Application of Anatomical Knowledge by Final Year Dental Students of Integrated Curriculum: A Pilot Study

Title: Application of Anatomical Knowledge by Final Year Dental Students of Integrated Curriculum: A Pilot Study

Authors: Htar Htar Aung, Ankur Barua, Anupa Sivakumar, Khin Ma Ma

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v4i11.54

Abstract

References

Corresponding Author

Abstract

The integrated curriculum has been introduced in the Dental faculty of the designated institution since 2008. This study was aimed to evaluate the application of anatomical knowledge of final year undergraduate dental students of integrated curriculum, and to assess the perception of the both dental students and their lecturer on clinical application of anatomy. A cross-sectional study was conducted for 4 weeks among 40 final year undergraduate dental students and 18 lecturers. Students underwent an examination that included 6 Objective Structured Practical Examination (OSPE) and 20 One Best Answer (OBA) questions to test their application knowledge in clinical settings. A semi-structured, self-administrated questionnaire was used to identify their perceptions on the application of anatomical knowledge. The data were analysed by using SPSS 17. The Spearman’s Correlation test reported a significant, strong, positive correlation between the scores of OSPE and OBA. The Mann-Whitney U-test revealed statistically significant associations regarding the perception of both dental students and lecturers in terms of Problem based learning (PBL), practical sessions, Self-directed Learning (SDL), the strong surface anatomy knowledge, the usefulness of cadaver and the confidence in applying the anatomical knowledge. The present curriculum needs more interactive face to face sessions, small group discussions in practical sessions and more SDL in order to provide the strong foundations for undergraduate dental students in clinical anatomy.

Keywords: Anatomical knowledge, Application, Undergraduate, Dental student, Integrated curriculum.

References

1. Cahill DR, Leonard RJ. Missteps and masquerade in American medical acade-me: Clinical anatomists call for action. Clinical Anatomy. 1999; 12, pp.220-222.

2. Cahill DR, Leonard RJ, Marks SC Jr. A comment on recent teaching of human anatomy in the United States. Surgical Radiological Anatomy. 2000;22, pp.69-71.

3. Heylings DJ. The curriculum, who teaches it and how? Med Edu. 2002; 36, pp.702-710.

4. Miller SA, Perrotti W, Silverthorn DU, Dalley AF, Rarey KE. From college to clinic: reasoning overmemorization is key for understanding anatomy. Anat Rec. 2002; 269, pp.69-80.

5. AG Fincham and CF Shuler. The changing face of dental education: the impact of PBL. Journal of Dental Education. 2001; 65(5), pp.406-421.

6. Last K. S., Appleton J. and Stevenson, H. Basic science knowledge of dental students on conventional and problem-based learning (PBL) courses at Liverpool. European Journal of Dental Education. 2001; 5, pp.148-154.

7. BW Turney. Anatomy in modern curriculum. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2007; 89, pp.104-107.

8. Last K. S., Appleton J., Ferguson D. B. and Stevenson, H. The value of questionnaire in assessing the acquisition and retention of basic science knowledge by dental students. European Journal of Dental Education. 2000;4, pp.3–9.

9. Marcel FD. Knowledge loss of medical students on first year basic science courses at the University of Saskatchewan. BMC Medical Education. 2006; 6, pp.5.

10. Harrisons A. Using knowledge decrement to compare medical student’s long term retention of self-study and lecture materials. Assess and Eval in Higher Educ. 1995; 20, pp.149-159.

11. Mateen FJ, D'Eon MF. Neuroanatomy: a single institution study of knowledge loss. Med Teach.2008; 30(5), pp.537-539.

12. McKeow PP, Heylings DJA, Stevenson M, McKelvey KJ, Nixon JR, McCluskey DR. The impact of curricular change on medical student’s knowledge of anatomy. MedEduc. 2003;37(11), pp.954-961.

13. Othman Mansor. Use of Plastinated specimen in a medical school with a fully integrated curriculum. JISP 1996; 11(1), pp.16-17.

14. Drake RL. A unique, innovative, and clinically oriented approach to anatomy education. AcadMed 2007; 82(5), pp.475-478.

15. Nnodim JO, Ohanaka EC, Osuji CU. A follow-up comparative study of two modesof learning anatomy: by dissection and from prosections. Clinical Anatomy. 1996; 9(4), pp.258-262.

16. Azer SA, Eizenberg N. Do we need dissection in an intergrated problem-basedlearning medicalcourse? Perceptions of first – and second-year students. Sur Radiol Anat.course? Perceptions of first – and second-year students. Sur Radiol Anat.2007; 29(2),pp.173-180.

17. Rich SK, Keim RG, Shuler CF. Problem – Based Learning Versus a Traditional Education Methodology: A Comparison of Preclinical and clinical Periodontics Performance. Journal of Dental Educ Assoc. 2005; 69(6), pp.649-662.

18. Timothy Eyo Nottidge. Self-directed learning: Status of final year students and perceptions of faculty leadership in a Nigerian medical school – a mixed analysis study. 2014.

Abstract

References

Corresponding Author

Call For Paper Volume 12 Issue 10 November 2024

JMSCR Menu

Impact Factor SJIF 2024: 7.892

Crossref - DOI

Editorial Policy

Frequency of Publication

Submission of Articles

Search