Step‐by‐step teaching method improves the learner achievement in dental skill training

Introduction This study aimed to assess and compare the outcomes of all‐in‐one and step‐by‐step teaching methods in dental skill training. Methods Forty first‐year dental residents were recruited into this study, which was a prospective, double‐blind and randomised controlled trial. The learners wer...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of dental education 2019-08, Vol.23 (3), p.344-348
Hauptverfasser: Liu, Xiaoqiang, Liu, Mingyue, Yang, Yang, Fan, Cong, Tan, Jianguo
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction This study aimed to assess and compare the outcomes of all‐in‐one and step‐by‐step teaching methods in dental skill training. Methods Forty first‐year dental residents were recruited into this study, which was a prospective, double‐blind and randomised controlled trial. The learners were randomly allocated to either the all‐in‐one group (control group, n = 20) or the step‐by‐step group (experimental group, n = 20). They performed crown preparation on a plastic tooth under different training course structures. For the all‐in‐one group, the course comprised three parts: the teacher's lecture and demonstration and the learner's practice. Every part was carried out independently in turn. For the step‐by‐step group, the course was divided into six parts according to the procedures of crown preparation: incisal preparation, facial preparation, interproximal preparation, lingual preparation, marginal preparation, and finishing and polishing. Every part, consisting of the teacher's lecture and demonstration and the learner's practice, was carried out step‐by‐step. Thereafter, the training outcome was evaluated by the learners, two experts and a digital system. Results For the outcomes of the all‐in‐one group and the step‐by‐step group, the learners’ assessments were 6.15 ± 1.98 and 8.10 ± 1.41, the experts’ assessments were 7.00 ± 1.75 and 8.40 ± 1.10, and the digital assessments were 6.43 ± 1.20 and 7.62 ± 0.51, respectively. In terms of each evaluation index, there was significant difference between the two groups (P 
ISSN:1396-5883
1600-0579
DOI:10.1111/eje.12435