Academic outcomes are directly related to the number of advanced learning techniques employed by dentistry undergraduates

Abstract

Effective study habits depend on both the content being studied and the learner's individual approach. The ability to study efficiently is crucial for success in a biomedical degree program. Given the vast amount of knowledge and skills that students must master, implementing evidence-based learning techniques is essential. The purpose of this study was to examine how first-year dental students learn Histology, identify the learning techniques they are familiar with and use, and determine whether their academic outcomes are related to the techniques employed.

A form was created to investigate how students approach Histology, time management, learning techniques, habits, and potential distractions. It consisted of 26 questions, 2 of which focused on whether students were aware of and used 13 learning techniques. In 2023-24, 125 students enrolled Histology, and the class was divided according to their performance using two criteria. Firstly, three categories were created based on the final theory grade. Secondly, the class was split into three different groups based on how well they did on two midterm tests. A statistical analysis was performed using SPSS to analyze personal and academic characteristics as well as learning techniques students were familiar with or regularly used. This paper focuses on learning techniques and their relationship with outcomes.

The questionnaire was completed by 75% of the class. The results indicate that 69% did not know what metacognition is, and 71% preferred to study individually. Nearly 81% of the students were familiar with 7 or more techniques but 58.5% stated that they used a maximum of 6. The 13 techniques were classified into two categories, 6 basic and 7 advanced. It was found that students were familiar with/regularly used an average of 5.28 +- 1.15 / 4.32 +- 1.38 out of 6 basic techniques vs were familiar with/regularly used an average of 3.16 +- 1.63 / 1.56 +- 1.32 out of 7 advanced techniques. The cross-tabulation of the 3 groups based on the performance in two midterm tests with the number of advanced learning techniques used showed significant differences (Fisher, p<0.001). Thus, the group that passed both midterms used 3 or more advanced techniques to a greater extent: 35.3% compared to 8% in the group with one midterm failed, and 0% in the group with two midterms failed. Furthermore, results indicated that on average, the final theory grade (on a scale from 0 to 10) differs by 1.39 +- 0.27 points between those who use 3 or more advanced techniques (6.95 +- 0.84) and those who use at most 2 (5.56 +- 1.61) (t-Student, p < 0.001, Cohen's d effect size 0.94). Finally, four techniques were found to be used differentially. Students who passed both midterm tests used more commonly Graphic organizers creation (78.4% vs 44% and 41% in the other categories, p=0.002), mnemonic rules (72.5% vs 47.62% the other groups, p=0.019), imagery-based text (60.8% vs. 31% the other categories, p=0.006) and formative assessment (33.3% vs. 8% and 0% in the other groups, p=0.001).