Team-Based Learning versus metodologia tradicional: avaliação do ensino-aprendizagem dos preceitos éticos e normativos no curso de Odontologia

Abstract

The practice of Dentistry requires a solid ethical and regulatory foundation; notably, ignorance of these norms does not exempt practitioners from professional liability. Amidst a context of rising complaints and intense market competitiveness, the teaching and learning of these concepts during undergraduate studies play a pivotal role in preparing students for professional conduct that is both ethical and compliant with occupational standards. Thus, the objective of this study was to quantitatively evaluate whether the application of the active Team-Based Learning (TBL) methodology improved student learning regarding the profession's ethical and regulatory precepts compared to traditional methodology, as well as to qualitatively assess student perceptions regarding both methods. To this end, a controlled trial was conducted with 50 students enrolled in the Forensic Dentistry and Deontology course at the Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Governador Valadares Campus. Participants were divided into two in-person groups: Group T (traditional), comprising 17 students who completed an individual multiple-choice test on ethical and regulatory content based on knowledge acquired through lecture-based classes; and the TBL Group, comprising 33 students who were subjected to the TBL methodology to learn the same content, involving the administration of the test individually followed by a group phase. Student satisfaction was assessed in both groups post-activity using a Likert-scale questionnaire by Google Forms®. Quantitatively, 49 responses were obtained (Group T: 18; TBL Group: 31). The TBL Group demonstrated better performance in the collaborative stage (mean score of 98.0%), which was superior to the individual performance of both groups (Group T: 86.7%; TBL Group: 87.0%); medical record custody and price advertising were identified as the topics of greatest difficulty. Qualitatively, there was a clear preference for active methodologies, with TBL showing high acceptance, and 100% of students agreed that the activities contributed to and promoted a greater understanding of the content. Although both groups agreed that lecture-based classes effectively transmit content (over 94%), there was a distinction regarding attention and motivation: the TBL Group (83.9% versus 61.1% in Group T) demonstrated greater ease in maintaining attention and higher motivation during theoretical classes. Satisfaction with post-activity feedback was maximal in the TBL Group (100%) and high in Group T (89%), highlighting the importance of this stage. Specifically within the TBL Group, methodology acceptance was high: 100% of participants agreed that the preparatory material (booklet and manual) combined with individual and group activities aided in learning the subject, and 90.3% reported a greater understanding of the content following the TBL session. This high acceptance extended to the expansion of the methodology, with 80.6% of TBL participants expressing a desire for other disciplines to adopt similar active approaches. In Group T, although the majority considered multiple-choice evaluations effective, 50% disagreed with preferring them over dynamic interactive activities and assessment with group discussion, indicating a valuation of the social and interactive dimensions in the learning process. It is concluded that, despite the performance gain between the individual and group phases in the TBL Group, test averages did not show significant divergence, as scores were high in both groups. However, the students' appreciation and preference for the TBL methodology indicate that it is an effective strategy to assist in the teaching and learning of the ethical and regulatory content of the course.