• John M Crawford, Guy Adami, Bradford R Johnson, G William Knight, Kent Knoernschild, Ales Obrez, Philip A Patston, Indru Punwani, A Moneim Zaki, and Frank W Licari.
• Department of Periodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. jimmy@uic.edu
• J Dent Educ. 2007 Apr 1; 71 (4): 524-31.

AbstractThe purpose of this article is to discuss how traditional dental school curricula are inconsistent with research in how learners learn. In the last ten years, there has been considerable discussion about the need for dental education reform, and innovative changes have occurred in the curricula of a number of U.S. dental schools. However, efforts in curriculum restructuring have been hindered by the lack of evidence that one specific curriculum design achieves outcomes superior to other designs. Moreover, there has been little discussion in the dental literature about how modern theories of learning can provide a sound rationale for change in dental education. Thus, it is important for those involved in curriculum reform to present the rationale for change based on the best available evidence. In this review, we summarize aspects of research on learning that seem applicable to dental education and outline ways in which curricula might be changed to become more consistent with the evidence.

18 keywords...

hide…