APPLICATION: COACHING STRATEGIES IN ORAL ANATOMY

[Editor’s Note: A recent Innovation Abstracts (Vol. VI, No. 23), "Coaching Mathematics and Other Academic Sports," written by Mr. Linc. Fisch, described an interesting variety of teaching techniques. Dr. Ollie Rominger, of E] Paso Community College, applied the coaching strategy in his Dental Anatomy Class with great success. We would like to report Dr. Rominger’s application and results. ] Unit Objective: Given a human skull, name and identify the cranial and facial bones, landmarks, reference points, forameni, cavities, processes, and sutures. Within the course of DENT 3102: Oral Anatomy, the student is required to name and identify over 100 radiological landmarks, bones, and anatomical parts of the human skull. Student evaluation is obtained by a practical examination that consists of 40 stations (identifications) on human skulls. The student is allowed 60 seconds per station to identify the marked structure by writing its correct name and indicating that it is left, right, or unpaired. History: Under laboratory supervision (2 lab instructors/16 students), each student was furnished a human skull, three anatomical view sheets (frontal, basal, lateral), and a three-page list of anatomical structures that they were required to identify. With the aid of their texts and my supplemental texts, drawings, and disarticulated skulls, they had 12 hours to learn the material and to prepare for the practical examination. The students studied in groups of two while the instructors visited the groups and aided with the more difficult identifications. The practical examination, unfortunately, came near the end of the fall semester. Problems: Because the evaluation had a time limit per station, and because the evaluation came at a time when many students were suffering from (real or imagined) burnout, the practical exam had a history of being extremely stressful for a majority of the students. Complaints of nausea and gastro-intestinal disorders were commonly voiced by students prior to the exam’s start. When the practical was graded, the better students made the highest marks, and the poorer students made the lowest marks—although the instructors spent most of their time with the poorer students. Changes: (Coaching Analogy) Last fall, we applied the coaching strategies from Innovation Abstracts. We began by limiting the number of plays (identifications) for each practice (laboratory); therefore, the players were not burdened by trying to learn too much too soon. By pointing to skull structures, we had the students drill each other: name the part, landmark, or bone. We visited the groups of two and asked the same questions, corrected mistakes, and reinforced proper answers. Their performance improved as they practiced. During the last hour of each lab period, we set up a short mock practical, without a grade, but under game conditions. We left time for the students to review the exam and correct their mistakes, to identify their weaknesses, and to ask questions. The team became more confident after each scrimmage (mock practical). The Big Game: (Examination) When game day arrived, attitudes had changed from negative stress-related complaints to positive anticipations. Players did not require 60 seconds to execute, and I cut the time to 50...then 40 seconds. There were no signs of exhaustion or groans of defeat when the game ended. Final Score: 40 stations: +20 points for correct name.

+0.5 points for correctly indicating left, right, or unpaired.

~ 16-member class: 97 grade average. 9.3 points higher than the average of the prior 7 classes.

Observation: Student stress was not a factor in the evaluation. Although the dramatic rise in the class average was of practical worth, the raised values of the students’ self-esteem were just as important, especially in the poorer students. Pride of accomplishment is difficult to measure on a 100 point sgal€@DOUGL AS - | Comment: Linc. Fisch and I have been corresponding and exchanging ideas. iB | Tone ty

Ores tity on ANUVAIVES ie

Reprinted with permission of the Curriculum and Instructional Improvement Center (Abstract, Volume III, Number 3, April 1985), El Paso Community College, P.O. Box 20500, El Paso, Texas 79998.

O. B. Rominger E] Paso Community College

Suanne D. Roueche, Editor September 27, 1985, Vol. VII, No. 22 INNOVATION ABSTRACTS is a publication of the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development, EDB 348, The University of Texas at Austin,

Austin, Texas 78712, (512) 471-7545. Subscriptions are available to nonconsortium members for $35 per year. Funding in part by the WA K. Kellogg Foundation and Sid W. Richardson Foundation. Issued weekly when classes are in session during fall and spring terms and monthly during the summer.

© The University of Texas at Austin, 1985 Further duplication is permitted only by MEMBER institutions for their own personnel. ISSN 0199-106