4.1 Article

Simulation and curriculum design: a global survey in dental education

期刊

AUSTRALIAN DENTAL JOURNAL
卷 62, 期 4, 页码 453-463

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/adj.12522

关键词

Curriculum; dental; haptic; simulation; survey

资金

  1. Teaching Development Grants (TDG) Scheme, The University of Hong Kong, HKSAR [101000481]
  2. Hong Kong Postdoctoral Fellowship (HKPF) Scheme, University Grants Council, HKSAR
  3. General Research Fund (GRF), Research Grants Council, HKSAR [17100514]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Curriculum reforms are being driven by globalization and international standardization. Although new information technologies such as dental haptic virtual reality (VR) simulation systems have provided potential new possibilities for clinical learning in dental curricula, infusion into curricula requires careful planning. Methods: This study aimed to identify current patterns in the role and integration of simulation in dental degree curricula internationally. An original internet survey was distributed by invitation to clinical curriculum leaders in dental schools in Asia, Europe, North America, and Oceania (Australia and New Zealand). Results: The results (N = 62) showed Asia, Europe and Oceania tended towards integrated curriculum designs with North America having a higher proportion of traditional curricula. North America had limited implementation of haptic VR simulation technology but reported the highest number of scheduled simulation hours. Australia and New Zealand were the most likely regions to incorporate haptic VR simulation technology. Conclusions: This survey indicated considerable variation in curriculum structure with regionally-specific preferences being evident in terms of curriculum structure, teaching philosophies and motivation for incorporation of VR haptic simulation into curricula. This study illustrates the need for an improved evidence base on dental simulations to inform curriculum designs and psychomotor skill learning in dentistry.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据