Use of “Weekly goal oriented teaching method” for dental nursing students during the outpatient clinical internship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Given the current rapid development of the profession, great emphasis in dental nursing education is focused on clinical internship training. The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of the “Weekly Goal Oriented Teaching Method” for dental nursing students during their outpatient clinical internship.Methods: A quasi-experimental study was carried out among students enrolled in the dental nursing major during the 2012 school year. They were randomly divided into two separate study groups according to their scheduled outpatient clinic internship schedule. The students scheduled for their outpatient clinic internship during the first four months (Months 1-4) were placed in the control group. The instructors in the control group utilized conventional teaching methods. Students scheduled during the following four months (Months 5-8) were placed in the experimental group using the “Weekly Goal Oriented Teaching Method”. Comparison of both groups included the student’s examination scores, student evaluation about the clinical internship training, and the nursing instructor’s evaluation of the student’s learning experience.Results: Compared to the control group, the students in the experimental group had examination scores that were statistically significant higher in the Department of Oral and Reconstructive Surgery, Orthodontics, and the Four-Hand Operation Department (p < .05). The student evaluation of the clinical internship in the experimental group significantly surpassed the student evaluation in the control group in the areas of internship planning, teaching methods, and student-teacher communication (p < .05). The clinical nursing instructor’s teacher evaluation scores given to the students in the experimental group surpassed the evaluation scores for students in the control group in the fields of technical learning skills, and communication skills (p < .05).Conclusions: The use of the “Weekly Goal Oriented Teaching Method” can improve and promote acquiring the essential professional skills and knowledge, enhance internship planning, improve teaching methods, and strengthen teacher–student communication. In addition, the “Weekly Goal Oriented Teaching Method” can emphasize principles of nursing theory and compassionate care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".