Journal of IMAB - Annual Proceeding (Scientific Papers)
Publisher: Peytchinski, Gospodin Iliev
ISSN: 1312 773X (Online)
Issue: 2015, vol. 21, issue 1
Subject Area: Dental Medicine
Pages: 742-746
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2015211.742
Published online: 20 March 2015

J of IMAB 2015 Jan-Mar;21(1):742-746
Rayna NikolovaCorresponding Autor, Mariana Dimova.
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University, Sofia, Bulgaria.

The main goal in teaching of dental medicine is to support students in their seeking of theoretical and practical knowledge.
The aim of the authors is to confirm or reject the hypothesis concerning the positive effects of reviews for higher learning outcomes based on an analysis of student reviews.
Material and methods: Subject of investigation were twenty five students from two groups in the year 2012-2013 and one group in 2013 – 2014 (average 8-9 students in group). Students were asked to write reviews starting with hierarchical summarization of the textbook and including additional information gathered from internet and the library.
Results and discussion: For the period of 2012-2014 from 3 groups /25 students/ were received 14 reviews and 8 reviews were at the stage of hierarchical summarization, argument maps and selected material.
Conclusion: Analysis of results showed positive correlation between writing and the exam marks with best results in the group with the greatest activity. All students who wrote reviews even those at the project stage received excellent marks with one exception where the mark was very good.

Key words: dental education, students’ reviews,

- Download FULL TEXT /PDF 496 KB/
Please cite this article in PubMed Style or AMA (American Medical Association) Style:
Nikolova R, Dimova M. Students’ reviews in the preclinical course – a part of the educational process. A preliminary report. J of IMAB. 2015 Jan-Mar;21(1):742-746.

Correspondence to: Rayna Nikolova, DMD, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine; 1, St. George Sofiiski Str., 1431 Sofia, Bulgaria; E-mail:

1. Thimmappa BHS. Perspectives of technology enhanced learning and teaching for an exciting learning experience. Chemistry: Bulgarian journal of science education, 2013; 22(1): 30-51.
2. Davenport J, 3rd. (1987, March). A way out of the andragogy morass. Paper presented at the conference of the Georgia Adult Education Association, Savannah, GA.
3. Darkenwald GG, Merriam SB. (1982). Adult education: Foundations of practice. New York: Harper & Row
4. Knowles M. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston: Gulf.
5. Knowles M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus pedagogy (Rev. and updated ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge Adult Education
6. Knowles M. (1975 :18). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Chicago: Follett Publishing Company.
7. Hase S, Kenyon C. (2000). From andragogy to heutagogy, Ulti-BASE In-Site, December.
8. Loyens SM, Gijbels D, Coertjens L, Côté DJ. Students’ approaches to learning in problem-based learning: Taking into account professional behavior in the tutorial groups, self-study time, and different assessment aspects. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2013 Mar;39(1):23-32. [CrossRef]
9. Marton F, Säljö R. On qualitative differences in learning: 1. Outcome and process. Br J Educ Psychol. 1976; 46:4-11.
10. Fogarty R. (1994). How to teach for metacognition. Palatine, IL: IRI/Skylight Publishing.
11. Simpson ML, Nist SL. An update on strategic learning: It’s more than textbook reading strategies. J Adolesc Adult Lit. 2000 Mar;43(6):528–541.
12. Fry H, Ketteridge S, Marshal S. (2008). A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Enhancing Academic Practice. Third edition, published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library.
13. Nist S. (1993). What the literature says about academic literacy. Georgia Journal of Reading, Fall-Winter, pp.11–18.
14. Entwistle NJ, Ramsden P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm.
15. Entwistle N. Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: conceptual frameworks and educational contexts, Paper presented at the TLRP Conference, Leicester, November 2000.
16. Entwistle N, Entwistle D. Preparing for Examinations: The interplay of memorising and understanding, and the development of knowledge objects, Higher Education Research & Development, 2003; 22(1):19-41. Published online: 14 Jul 2010 [CrossRef]
17. Birenbaum M, Breuer K, Cascallar E, Dochy F, Ridgway J, Dori J, et al. (2005) ‘A learning integrated assessment system’, in R. Wiesemes and G Nickmans (eds) EARLI (European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction) series of position papers.
18. Popham WJ. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (p. 15).
19. Vygotsky LS. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
20. Chin C, Brown D. Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science, International Journal of Science Education, 2002; 24(5):521-549, Pub. online: 26 Nov 2010.  [CrossRef]
21. Leontiev AN. Selected psychological publications.1983; pp. 374-329
22. Graham S, Hebert MA. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
23. Nosko IV. Student-centered education as a basic principle of the Bologna reforms at the high school., Vector nauki TGU. 2011; 1(4):136.
24. Konovalova E. Level of competence of student speech as a condition of the adequacy of play school texts, Vector nauki TGU. 2011; 1(4):74.
25. Struyven K, Dochy F, Janssens S. Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: a review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2005; 30(4):325-341, [CrossRef]..

Received: 16 January 2015
Published online: 20 March 2015

back to Online Journal