Faculty of Health, Department of Operative Dentistry and Preventive Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Witten/Herdecke University, 58448, Witten, Germany.
Faculty of Health, Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Technology, School of Dentistry, Witten/Herdecke University, 58448, Witten, Germany.
Sci Rep. 2024 Jan 17;14(1):1514. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-51953-4.
The aim of this study was to reduce discrepancies between students and instructors in a preclinical dental course by employing structured peer feedback based on a detailed evaluation sheet. In a crossover study of dental students (n = 32), which compared peer feedback using an evaluation sheet (test) with the traditional method (control), participants completed tasks involving cavity and partial crown preparation. The practical tasks were scored numerically on a scale ranging from one (excellent) to six (failure). The amount of feedback provided by the instructor was also recorded. Statistical analysis was conducted using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (p < 0.05). Regarding cavity preparation, no statistically significant difference was observed (median (25th-75th percentile)) between the grades received by the test (2.00 (1.50-3.00)) and control groups (2.25 (2.00-3.00)). However, the grades pertaining to partial crown preparation exhibited a statistically significant difference between the test (2.25 (2.00-2.50)) and control (2.50 (2.00-3.00)) groups. LimeSurvey and five-finger feedback were used to assess satisfaction with the new method, revealing that most students found the evaluation sheet and peer feedback to be effective. Within the limitations of this study, structured peer feedback using the evaluation sheet positively impacted grades pertaining to partial crown preparation, requiring less instructor feedback.
本研究旨在通过使用基于详细评估表的结构化同伴反馈来减少口腔预科课程中学生和教师之间的差异。在一项涉及 32 名牙科学员的交叉研究中,比较了使用评估表(测试)的同伴反馈与传统方法(对照),参与者完成了涉及窝洞和部分牙冠预备的任务。实际任务的评分范围从 1(优秀)到 6(失败)。还记录了教师提供的反馈量。使用 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验(p < 0.05)进行统计分析。关于窝洞预备,测试组(2.00(1.50-3.00))和对照组(2.25(2.00-3.00))的成绩之间未观察到统计学差异(中位数(25 分位数-75 分位数))。然而,部分牙冠预备的成绩在测试组(2.25(2.00-2.50))和对照组(2.50(2.00-3.00))之间存在统计学差异。使用 LimeSurvey 和五指反馈评估对新方法的满意度,发现大多数学生认为评估表和同伴反馈是有效的。在本研究的限制范围内,使用评估表的结构化同伴反馈对部分牙冠预备的成绩产生了积极影响,需要较少的教师反馈。