Potential of active learning in dentistry: A comparative study of Jigsaw versus inquired-based learning.

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Meghna Bhandary, Charisma Thimmaiah, Mohammed Shahid, Yashaswini Shetty, Ananya Rao K
{"title":"Potential of active learning in dentistry: A comparative study of Jigsaw versus inquired-based learning.","authors":"Meghna Bhandary, Charisma Thimmaiah, Mohammed Shahid, Yashaswini Shetty, Ananya Rao K","doi":"10.1002/jdd.13678","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the efficacy of Jigsaw and Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) methods in promoting effective learning outcomes within diverse dental educational settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 188 dental undergraduate students were recruited for the study and divided into Batch A (n = 96) and Batch B (n = 92). Each batch underwent two teaching sessions, one using the Jigsaw method and the other using IBL. A structured questionnaire using five-point Likert scales assessed students' preferences between the two methods. Pre- and post-intervention tests were conducted to measure knowledge acquisition. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t-test with STATA version 17, with a p-value of < 0.05 considered significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both Jigsaw and IBL methods significantly improved students' knowledge, with mean scores showing a significant difference before and after interventions (p < 0.001). IBL was more effective in comprehensive topic coverage (99.46%) and enhancing subject understanding. Both methods yielded comparable outcomes in terms of improving communication skills. The Jigsaw method was simpler and more enjoyable, encouraging active participation and enhancing communication skills. IBL promoted critical thinking, research skills, and deeper comprehension of concepts.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Jigsaw and IBL methods are both effective in enhancing dental education. The choice between these methods depends on the specific learning objectives, the complexity of the topic, and the preferences of the dental educator and students.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jdd.13678","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy of Jigsaw and Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) methods in promoting effective learning outcomes within diverse dental educational settings.

Methods: A total of 188 dental undergraduate students were recruited for the study and divided into Batch A (n = 96) and Batch B (n = 92). Each batch underwent two teaching sessions, one using the Jigsaw method and the other using IBL. A structured questionnaire using five-point Likert scales assessed students' preferences between the two methods. Pre- and post-intervention tests were conducted to measure knowledge acquisition. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t-test with STATA version 17, with a p-value of < 0.05 considered significant.

Results: Both Jigsaw and IBL methods significantly improved students' knowledge, with mean scores showing a significant difference before and after interventions (p < 0.001). IBL was more effective in comprehensive topic coverage (99.46%) and enhancing subject understanding. Both methods yielded comparable outcomes in terms of improving communication skills. The Jigsaw method was simpler and more enjoyable, encouraging active participation and enhancing communication skills. IBL promoted critical thinking, research skills, and deeper comprehension of concepts.

Conclusion: Jigsaw and IBL methods are both effective in enhancing dental education. The choice between these methods depends on the specific learning objectives, the complexity of the topic, and the preferences of the dental educator and students.

牙科主动学习的潜力:拼图式学习与探究式学习的比较研究。
目的比较拼图式学习法和探究式学习法(IBL)在不同口腔医学教育环境中促进有效学习成果的效果:研究共招募了 188 名口腔医学本科生,并将其分为 A 批(96 人)和 B 批(92 人)。每批学生都接受了两堂教学课,一堂使用拼图法,另一堂使用综合学习法。采用五点李克特量表的结构化问卷调查了学生对两种方法的偏好。此外,还进行了干预前和干预后测试,以衡量学生的知识掌握情况。统计分析采用 STATA 17 版的学生 t 检验,P 值为 结果:拼图法和 IBL 法都显著提高了学生的知识水平,平均分在干预前后有显著差异(p 结论:拼图法和 IBL 法都是一种有效的学习方法:拼图法和 IBL 法都能有效提高口腔医学教育。如何选择这两种方法取决于具体的学习目标、课题的复杂程度以及口腔教育者和学生的偏好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信