Klinik Öncesi Endodonti Eğitiminde Akran ve Öğretim Üyesi Değerlendirmeleri Arasındaki Uyumun İncelenmesi: Pilot Çalışma

Year 2025, Volume: 12 Issue: 4, 46 - 49, 19.09.2025

Meltem Kucuk

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1678399

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, diş hekimliği öğrencilerinin klinik öncesi endodonti pratik dersindeki performansları ile ilgili akran ve öğretim üyesi değerlendirmeleri arasındaki uyumu incelemektir.
Materyal ve Metot: Veriler, XXXXX Üniversitesi'nde klinik öncesi endodonti pratik dersine kayıtlı olan ve çalışmaya gönüllü olarak katılan 2. Sınıf diş hekimliği öğrencilerinden toplanmıştır. Ders koordinatörünün endodontik giriş kavitesi dersini teorik olarak anlatmasının ardından alt ve üst premolar dişlerde endodontik giriş kavitesi preparasyonu için elde bir demonstrasyon yapılmıştır. Daha sonra açılan kavitelerde dereceli puanlama anahtarı kullanımı öğrencilere detaylı bir şekilde açıklanmıştır. Öğrencilerden, derste açılan endodontik giriş kavitesi ile ilgili akran performanslarını anonim bir şekilde değerlendirmeleri istenmiştir. Akran değerlendirmelerinden sonra, bir akademik personel de aynı dereceli puanlama anahtarını kullanarak öğrenci performanslarını değerlendirmiştir. Akran ve öğretim üyesi değerlendirmeleri arasındaki uyum 0,05 anlamlılık düzeyine sahip Man-Whitney U Testi testi kullanılarak karşılaştırılmıştır.
Bulgular: Alt ve Üst premolar dişlere açılan giriş kavitelerinde akran ve öğretim üyesi değerlendirme sonuçları arasında anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmuştur (P <0.05). Öğretim üyesi değerlendirme notları, akran değerlendirmesi notlarına kıyasla anlamlı derecede daha düşük bulunmuştur. Tespit edilen hataların türü ve sıklığı incelendiğinde, akranlar tarafından en sık görülen hata, giriş kavitelerinin çok küçük açılması olurken; öğretim üyeleri tarafından en sık tespit edilen hata, pulpa odası tavanı veya boynuzunun tamamen uzaklaştırılmaması olmuştur.
Sonuç: Öğretim üyesi değerlendirmelerine daha yakın olması için uygulamalı eğitim ve geri bildirim yoluyla diş hekimliği öğrencilerinin akran değerlendirme becerileri geliştirilebilir. Böylece öğrencilerin endodontik prosedürleri gerçekleştirmek için yeterli düzeyde bilgi ve becerilerle mezun olma potansiyeli yaratılabilir.

Keywords

Endodonti , Akran değerlendirmesi , Diş hekimliği öğrencisi , Endodonti Müfredatı

Evaluation Of Agreement Between Peer and Faculty Assessments in Preclinical Endodontic Education: A Pilot Study

Abstract

Objectives: This pilot study aimed to evaluate the agreement between peer and faculty assessments of dentistry students' performance in a preclinical endodontics practical course.

Materials and Methods: Data were collected from second-year dentistry students enrolled in the preclinical endodontics practical course at XXXXX University. Participation in the study was voluntary. Following a theoretical explanation of the endodontic access cavity course by the course coordinator, a demonstration was conducted on preparing endodontic access cavities in both upper and lower premolars. The scoring rubric was then explained to the students in detail. Students were then asked to evaluate their peers' performances anonymously based on the endodontic access cavities prepared during the course. After the peer evaluations, a faculty member graded the students' performances using the same scoring scale. The agreement between peer and faculty evaluations was analyzed using Mann-Whitney U tests, with a significance level set at 0.05.

Results: A significant difference was found between peer and faculty scores for access cavities opened in upper and lower premolars (P < 0.05). Faculty evaluation scores were significantly lower than those given by peers. The most common error found by peers was the access cavities being opened too small, whereas the most frequent mistake identified by faculty members was failing to completely remove the pulp chamber roof or horn.

Conclusion: Peer evaluation skills in dentistry students can improve through practical training and feedback, aligning them more closely with faculty evaluations. This helps ensure that graduates have the knowledge and skills needed for endodontic procedures.

Keywords

Endodontic , Peer assessment , Dentistry student , Endodontic Curriculum

References

• 1. Qutieshat A. Active involvement in dental education and the way to meaningful knowledge: The viewpoint of a dental educator. J Dent Res Rev. 2022;9(2):191-193.
• 2. Escribano N, Belliard V, Baracco B, Da Silva D, Ceballos L, Fuentes MV. Rubric vs. numeric rating scale: agreement among evaluators on endodontic treatments performed by dental students. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):197.
• 3. Decurcio D, Lim E, Chaves G, Nagendrababu V, Estrela C, Rossi‐Fedele G. Pre‐clinical endodontic education outcomes between artificial versus extracted natural teeth: a systematic review. Int Endod J. 2019;52(8):1153-1161.
• 4. Khattak O, Ganji KK, Iqbal A, Altassan M, Khan FH, Anis R. Beyond labs: unveiling dynamics of dental students’ transition from pre-clinical to clinical training in a Saudi dental school. PeerJ. 2024;12:e18019.
• 5. Kucuk M, Ratakonda M, Piasecki L. Teaching a new obturation technique in preclinical endodontic training: assessment of student learning experience, performance, and self-evaluation. J Endod. 2024;50(11):1634-1641.
• 6. Teich S, Demko C, Lang L. Students' perception of peer‐assessment in the context of a treatment planning course. Eur J Dent Educ. 2015;19(1):8-15.
• 7. Manogue M, Kelly M, Bartakova Masaryk S, Brown G, Catalanotto F, Choo-Soo T, Delap E, Godoroja P, Morio I, Rotgans J, Saag M. Evolving methods of assessment. Eur J Dent Educ. 2002;6(Suppl 3):53-66.
• 8. Alfakhry G, Mustafa K, Alagha MA, Zayegh O, Milly H, Shwikani FA, Jamous I. Peer-assessment ability of trainees in clinical restorative dentistry: can it be fostered? BDJ Open. 2022;8(1):22.
• 9. Ibarra-Sáiz MS, Rodríguez-Gómez G, Boud D. Developing student competence through peer assessment: the role of feedback, self-regulation and evaluative judgement. High Educ. 2020;80(1):137-156.
• 10. Ndoye A. Peer/Self Assessment and Student Learning. Int J Teach Learn High Educ. 2017;29(2):255-269.
• 11. Li H, Xiong Y, Zang X, Kornhaber ML, Lyu Y, Chung KS, Suen HK. Peer assessment in the digital age: a meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher ratings. Assess Eval High Educ. 2016;41(2):245-64
• 12. Brierley C, Ellis L, Reid ER. Peer‐assisted learning in medical education: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Med Educ. 2022;56(4):365-373.
• 13. Nofziger AC, Naumburg EH, Davis BJ, Mooney CJ, Epstein RM. Impact of peer assessment on the professional development of medical students: a qualitative study. Acad Med. 2010;85(1):140-147.
• 14. Al Mortadi N, Al-Houry SS, Alzoubi KH, Khabour OF. Effectiveness of peer evaluation in learning process: a case from dental technology students. Open Dent J. 2020;14(1)
• 15. AlRahabi MK, AlKady AM, Ghabbani HM. Agreement between faculty member assessments and student self‐assessments in a preclinical endodontic programme. Aust Endod J. 2019;45(3):346-351.
• 16. Awooda EM, Elzaki WM, Al-Nazhan SA. Agreement between students’ self/peer and faculty assessments of the radiographic technical quality of root canal treatment performed during preclinical and clinical endodontic courses. Saudi Dent J. 2025;15(1):53-58.
• 17. Brkić L, Mekterović I, Fertalj M, Mekterović D. Peer assessment methodology of open-ended assignments: Insights from a two-year case study within a university course using novel open source system. Comput Educ. 2024;213:105001.
• 18. Alfakhry G, Mustafa K, Ybrode K, Jazayerli B, Milly H, Abohajar S, Hassan H, Alhomsi K, Jamous I. Evaluation of a workplace assessment method designed to improve self-assessment in operative dentistry: a quasi-experiment. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):491.
• 19. Baracco B, Escribano N, Da Silva D, Belliard V, Ceballos L, Fuentes V. Factors influencing the agreement between teachers and students in the assessment of preclinical endodontics using a rubric. BMC Med Educ. 2025;25(1):1-9.
• 20. Sojka J, Gupta AK, Deeter-Schmelz DR. Student and faculty perceptions of student evaluations of teaching: A study of similarities and differences. Coll Teach. 2002;50(2):44-49.
• 21. Wagner ML, Suh DC, Cruz S. Peer-and self-grading compared to faculty grading. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011;75(7):130.
• 22. Foley JI, Richardson GL, Drummie J. Agreement among dental students, peer assessors, and tutor in assessing students’ competence in preclinical skills. J Dent Educ. 2015;79(11):1320-1324.
• 23. Bizhang M, Adib Shaban H, Vahlenkamp A, Zimmer S, Möltner A, Ehlers J. Reduction of discrepancies between students and instructors in the assessment of practical tasks through structured evaluation sheets and peer feedback. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):1514.
• 24. Alzaid JM. The Effect of Peer Assessment on the Evaluation Process of Students. Int Educ Stud. 2017;10(6):159-173.
• 25. Tandiono R, Limijaya A. Understanding rater bias in self and peer assessment among university students: a cultural psychology perspective. Asia Pac Educ Res. 2025;34(4):1561-1571.
• 26. Lerchenfeldt S, Mi M, Eng M. The utilization of peer feedback during collaborative learning in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):321.
• 27. Stančić M. Peer assessment as a learning and self-assessment tool: a look inside the black box. Assess Eval High Educ. 2021;46(6):852-864.
• 28. Kumar T, Soozandehfar SMA, Hashemifardnia A, Mombeini R. Self vs. peer assessment activities in EFL-speaking classes: impacts on students’ self-regulated learning, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills. Lang Test Asia. 2023;13(1):36.
• 29. Vu TT, Dall’Alba G. Students’ experience of peer assessment in a professional course. Assess Eval High Educ. 2007;32(5):541-556.
• 30. Jonsson A, Svingby G. The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educ Res Rev. 2007;2(2):130-144.
• 31. Kornmehl DL, Patel E, Agrawal R, Harris JR, Ba AK, Ohyama H. The effect of gender on student self‐assessment skills in operative preclinical dentistry. J Dent Educ. 2021;85(9):1511-1517.