...
首页> 外文期刊>Advances in Health Sciences Education >Evaluation of Two Different Teaching Concepts in Dentistry Using Computer Technology
【24h】

Evaluation of Two Different Teaching Concepts in Dentistry Using Computer Technology

机译:利用计算机技术评估牙科中两种不同的教学理念

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

The common teaching goal of two different phantom head courses was to enable the students to provide an all-ceramic restoration by the means of computer technology. The aim of this study was to compare these two courses with regard to the different educational methods using identical computer software. Undergraduate dental students from a single year were randomly assigned to two different courses. One course was a conventional teacher-centred course [TRAD]. The other course contained problem-based learning (PBL) oriented structured modules [HYBRID]. The students completed an evaluation based on a 25 item seven-point Likert scale. Two independent evaluators assessed the practical work. Differences between TRAD and HYBRID were tested for significance using the Mann–Whitney U-test (at p ≤ 0.05). Both courses were rated as demanding. The HYBRID group rated those items significantly better, which focused on course atmosphere and student–teacher relationship. The TRAD group felt that their course was more satisfying. Practical results of the two groups did not differ significantly. Within the limits of the study it was revealed, that the␣HYBRID group was less satisfied with the own success although the learning conditions were rated better. This could be interpreted in two ways: (1) the PBL oriented course lead the␣students to more self skepticism to their own work or (2) due to increased intellectual␣demands and the lack of detailed guidelines the course was felt as more burdening.
机译:两种不同的幻象头部课程的共同教学目标是使学生能够通过计算机技术进行全瓷修复。这项研究的目的是使用相同的计算机软件,针对不同的教育方法比较这两门课程。一年内的牙科本科生被随机分配到两个不同的课程。一门课程是传统的以教师为中心的课程[TRAD]。另一门课程包含面向问题的学习(PBL)的结构化模块[HYBRID]。学生根据25项七分李克特量表完成了评估。两名独立评估员评估了实际工作。使用Mann-Whitney U检验(P≤0.05)对TRAD和HYBRID之间的差异进行了显着性检验。这两个课程均被评为高要求。 HYBRID小组对这些项目的评价要好得多,重点放在课程气氛和学生与教师之间的关系上。 TRAD小组认为他们的课程更加令人满意。两组的实际结果没有显着差异。在研究范围内,尽管学习条件的评分较高,但␣HYBRID组对自己的成功并不满意。这可以用两种方式来解释:(1)面向PBL的课程使学生对自己的工作更加自我怀疑;或者(2)由于知识需求的增加和缺乏详细指导方针,该课程被认为是负担更大的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号