MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An “XL” Endodontics Intervention for Dental Students Required to Repeat the Course: Changing Frustration to Improved Grades and Attitudes

2015· article· en· W2308963819 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marcela Alcota, A V Miguel Fuenzalida., Claudia Barrientos, Mauricio Garrido, Pilar Ruiz de Gaúna, Fermín E. González

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Education · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad de ChileFaculty of Dentistry, McGill University
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Competence (human resources)EndodonticsMedicineMedical educationPsychologyFamily medicineNursingDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the psychological and financial costs involved with failing a clinical course, especially in developing countries, an alternative educational method was tested with students who had to repeat the year-long endodontic course at the University of Chile Faculty of Dentistry. The objectives of the intervention were to deepen theoretical knowledge and practical experiences, as well as to reinforce personal confidence in an endodontic clinical setting for students who failed the regular endodontic course. The aim of this study was to evaluate the success of this new model of educational intervention. In the study, 28 students who had failed the endodontic course repeated it with an alternative teaching method. The students attended patients immediately following practical competence exams, and they had access to simulated models that used rotary instruments and access cavities and had emergency care practice. Feedback sessions were held after each clinical session. Final grades were compared with those of other students who repeated the course without the intervention from 2007 to 2009. A survey was administered to understand the causes of initial failure and their opinions of the intervention. Students who participated in the alternative course did significantly better than their counterparts from previous years who did not receive the intervention (5.7±0.3 vs. 5.4±0.2; p<0.05). Their overall perception of the intervention was positive, and the main cause for previous course failure was personal insecurity and slow clinical care performance (54.2% of the students). The intervention course not only improved grades but also generated interest in endodontics, a contrasting perspective to the frustration students usually express after repeating the course. The results of this study support the introduction of similar interventions in endodontics and perhaps other courses.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.400 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dental EducationSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207