A Saito1, K Fujinami. 1. Department of Clinical Oral Health Science, Tokyo Dental College, Tokyo, Japan. atsaito@tdc.ac.jp
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the formal debate as an active learning strategy within a postgraduate specialty track education programme in periodontics. METHODS: A formal debate was implemented as an active learning strategy in the programme. The participants were full-time faculty, residents and dentists attending special courses at a teaching hospital in Japan. They were grouped into two evenly matched opposing teams, judges and audience. As a preparation for the debate, the participants attended a lecture on critical thinking. At the time of debate, each team provided a theme report with a list of references. Performances and contents of the debate were evaluated by the course instructors and audience. Pre- and post-debate testing was used to assess the participants' objective knowledge on clinical periodontology. RESULTS: Evaluation of the debate by the participants revealed that scores for criteria, such as presentation performance, response with logic and rebuttal effectiveness were relatively low. Thirty-eight per cent of the participants demonstrated higher test scores after the debate, although there was no statistically significant difference in the mean scores between pre- and post-tests. At the end of the debate, vast majority of participants recognised the significance and importance of the formal debate in the programme. CONCLUSION: It was suggested that the incorporation of the formal debate could serve as an educational tool for the postgraduate specialty track programme.
AIM: To evaluate the formal debate as an active learning strategy within a postgraduate specialty track education programme in periodontics. METHODS: A formal debate was implemented as an active learning strategy in the programme. The participants were full-time faculty, residents and dentists attending special courses at a teaching hospital in Japan. They were grouped into two evenly matched opposing teams, judges and audience. As a preparation for the debate, the participants attended a lecture on critical thinking. At the time of debate, each team provided a theme report with a list of references. Performances and contents of the debate were evaluated by the course instructors and audience. Pre- and post-debate testing was used to assess the participants' objective knowledge on clinical periodontology. RESULTS: Evaluation of the debate by the participants revealed that scores for criteria, such as presentation performance, response with logic and rebuttal effectiveness were relatively low. Thirty-eight per cent of the participants demonstrated higher test scores after the debate, although there was no statistically significant difference in the mean scores between pre- and post-tests. At the end of the debate, vast majority of participants recognised the significance and importance of the formal debate in the programme. CONCLUSION: It was suggested that the incorporation of the formal debate could serve as an educational tool for the postgraduate specialty track programme.