Dental Students’ Achievement and Satisfaction of Two Learning Methods in an Orthodontic Case Seminar, Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai University
Objective: This study compared two teaching methods, the applied dialogue and team teaching, in terms of student achievement and satisfaction.
Material and methods: This study was an experiment study in class. Sixty-four sixth year dental students, enrolled in an orthodontic clinical case seminar at the Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai University, were selected as samples. The applied dialogue method using one facilitator was conducted for 33 students, and the team teaching method using two facilitators was arranged for 31 students. Both methods focused on identical orthodontic contents. Data were collected using a knowledge achievement test and a learning satisfaction questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to provide basic information. The T-test and Chi-square test were used for analysis. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: The post-test score on the knowledge achievement test significantly increased compared to the pre-test score for both methods (p-value < 0.01). The difference in knowledge achievement score between both methods was not statistically significant (p-value = 0.377). On almost all aspects of satisfaction, the scores of the applied dialogue group were significant higher than those of the team teaching group (p-value < 0.05). The students were most impressed by the facilitators’ behaviors in both methods, especially friendliness, relaxation, attention, enthusiasm and giving a chance for them to express their opinions.
Conclusions: Both the applied dialogue and team teaching methods similarly enhanced student achievement. In addition, the most important factors are the facilitators’ behaviors for learning process.
1. McHarg J, Kay EJ. Designing a dental curriculum for the twenty-first century. Br Dent J 2009; 207: 493-497.
2. Wichan P. How to reate learning rocess for the learners. Bangkok: Tatata Publication; 2012: 15, 80-81 (in Thai).
3. Exley K, Dennick R. Small group eaching: Tutorials, Seminars and eyond. London: RoutledgeFalmer; 2001: 3-5.
4. Sweet J, Huttly S, Taylor I. Effective learning and eaching in edical, ental and eterinary education. London: Kogan Page Limited, 2003: 101-105.
5. Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai University. Curriculum details Doctor of Dental Surgery Program, Improved curriculum 2010. Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai University, 2010 (in Thai).
6. Warwick D. Team eaching. London: Uiversity of London Press Ltd, 1971: 14-18, 23-31.
7. Gaytan J. Instructional strategies to accommodate a team-teaching approach. BCQ 2010; 73(1): 82- 87.
8. Letterman MR, Dugan KB. Team teaching a cross-disciplinary honors course: preparation and development. College Teaching 2004; 52(2): 76-79.
9. Wisit W. (2548). Dialogue. Bangkok: Suannganmena Publication, 2005: 7-11, 26 (in Thai).
10. Petcharat P. Dialogue. Bangkok: Suannganmena Publication, 2011: 41-110 (in Thai).
11. Lachman SH. Learning is a process: Toward an improved definition of learning. J Psychol 1997; 131(5): 477-480.
12. Pan W, Hawryszkiewycz I. A method of defining learning processes. Proceedings of the 21st the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Conference: Beyond the comfort zone. 5-8 December 2004, at Perth Australia.
13. Kerridge J, Kyle G, Marks-Maran D. Evaluation of the use of team teaching for delivering sensitive content - a pilot study. JFHE 2009; 33(2): 93-103.
14. Carpenter D, Crawford L, Walden R. Testing the efficacy of team teaching. earning Environ Res 2007; 10: 53-65.
15. Yellowley W, Farmer M. Team teaching in higher education: Reflections on the added value of team teaching on student and staff learning experiences. Int J earning 2005/2006; 12(6): 85-89.
16. Game A, Metcalfe A. Dialogue and team teaching. HERD 2009; 28(1): 45-57.