Our final blog post! What a semester we have had. We’ve discussed the various roles of clinical instructors, bloom’s taxonomy relating to clinical instruction, theoretical approaches to the psychomotor domain, clinical teaching behaviors and strategies, promoting critical thinking, evaluation, remediation, clinic issues…phew! I hope this course has providing you with a starting point to engage and understand student learning in the clinical environment. Our final topic is ethics. This is not a word that is new to you, but you may have considered it more from a dental hygiene provider viewpoint rather than an instructor.

For Blog Post #7, I’d like you to discuss what ethics means to you and how it differs from law. After reading the book chapter and especially chapter 10 in HCT (PDF), what ethical situations do see yourself facing in the future as a clinical instructor? How will you protect yourself as a faculty member?

It has been a great semester! This course has by far prepared me the most for what I currently feel I will be doing in my future career as a dental hygiene educator. I feel as if every week the topics and assignments were always challenging and motivating me to do my best. I found every topic we covered valuable, but there were a few areas in particular that I know have helped develop the educator in me.

1) Active learning techniques–

I value this topic so much because I think active learning is what is missed by a lot of educators–not only dental hygiene. Techniques to get students to participate, collaborate, and take part in their learning not only makes the class more enjoyable, but students learn more effectively. Gone are the days of standing in front of a PowerPoint and sounding like the teacher in the Peanuts. Without learning these techniques, I may have known the ways we can engage our students.

2) Course Format–

This was a must have. So much is put into creating a syllabus and rubric that I had no idea about. I can’t imagine being told to create these things in my future courses without learning what makes them useful! Rubrics are so underutilized but so helpful in guiding the students to produce what you expect. Very happy we covered these topics.

3) Technology–

The alternative technology assignment along with the previous blog post on technology really got me searching into what is available for teachers. Many of these resources are free or very inexpensive and can add a lot to the classroom. 21st century students thrive with technology and this topic pushed me to explore the possibilities. We went beyond learning about innovative teaching and using technology to actually finding the technology, presenting it, and explaining how we would incorporate it into our future classes. Really high order thinking!

I could go on and on about how this class will effect my future teaching. Definitely got my money’s worth for the class!

There is such an ample amount of technology that can be brought into the classroom, especially with all of the clinical material in dental hygiene. I would love to incorporate iPad and/or mobile app technology into my classroom and clinical sessions. There are 3 specific types of mobile app technology that I think are realistic and useful in dental hygiene education.

1) The concept of Virtual Reality Learning Objects (VRLO) enables the student to find out, to explore and to build their own knowledge. For didactic courses, these VRLO could be used in periodontology, for example, to show 3D images of the disease process, instead of just step by step pictures. They could be used to show procedures. I remember learning about “Guided Tissue Regeneration” but it was just words. Showing the student through an app could be very useful. The research using mobile app technology this is limited in the field of dentistry. There are many research studies that focus on apps for K-12 education,  however, finding evidence of use in dentistry or the medical field is challenging. If I were to use a VRLO app in my classroom, I would have to conduct my own research to see if the students were benefiting. Some outcomes I would look at would be learning outcomes (grades) from past years and compare them to after implementation, and also surveying the students to see their opinion and satisfaction with the learning. Also, motivation for learning could also be of value, as some research has suggested using VRLO can aide in student motivation.

But, check THIS out!

“Using Mixed-Reality Technology to Teach Techniques for Administering Local Anesthesia” Hanson, Kami M. ProQuest LLC, Ed.D. Dissertation, Utah State University.

This research study was actually conducted because dental hygiene educators wanted to find an effective way to teach local anesthesia administration without the use of peers as guinea pigs. The first challenge of this research project was creating an app that would show 3D imaging of the oral cavity and allows students to manipulate the  images and get a spatial sense. After they refined the app, students used it to learn concepts of local anesthesia, technique, etc. Although the results did not show that students developed a better technique after using the app, it did show that the students were more knowledgeable about local anesthesia concepts and students reported feeling more confident after using the app. Cool!

2) Another app I think could be valuable to my students would be study aides like “Study Blue” and “Pass-it.” Study Blue is a FREE app that allows students to create and share flashcards for studying purposes. I would utilize this app by having students create a certain # of flash cards as an assignment. After reviewing them, we would then share them with the rest of the students as a help for studying. Maybe we could even utilize them during class time; get into small groups and go over flash cards together. This combines constructivism (making the flash cards) with collaborative learning (sharing and discussing). I think this app could be utilized in any course, but would especially lend itself well to course such as pain management. “Pass-it” is a very similar flash card app that has a dental hygiene edition, and it is intended to help students when study for the national board exam. Although the flash cards in this app are already formulated, this could be utilized in the same way I described earlier in a board review class. Again, I could find no research on the exact apps I described, however there is some research to show that students have a positive attitude toward using this kind of mobile technology. “Adapting to Student Learning Styles: Engaging Students with Cell Phone Technology in Organic Chemistry Instruction.” Pursell, David P.Journal of Chemical Education, v86 n10 p1219-1222 Oct 2009. This study showed students have a positive attitude toward using their cell-phones for flash cards, and they are planning to do a more detailed study to investigate learning outcomes.

3) My third and final mobile app technology has to do with iPads in the clinic setting. The American Dental Educator’s Association (ADEA) came out with an article entitled “There’s and App for That?” of a pilot project by the University of the Pacific Arthur A. Dugoni School of Dentistry. This dental school brought iPads that were equipped with a special application into their clinic. The app consists of photos, diagrams, and animations of common dental diseases/conditions and dental procedures. The spearhead of this project stated that the app allows students to show patients a strong visual aide and helps their communication skills in presenting prevention recommendations and treatment options. Although more investigation is needed in this technology, I think this is a great way to increase a student’s communication skills. We all know there are plenty of skilled dental hygienists/dentists/doctors that just lack communication skills. This app could help student foster the confidence needed when communication treatment with patients. I’m thinking this could be a great project for any of us doing an internship in the clinic setting!

To read the ADEA article: http://www.adea.org/BDEBlog.aspx?id=20604&blogid=27619

In order to determine the best types of assessment for a course (or entire dental hygiene program), it is essential that one looks at the goals and objectives of a course AND the program goals. “The more clearly you have stated your instructional objectives and learning outcomes, the more helpful they will be in assisting you in your decision on how to assess them” (GALO pg. 63). As we have learned through our previous courses, all dental hygiene course goals need to align with the program goals. Therefore, when considering assessment types, we need to choose an appropriate assessment for the course as well as program goals. One of OSU’s entry-level dental hygiene program is:

1. The Dental Hygiene Program will prepare students for practice and licensure as a Registered Dental Hygienist (RDH).

This is the first goal of the dental hygiene program. A student cannot achieve this goal without passing the National Board Exam and the Regional Clinical Exam.

Let’s think of a hypothetical situation:

I, as a dental hygiene instructor (let’s say for all perio courses), despise writing/using mulitple-choice questions and never use them in my courses because I think short-answer questions are better for developing critical thinking. All my course goals and objectives are met by using short and extended response questions on test or by writing papers, and most of my students receive high scores on my tests. However, almost all my students fail the national board section on perio. WHY?!?!

The point I am trying to make is that even though students and instructors may hate a type of assessment, the national and regional board exams are not going to change the way they assess. That being said, we need to prepare students for the types of questions that are going to be asked on the board exams. However, that is not the only thing for which students need to be prepared. They also need to be ready to practice clinical dental hygiene. This includes interpreting health histories and answering the 20 questions a patient has on toothpaste.

So, to get to the question for this week’s blog: What do I think the best type of assessment is? To me, the correct answer is a variety.

1) Midterm/final exams are a great written way to assess a variety of content using many different types of questions. I think most midterms should include multiple-choice (MC) questions, as GALO states they are non-subjective, easy to score, can test a broad range of content, and can assess higher-order/critical thinking. A downfall to MC questions is that developing well-written questions can be time consuming. I would also include True-false (TF) items, and paired TF questions, because students need to be prepared for them on the National Board exam. I would also include short-answer/essay questions. Although they are subjective, I think this is where students can show how much they know and higher-order thinking skills can be measured because guessing is limited. These questions tend to be easy to write but time-consuming to score. Another type of question that can be used on written exams is matching/ordering, but I may choose not to include these because they do not require higher-order thinking.

2) Performance assessments are a way for students to show mastery in a subject. I think oral/case presentations would be a great assessment type for a dental hygiene program. Although they are subjective, normally do not have a single right or wrong answer, and can be time-consuming to administer/score, I think they are a great option to assess critical thinking. They also prepare students for communication skills and case presentations in an office.

3) Obviously dental hygiene students need to have psychomotor assessments to assess their motor skills and cognitive skills essential for safe dental hygiene procedures.  These include assessments previously stated for cognitive skills, but also observations for motor skills. Clinical competencies are an example of these assessments. These assessments are crucial for the successful completion of a regional clinical board exam.

I think face to face (FTF) instruction and online (O) instruction have many similarities. First, I think the learning goals and objectives are very similar in a course designed for OI and FTF instruction. Regardless of the mode of delivery, the students are expected to achieve the same learning outcomes at the end of the course. Also, content and information given in O and FTF instruction will be more or less the same. However, the content, although the same information, may be delivered differently. In a FTF classroom, you would probably not give students a chapter to read to “teach” the material. However, sometimes that is how the content is delivered in an O classroom. However, you may choose to show a video in a FTF classroom, that could be utilized in the same way in an O course.

Another similarity in O and FTF instruction is the course design. A good course design contains a syllabus. In the syllabus is a schedule (usually weekly), and each week there are learning goals and objectives listed. Also, it contains information regarding assignments and grading breakdowns. Finally, a good syllabus should include ways of communication with the instructor. Regardless of the delivery mode, the syllabus remains relatively similar.

O instruction requires more time of the instructor. The ITS chapters from Week 5 discuss different uses of technology in the classroom, and how new formats change and develop on a daily basis. As an O instructor, you must be proficient with the technology first before you can expect students to become proficient. Also, the book says many instructors that want to be innovative with new technology are often inefficient and ineffective because the choose the tool first and then determine its educational use. I also think that a challenge to online instructors is finding ways to deliver course content to actively engage learners.

Many nontraditional students really benefit from online instruction. The flexibility of an online program allows students to work during the day, and have a life outside of going to class. Online learning depends more on the student to learn on their own (more self-directed learning). Although some may view this as a challenge, Chapter 21 states that self-directed learning helps develop lifelong learning, which is something I think we all view as a positive. Also, many introverted and reflective students get a chance to participate in an online classroom that they may not engage in in a FTF classroom.

All in all, I think online instruction has a ways to go and will keep evolving just as FTF instruction has and will continue to evolve. Although it has been proven by research that O instruction is just as good as FTF, Chapter 20 of ITS states that there is still unknown facts of the effectiveness of certain online instruction tools. Continued research in this field is needed, and will probably always be needed in order to keep up with new and changing technologies and educational platforms. I think online instructors need to be well educated on the needs and expectations of their students in online courses, and poor online instruction/design is usually the culprit for student dissatisfaction.

Last Wednesday, I hosted a webmeeting with the undergraduate course Clinical Teaching in Dental Hygiene. My topic was critical thinking and questioning skills. I chose to discuss questioning skills with the group. Prior to our session, I wanted to create something new, different, innovative for the students to get them excited about the topic. I chose to make a Prezi.  A Prezi is a different presentation software that is similar to Powerpoint but is more of a structural than a Powerpoint. However, Prezi is an online software that cannot be downloaded to a PDF or word form, so in order to share it with the class, it was determined I would share my screen with the class (so the class would be looking at my internet screen as I go through the Prezi). This was discussed beforehand with Rachel and we decided it should not be an issue. During the prezi, I would discuss some basic points of questioning skills, followed by an activity to practice forming good questioning skills. Then, I would put the class into breakout rooms with a clinical scenario, and the students would have to come up with 3 good questions that they could ask as a clinical instructor.

Going in to the webmeeting, I felt very prepared and confident in my material/activities. I remembered this topic from undergrad, and felt confident I could guide the students to understanding it. I planned to meet in the Carmen Connect room 10-15 minutes early, but of course I had technical issues and was on my 3rd computer by the time I finally got logged in with my microphone working. So, I had about 1 minute before class started to make sure everything would work. My Prezi started great, and I got through the basic content pretty smoothly. However, because I was sharing my screen and not presenting within Carmen Connect, I couldn’t call on students or ask if any students had a question because I could not see anyone raise their hand. This was frustrating because I felt like I couldn’t grasp whether or not students were understanding. But I kept moving…..

We got to the section where I would give a “bad” question, and the students were asked to change it into a “good” question. For whatever reason, the students were not giving me good questions. It was VERY hard for me to gently tell a student that their answer was not right. I didn’t know how to phrase it to not sound like a jerk. For example, a question I gave was “bad” because it was yes/no, but a student would rephrase it and it still would be a yes/no. As I reflect, I think this learning activity could have been better if I had asked the students to identify why it was “bad” so they would know how to make it “good.” This way, the students would be given the problem and then they could solve it. Maybe I assumed the students were able to “create” but they were only at the “understand” level (Bloom’s). The clinical scenario in breakout sessions went similarly, and the students seemed to have a hard time creating 3 good questions. I think if I would have had the criteria for a good question listed in the PDF, the students may have had an easier time recognizing good questions, rather than having to recall it from memory.

All in all, I feel that my first webmeeting was semi-successful. It wasn’t a terrible failure, but definitely could be improved the next time around by being more direct and not assuming students are understanding it like I am. I think being able to readjust and go back to basics would have been a good strategy for me as well.

It’s hard for me to think of a lecture that really stands out in my brain. I am truly struggling here (I’m guilty of having the memory of a goldfish). I can’t even say I can remember a full class period in which I was 100% engaged in what the lecturer was saying. However, if I had to pick one class it would probably have to be my undergrad Physiology course. There were many concepts in this class that were hard to visualize for me. Unlike anatomy, where I could picture the muscles on my own self, physiology involved thinking of small, invisible cells that I couldn’t grasp. One class, the instructor chose students from the audience (probably a 200-300 person class) and made them go up on the stage. They all stood in a line and were told they were going to demonstrate action potentials, and the excitement of a neuron and how it moves from the brain to the muscle for the muscle to do the action. Starting from the first person, each student raised both arms one after another, as fast as they could. She also did something with them to demonstrate the Nodes of Ranvier (I actually recalled this term from memory, although I have no idea what they do). That being said, although this lecture was memorable, it still didn’t sink too far back in my long-term memory.

The readings this week discussed techniques in which to get students involved in, or take responsibility in their own learning. Problem-based learning, debates, educational games, and role play are some ways to change up the lecture to be more stimulating. Although I’m not sure my example fits well into these particular strategies, it definitely helps to make the lecture more active than passive. It draws attention to new people on the stage, and uses a live, visual example to explain a concept. Unfortunately, being as large of a class size as it was, not all students were able to go on the stage to be a part of the visual display. Maybe I would have remembered more specifics about this “action potential” thing if I was one of the students on the stage. Nonetheless, this was still more interesting and fun than the typical lectures in that class, and probably the only topic I still slightly remember.

A highlight of this week’s Chapter 3 reading for me was the talk of how students that learn in an innovative classroom are more prepared for the changes in a work environment. When we think of the health professions, dentistry included, innovation and change are day-to-day components. Most traditional college graduates are entering the workforce with some if not complete computer literacy. OSU dental hygiene graduates, although not using digital radiographs and charting, are more than likely going to get a job with an office that uses digital charts. A hygienist may work at 2 or 3 offices–one may be paper, one using Dentrix, and one using Eaglesoft. Point of the story is that a graduate of a healthcare professional program must have the ability to adapt to changes, and without resistance or hesitation. Page 38 of ITS states “Graduates who are self-directed learners understand and are responsive to healthcare system changes when they are in practice and out of the school setting, where there are no faculty members with whom to consult.” This statement exemplifies the importance of innovative, learner-centered teaching.

I think an innovative classroom doesn’t “learn” by listening to a lecture or reading a book.  An innovative classroom involves students “doing.” It is active, not passive. It is changing a particularly boring subject into something fun, fluid, and exciting. I don’t necessarily think innovation means technology. Sure, many times technology helps or changes they way we do things, but I don’t think they are apples to apples. The reading talks about the Process of Innovation in a way I did not originally think. Finding out what is not working in a classroom and what the needs of the learners are. Then, taking the time to research ways others teachers have met this need, be it literature or Pinterest pins (great resource, especially for K-5). I do not believe it is the easiest way to teach. Although the emphasis is on the learner, the facilitator has to create the environment for learning to occur, and this takes times and research. There will always be new technology advancements to help teachers innovate in the classroom, some good and some not so good. Although we want to base our teaching on evidence-based principles, I do feel there is some trial and error in making a classroom innovative. The reading calls innovation problems “disturbing at the time, but often humorous memories.”

I really enjoyed the video explaining Khan’s Academy. I think it is similar to a “flipped” classroom, as students see the concepts outside of the classroom and then apply them during class time. I like Khan’s view that there is so much else to be done in the classroom rather than sit and listen to a lecture. I hope I get the chance to innovate one of my future classes with this kind of technology.

Welcome to u.osu.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!