Dental Faculty Members’ Pedagogic Beliefs and Curriculum Aims in Problem‐Based Learning: An Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this exploratory study were to explore dental faculty members' views and beliefs regarding knowledge, the dental profession, and teaching and learning and to determine how these views related to their problem-based learning (PBL) instructional practices. Prior to a PBL in dental education conference held in 2011, all attendees were invited to complete a survey focused on their pedagogical beliefs and practices in PBL. Out of a possible 55 participants, 28 responded. Additionally, during the conference, a forum was held in which preliminary survey findings were shared and participants contributed to focus group data collection. The forum results served to validate and bring deeper understanding to the survey findings. The conference participants who joined the forum (N=32) likely included some or many of the anonymous respondents to the survey, along with additional participants interested in dental educators' beliefs. The findings of the survey and follow-up forum indicated a disconnect between dental educators' reported views of knowledge and their pedagogical practices in a PBL environment. The results suggested that the degree of participants' tolerance of uncertainty in knowledge and the discrepancy between their epistemological and ontological beliefs about PBL pedagogy influenced their pedagogical choices. These findings support the idea that learner-centered, inquiry-based pedagogical approaches such as PBL may create dissonance between beliefs about knowledge and pedagogical practice that require the building of a shared understanding of and commitment to curricular goals prior to implementation to ensure success. The methods used in this study can be useful tools for faculty development in PBL programs in dental education.
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 | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".