Exodontia Block Course Evaluation: A Review of the Learning Outcomes, Content, and Assessment Practices at a Dental Faculty in South Africa.

Introduction: Regular curriculum renewal ensures relevant and responsive curricula. Skills development courses, such as for dental extraction procedures, require the same rigorous review, as this skill demands both technical proficiencies and a high level of cognition. In South Africa, the high burden of dental disease, in particular pain and sepsis, relies on competent graduate exodontia (tooth extraction) abilities. However, research on evidence-based instruction in this field is limited. This action research study emanated from the goal of enhancing the Exodontia Block Course by integrating a teaching and learning strategy proven to develop psychomotor skills. The first step in the broader research study involved evaluating the traditional course. This study thus aimed to evaluate a traditional exodontia block course, gaining insight into its curricular components prior to redesigning it.

Materials and methods: An interpretive qualitative study employed appreciative inquiry for data collection. A purposive sampling strategy was employed. Six focus group discussions were conducted with homogeneous groups of undergraduate dental students (n = 13), clinical teachers (n = 10), and dentist practitioners (n = 7). Audio recordings were transcribed, and data underwent coding and thematic analysis.

Results: This paper presents the findings pertaining to three curricular elements, namely the objectives, content, and assessment. The larger study identified four main themes: integration of skills and knowledge, block course structure, challenges, and recommendations for improvement. The study found that overall the students were satisfied with the content presented in the course. Recommendations to improve the course, however, were to include the use of elevators as a learning outcome of the course and the inclusion of an additional practical assessment. Challenges associated with the course related to the duration of the course and the presentation of non-relevant content. The course content revealed discrepancies between the material covered and the intended learning outcomes, with students noting insufficient focus on elevator/luxator use in extractions. Concerns were raised about including non-exodontia content, including a call for standardised terminology and locally developed teaching materials. Assessment methods were largely well received, but issues emerged regarding unlimited assessment attempts potentially reducing student accountability. Suggestions included limiting assessment opportunities and incorporating OSCE formats for preclinical evaluation to enhance rigour and student learning.

Conclusions: The evaluation highlighted the strengths of the course as well as areas requiring reflection and emendation. Whilst the course was adequate to meet its objectives, areas for redress included instrumentation adaptations such as the combined use of elevators and luxators in intra-alveolar (simple, or non-surgical) extractions. A call for standardised terminology, locally developed teaching materials, and a broader array of assessment types was recommended. Additionally, issues emerged regarding unlimited assessment attempts potentially reducing student accountability. The need for future initiatives that focus on developing a nationally standardised competency-based curriculum was also foregrounded. Follow-up research would be required to investigate the impact of the implementation of the revised course.