessment concepts. Results: No statistical difference in examination performance between groups could be observed. Nevertheless, the survey showed participants preferred consulting the faculty staff rather than the digital validation systems. Students preferred practising with DT rather than with PC. Conclusions: Although both classical and digital methods showed comparable results regarding the preparation examination performance, direct feedback by the faculty staff is still appreciated by the students. A combination of both methods is mandatory since demonstration and advice by the teacher is needed. However, digital tooth preparation validation systems are predestined for free practice sessions, providing self-assessment.

Multiple feedback sources in learning clinical history-taking skills: Developing evaluative judgement

Introduction: Contemporary feedback models emphasise the value of multiple feedback opportunities. Effective feedback participation requires evaluative judgement—the ability to discern the quality of one’s own and others’ work. Self and peer assessment may enable repeated practice and feedback for developing evaluative judgement. However, attitudes to self and peer assessment may present a barrier to effective implementation. This study explored whether congruence between marks from self and peer assessment improved with assessment task participation. Participants’ attitudes towards self and peer assessment and approaches to learning were also evaluated.Methods: Participants undertook simulated history-taking tasks in semester 2, 2018. Group 1 undertook formative and summative assessments and participated in self and peer assessment . Group 2 undertook formative and summative assessment. Group 3 undertook only summative assessment. All groups received faculty feedback for each submitted assessment. Participants completed the modified Study Process Questionnaire (mSPQ) and the Peer Perception of Assessment (PPA) before (T1) and after the formative task (T2) and after the summative task (T3).Results: Summative task scores improved for group 1 (n = 9, p 0.01) and group 2 (n = 26, p 0.01). Within-group (p = 0.02) and between-group differences (p = 0.01) were identified for surface learning approaches. All groups’ perceptions of peer assessment decreased significantly (p 0.01) across all three time periods.Conclusions: Participants receiving self and peer assessment and faculty feedback improved performance and increased congruence of their self- and peer-assessment marks, potentially developing their evaluative judgment skills. Peer assessment perception became less positive, while surface learning approaches increased. Future research should assess the role of self and peer assessment in developing evaluative judgment.

Design, Implementation and Evaluation of Student-centric learning in Physiology

Background: The quality of teaching and learning in health education determines the competency of doctors produced and ultimately the patient care. Realizing the necessity of active learning at the undergraduate level, curricular reforms are crucial to ensure that students play an active role in their learning process and absorb the prerequisite qualities of a competent health professional. The current study aimed to implement and evaluate case-based learning in a physiology curriculum. Methods: The study included 150 first-year MBBS students using a mixed methods research design. A short lecture on anemia was followed by two sessions of case-based learning with a gap of one week. A structured questionnaire usinga 5-point Likert scale was used to collect students’ perceptions. The internal consistency of the questionnaire had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.8. Faculty feedback was collected using a Focus Group Discussion. Results: Of 145 participants, 117 provided feedback. Students perceived that the case-based learning method promoted meaningful learning (83%); helped in the future application of knowledge (81%);helped to understand physiology concepts better (72%); improved studentteacher relationships (72%); was effective in understanding the anemia topic (71%); led to the development of problem-solving abilities (70%); encouraged teamwork (69%); motivated selfdirected learning (66%); and improved communication skills (65%). Faculty members suggested developing an assessment plan for future case-based learning sessions. Conclusion: According to student and faculty feedback, case-based learning is an effective, active teaching-learning tool that improves students’ understanding of basic concepts, clinical knowledge, problem-solving abilities, teamwork, communication skills, student-teacher relationship, and self-directed learning.

Faculty Feedback Regarding the Usability of Microsoft PowerPoint as a Multimedia Authoring Tool

The purpose of this study was to identify faculty feedback, regarding their usage of Microsoft PowerPoint (PPT) in an innovative way: to create multimedia content apart from presentations. The research provided an insight into the eagerness and willingness of faculty to use PowerPoint to create multimedia content for their courses. Despite the fact that none of the participants in the study ever used PPT to create multimedia artefacts such as graphics and interactive quizzes, the data revealed a sense of ease and comfort in participants as they used PPT to create the artefacts. This study posits that this may have occurred due to the familiarity that faculty have with PPT to do presentations. The study was able to identify challenges that would impede the faculty engaging in content creation with PPT beyond the study and prescribed possible solutions to mitigate against the expressed challenges.

Biosciences Proposal Bootcamp: Structured peer and faculty feedback improves trainees’ proposals and grantsmanship self-efficacy

Grant writing is an essential skill to develop for academic and other career success but providing individual feedback to large numbers of trainees is challenging. In 2014, we launched the Stanford Biosciences Grant Writing Academy to support graduate students and postdocs in writing research proposals. Its core program is a multi-week Proposal Bootcamp designed to increase the feedback writers receive as they develop and refine their proposals. The Proposal Bootcamp consisted of two-hour weekly meetings that included mini lectures and peer review. Bootcamp participants also attended faculty review workshops to obtain faculty feedback. Postdoctoral trainees were trained and hired as course teaching assistants and facilitated weekly meetings and review workshops. Over the last six years, the annual Bootcamp has provided 525 doctoral students and postdocs with multi-level feedback (peer and faculty). Proposals from Bootcamp participants were almost twice as likely to be funded than proposals from non-Bootcamp trainees. Overall, this structured program provided opportunities for feedback from multiple peer and faculty reviewers, increased the participants’ confidence in developing and submitting research proposals, while accommodating a large number of participants.