Dental Students’ Perceptions of Learning Value in PBL Groups with Medical and Dental Students Together versus Dental Students Alone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At a dental school in Canada, problem-based learning (PBL) sessions were restructured from an integrated dental-medical model to a separate dental model, resulting in three groups of students available for study: those who had participated in the two-year dental and medical combined, the one-year dental and medical combined, the one-year dental alone, and the two-year dental alone. The aim of this qualitative study was to examine the extent to which the PBL structure affected the dental students' perceptions of the learning value of PBL in the different models. A total of 34 first-, second-, and third-year dental students participated in six focus groups in May and June 2011 (34% of students in those total classes). Semistructured questions explored their experiences in the different PBL structures. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was employed. The results showed positive and negative perceptions for both the combined dental and medical settings and the settings with dental students alone. For students in the combined PBL groups, positive perceptions included gaining information from medical peers, motivation to learn, and interdisciplinary collaborations. The negative perceptions mainly related to irrelevant content, dominating medical students, and ineffective preceptors. Members of the separate dental groups were more positive about the content and felt a sense of belonging. They appreciated the dental preceptors but were concerned about the inadequacy of their medical knowledge. Overall, the dental students valued the combined PBL experience and appreciated the opportunity to learn with their medical colleagues. Close attention, however, must be paid to PBL content and the preceptor's role to optimize dental students' experience in combined medical and dental groups.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".