Tue, Apr 15, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 17, Issue 54 (2024)
JMED 2024, 17(54): 51-57 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.NASRME.REC.1400.264
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Sheikhi M, Mostajabi M. The impact of team teaching on cephalometric tracing education among dental students: A quasi-experimental study. JMED 2024; 17 (54) :51-57
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-1843-en.html
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-1843-en.html
1- Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran , mostafasheikhi9045@gmail.com
2- Department of oral and maxillofacial radiology, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of oral and maxillofacial radiology, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract: (1278 Views)
Background & Objectives: Cephalometric tracing education in orthodontics necessitates a thorough review of human anatomy. Juggling expertise in two fields poses a challenge for professors. A collaborative solution, such as the team teaching model where two professors jointly instruct students, was explored in this study to investigate its impact on teaching cephalometric tracing to dental students in Zanjan during 2021-2022.
Materials & Methods: This quasi-experimental study involved the participation of all 67 dental students across two semesters in 2021 and 2022. In a shared classroom setting, the orthodontist traced the cephalogram image on the whiteboard, and immediately the radiologist described the related bones using software. This interactive teaching approach persisted throughout the class. At the conclusion of each session, students were given a teaching satisfaction form and a researcher-developed questionnaire containing anatomy questions. Descriptive statistics, including frequency and percentage, were employed, and a Paired T-test was conducted for analytical statistics (p-value = 0.05).
Results: The overall satisfaction percentage of students was 79.75% (563 of 706 response).The highest level of satisfaction was related to the satisfaction with the teaching method. The highest level of dissatisfaction was related to saving time. A comparison of the mean scores of the pretest and posttest showed no significant increase in learning.
Conclusion: Student satisfaction with team teaching is notably high, particularly in relation to the teaching method. However, challenges related to time efficiency were identified as a drawback of this teaching model. Taking into account the study's limitations, it was concluded that team teaching did not significantly impact the learning rate.
Materials & Methods: This quasi-experimental study involved the participation of all 67 dental students across two semesters in 2021 and 2022. In a shared classroom setting, the orthodontist traced the cephalogram image on the whiteboard, and immediately the radiologist described the related bones using software. This interactive teaching approach persisted throughout the class. At the conclusion of each session, students were given a teaching satisfaction form and a researcher-developed questionnaire containing anatomy questions. Descriptive statistics, including frequency and percentage, were employed, and a Paired T-test was conducted for analytical statistics (p-value = 0.05).
Results: The overall satisfaction percentage of students was 79.75% (563 of 706 response).The highest level of satisfaction was related to the satisfaction with the teaching method. The highest level of dissatisfaction was related to saving time. A comparison of the mean scores of the pretest and posttest showed no significant increase in learning.
Conclusion: Student satisfaction with team teaching is notably high, particularly in relation to the teaching method. However, challenges related to time efficiency were identified as a drawback of this teaching model. Taking into account the study's limitations, it was concluded that team teaching did not significantly impact the learning rate.
Article Type : Orginal Research |
Subject:
Medical Education
Received: 2023/01/30 | Accepted: 2023/12/15 | Published: 2024/05/10
Received: 2023/01/30 | Accepted: 2023/12/15 | Published: 2024/05/10
References
1. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Larson B, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics-e-book. 6th ed: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2018. 174 p.
2. Phulari B. An atlas on cephalometric landmarks. first ed: JP Medical Ltd; 2013. p3. [DOI]
3. The curriculum of general dental doctorate course - 2016. [Accessed: Mar. 13, 2020]. Available from: [Article]
4. Nasiri M, Nasiri M, Adarvishi S, Hadigol T. Anatomy education through mobile learning compering to lecture is more effective on medicine students’ knowledge retention. Journal of Medical Education Development. 2014;7(14):94-103.
5. Khadem Rezaiyan M, Zahedi Avval F, Ghazvini K, Youssefi M. Medical and dentistry students’ viewpoints about physician-scientists as their basic science educators. Journal of Medical Education Development. 2016;9(23):122-9.
6. Sharma S, Ali A, Takhelmayum R, Mahto M, Nair R. Co-teaching: exploring an alternative for integrated curriculum. Journal of the National Medical Association. 2017;109(2):93-7. [DOI]
7. Klaassen RG. Interdisciplinary education: a case study. European journal of engineering education. 2018;43(6):842-59. [DOI]
8. Johnson B. Deeper learning: why cross-curricular teaching is essential 2014. [Accessed: Mar. 17, 2020]. Available from: [Article]
9. King-Sears ME, Strogilos V. An exploratory study of self-efficacy, school belongingness, and co-teaching perspectives from middle school students and teachers in a mathematics co-taught classroom. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 2020;24(2):162-80. [DOI]
10. Dagli O, Akcamete G, Guneyli A. Impact of co-teaching approach in inclusive education settings on the development of reading skills. International Journal of Education. 2020;8(1):1-17. [DOI]
11. Albahusain W. A co-teaching training program’s impact on female student teachers: department of special education, king saud university. SAGE Open. 2022;12(1):1-13. [DOI]
12. Hogikyan E, Stojan J, Grob K, de Grave W, Mullan P, Daniel M. Co-teaching in an undergraduate clinical skills course: physicians and social behavioural scientists use a shared mental model to highlight complementary aspects of medical interviewing and physical exam skills. MedEdPublish. 2019;8:211. [DOI]
13. Willey JM, Lim YS, Kwiatkowski T. Modeling integration: co-teaching basic and clinical sciences medicine in the classroom. Advances in medical education and practice. 2018;9:739. [DOI]
14. Mir H, Parsian H, Jahanian I, Shabestani Monfared A, Shirkhani Kelagari Z, Halalkhor S. Evaluation of student’s satisfaction with team teaching in babol university of medical sciences, iran, in 2011-2012. Strides in Development of Medical Education. 2015;12(1):90-7.
15. Satayev M, Balta N, Shaymerdenovna IR, Fernández-Cézar R, Alcaraz-Mármol G. Content and language integrated learning implementation through team teaching in biology lessons: a quasi-experimental design with university students. Frontiers in Education. 2022;7:1-11. [DOI]
16. Mc Donald AC, Green RA, Zacharias A, Whitburn LY, Hughes DL, Colasante M, et al. Anatomy students that are ‘team‐taught’may achieve better results than those that are ‘sole‐taught’. Anatomical Sciences Education. 2020; accepted article: [Article]
17. Peiman S, Mirzazadeh A, Alizadeh M, Hejri SM, Najafi M-T, Tafakhori A, et al. A case based-shared teaching approach in undergraduate medical curriculum: a way for integration in basic and clinical sciences. Acta Medica Iranica. 2017:259-64.
18. Borim Nejad L, Sajadi Hezaveh M, Khosravi S. The effect of learning contract on self-directed learning and satisfaction of nursing students in clinical education. Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 2016;14(12):1084-92 [persian]. [DOI]
19. Koong B. The basic principles of radiological interpretation. Australian Dental Journal. 2012;57:33-9. [Article]
20. Potter JA, Swartz LB, Cole MT. Student satisfaction with team-taught interdisciplinary courses. International Journal of Multidisciplinary and Current Educational Research. 2021;3:37-49.
21. Arkiang F, Adwiah R. The implementation of team teaching learning method on Islamic education subject in Kupang elementary school. Conciencia. 2020;20(1):66-76. [DOI]
22. Roberts CA. Bilingual education program models: A framework for understanding. Bilingual research journal. 1995;19(3-4):369-78. [DOI]
23. Goetz K. Perspectives on team teaching: A semester I independent inquiry. EGallery. 2000;1.
24. Muza SH. Team teaching approach on academic performance of students in faculty of education. The Universal Academic Research Journal. 2021;2(2):58-63. [DOI]
25. Anwar K, Asari S, Husniah R, Asmara CH. Students' perceptions of collaborative team teaching and student achievement motivation. International Journal of Instruction. 2021;14(1):325-44. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
