Broad goal: dentists must be able to identify the issues, affected parties, potential consequences and duties that are relevant when faced with an ethical or dento-legal challenge in order to rationalise and justify their position.
Students will be randomly allocated 3 case studies from 6 possible scenarios that contain key themes to ethical and dento-legal reasoning. (See appendix item 4 for a case study example (2)) Students are required to take a position on the appropriate course of action and justify this based on an explanation of the parties, principles and potential outcomes considered. During the year, students will be exposed to all 6 cases as they will be asked to provide feedback to their peers on the 3 cases other than those that they have submitted before faculty feedback is sought by their colleagues. Students will also be assessed on the quality of their feedback.
This assessment has the following key features:
- Students are trained in case presentation and assessment during the first week of intensive lectures before embarking upon clinic placements. (See appendix item 5 for an example of training materials (2))
- Students are asked to complete the first assessment individually but also participate in forum discussion to come to their decisions. This is integrated to foster a sense of collegial enquiry and open debate as well as considering multiple perspectives and establishing a shared vocabulary. Students will be graded on their forum participation for this activity.(3) (See appendix item 6 for forum participation grading)
- Students are required to give feedback to peers on case reports. Assessment of thoughtful feedback is made by faculty as part of the second submission evaluation. (See appendix item 7 for feedback evaluation sheet)
- Students are required to submit 3 responses to each scenario. A peer will provide formative feedback as per the training materials in appendix item 5 on the first submission. A faculty member will provide formative feedback on the second submission item before a final summative evaluation by faculty. (See appendix item 8 for a draft schedule of assessment for this subject)
- The amount of work associated with each assessment will depend on the demonstrated capacity for ethical and legal decision-making. At times, no changes or further development may be needed. 3 opportunities are given for students to reconsider their positions and develop arguments to support these.
Rationale for item design
A set of standardised scenarios for ethics and dento-legal decision-making already exist. These have been refined over a period of 25 years to improve inter-rater reliability and validity of results. These scenarios have been created to suit American applications but can be easily amended to accommodate an Australian context.
Integrating this assessment with an e-portfolio platform has the following advantages:
– Simple and efficient transfer of information from student to faculty and student to student avoids impracticalities associated with a paper-based system given the widespread student and faculty network.
– Equal access to discussion and course resources regardless of placement location in Queensland.
– Opportunity to practice forum-based discussion and converse with colleagues in this way. This is important since this mode of discussion is becoming increasingly used in continuing dental education after graduation.
– Unique clarity in demonstrating and displaying progress in thinking over time through tracked changes and date stamping.
– Integration with other web-based activities in other subjects. Most course content and submission activities is centralised to one online learning platform.(4, 5)
Standard setting rationale (what the marks mean)
This assessment uses a competency-based minimum standard in addition to performance-based assessment as an incentive. These standards are adopted to comply with University of Queensland guidelines and GPA requirements based on a 1-7 scale (see appendix item 9).
Where students do not meet a pass mark, a supplementary exam is granted. A remediation session is conducted for those students not meeting a pass mark in which the principles of a case analysis are revised. Students are then required to sit a 2-hour written case-based test. This case uses the same format and rating scale of previous case activities.
Students and staff alike are to be made aware of all marking criteria and the basis for pass/fail decisions in advance of the assessment activities. Predictable, universal application of these standards must be adopted in order to achieve fairness and consistency in the assessment process.(6)
Evaluation
Any assessment process adopted should be subject to sufficient scrutiny to support confidence in its continued application. The following evaluation activities will be adopted in the first year.
- Tracking student performance for each task.
- Application of reliability and validity testing to determine differences between markers and across course components.
- Student feedback on timing, running, content and format of the assessment as well as its effects on learning.
- Observation of trends in assessment data, for example areas of consistently poor performance that may reflect a problem with teaching or assessment design or resource limitations. (7)
The success of this assessment is highly dependent on training of faculty to provide appropriate feedback. Cases that were excluded from the 6 assessments chosen provide a vehicle for this training and standardisation of the approach taken with reference to the benchmarks outlined in the appendix. Wear et al.(8) warn against using common elements as a checklist of competency in works of reflective and contemplative nature. Yet a balance must be struck between the need to provide competency benchmarks and standardisation of assessment with the capacity for freedom in expression. This demands a truly thoughtful faculty skilled in such contemplation in their own right, capable of engaging students, developing relationships and actively seeking to affect professionalization that extends beyond the bounds of assessment but within its standards for pragmatisms sake.
Conclusion and reflection
The motivation to attempt to design this assessment was derived from the way in which this important facet of health professional education was let down in my own experience largely by the lack of effective assessment strategies to achieve the desired attributes. The assessment to which students were subject was unclear in its purpose, unidirectional (lacking student-student or student-faculty dialogue), rife with tokenism and underwritten with a perceived safety net that what students were being asked to do was too hard to assess for them to fail. This all contributed to a sense of pointlessness and burden associated with the tasks, even for those of us interested in this area.
In designing this assessment it has become clear that evaluation of such non-technical skills is shrouded with difficulties. Yet the persisting and perhaps even increasing importance that the community places on possession of these qualities amongst health care professionals propels these areas of competency into a high area of priority. Given that assessment drives learning, any programs that aim to teach these skills and certify competency in them must find an effective means of assessment. Efforts to do so must benefit from the practical lessons of predecessors to avoid ‘reinvention of the wheel’, but must also stay steadfast in attempts to improve these strategies as new tools become available to do so. In this way (and only in this way) is the central notion of assessment as a guardian of community safety and professional standards upheld, with ‘soft skills’ taking their rightful place among the certified qualities of a competent professional.
REFERENCES
1. Porter S, Girdis T. Teaching dental ethics and law at the University of Queensland. Bulletin of the International Dental Ethics and Law Society. 2009;9(2):19-26.
2. Bebeau M. Teaching and Assessment Materials for a Dental Ethics Course Designed to Facilitate the Development of Moral Reasoning and Judgment. Journal [serial on the Internet]. 2007 Date 02/09/2012]: Available from: www.ethicaldevelopment.ua.edu/…/Rev-2-Teaching-Assessment-Mat...
3. Nandi D, Chang S, Balbo S, editors. A conceptual framework for assessing interaction quality in online discussion forums; 2009; Auckland. Ascilite.
4. Miller R, Morgaine W. The Benefits of E-portfolios for Students and Faculty in Their Own Words. Peer Review. 2009;11(1).
5. Dannefer EF, Henson LC. The Portfolio Approach to Competency-Based Assessment at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine. Acad Med. 2007;82:493-502.
6. Chambers DW, Glassman P. A Primer on Competency-Based Evaluation. Journal of dental education. 1997;61(8):651-66.
7. Crosby J. Assessment of the student practitioner. In: Sweet J, Huttly S, Taylor I, editors. Effective Learning & Teaching in Medical, Dental & Veterinary Education. London, UK: Kogan Page Limited; 2003.
8. Wear D, Zarconi J, Garden R, Jones T. Reflection in/and Writing: Pedagogy and Practice in Medical Education. Acad Med. 2012;87(5):603-9.
Appendix item 1
The University of Queensland identify the following areas of competency in ethical and dento-legal practice by 5th year students.(1)
Dento-legal:
Consent – valid, informed, without coercion;
Record keeping – clear, complete, concise, management of patient files;
Dental Act, privacy legislation, radiation safety legislation, other regulations;
Workplace health and safety, reporting accidents and injuries; chaperone during treatment.
Ethical Practice:
Confidentiality, patient autonomy, veracity, non-discrimination, not condone unethical behavior in others, use influence wisely; use personal reflection
(NOTE: Other aspects of ethical and dento-legal decision-making are covered in previous years).
Appendix item 2
The outcomes above were used to design a blueprint for assessment
| DOMAIN | ATTRIBUTE | LEVEL OF PROFICIENCY (K, KH, SH, D) | TEST INSTRUMENT |
CASE STUDIES |
Competency/Proficiency | ||||||
| MD | MS | JLang | DL | DC | JLee | ||||||
| Dento-legal | The student can seek valid informed consent without coercion | SH | Case report | * | * | * | C | ||||
| Dento-legal | The student keeps clear, complete, concise records in patient files | D | SubmissionRandom sampleTest Case | ||||||||
| Dento-legal | The student recognizes responsibilities set out in the dental act and other relevant legislation | K, KH | Case report | * | * | * | * | * | * | ||
| Dento-legal | The student recognizes responsibilities with respect to work place health and safety legislation and reporting accidents and injuries. | K, KH | Case report | * | |||||||
| Dento-legal | The student recognizes when it is legally compulsory and appropriate to have a chaperone accompany the patient | K, KH, SH | Test Case | ||||||||
| Ethical practice | The student is aware of responsibilities to keep patient confidentiality and when it is appropriate that these may be breached | K | Case report | * | * | * | |||||
| Ethical practice | The student recognizes and complies with the features of patient autonomy | KH | Case report | * | * | * | * | ||||
| Ethical practice | The student can identify the notion of veracity and when this may be breached | D | Case report | * | * | * | * | * | |||
| Ethical practice | The student can recognise the features of discrimination and take measures to address this | SH | Case report | * | * | ||||||
| Ethical practice | The student recognizes unethical behaviour in others and does not condone this | D | Case report | * | * | * | * | * | * | ||
| Ethical practice | The student uses their influence to address unethical conduct in others and encourage ethical practice | D | Case reportFeedback | * | * | * | * | * | * | ||
| Ethical practice | The student is able to use personal reflection to contemplate options, expand perspectives and transform actions based on changed understanding. | D | Personal case reportFeedback | * | * | * | * | * | * | ||
Appendix item 3 – Case study key principles used to cross-reference with desired outcomes above. (2)
| Name of Case | Issues |
| The Mark Davidson Case | 1) Patient’s right to competent care2) Student’s right to learn3) Supervisor’s right to competent help4) School’s right to reputation
5) Profession’s right to reputation |
| The Martin Sladick Case | 1) Patient’s right to competent care2) Martin’s legal right to practice orthodontics3) Community’s right to care4) Martin’s right to learn and expand his practice
5) Martin’s competence to inform and to provide adequate treatment |
| The Janet Landry Case | 1) School’s right to expect student self-governance2) Profession’s right to expect school self-governance3) Fairness to other students4) Fairness to professor
5) Fairness to patients 6) Fairness to self |
| The Jerry Lang Case | 1) Lange’s duty to friend vs. duty to uncle2) Larkin’s right to practice vs. patient’s right to choose3) Obligation to respect choice vs. address prejudice4) Self-governance: Larkin’s right to secrecy vs. profession’s right to reputation |
| The Dr. Lester Case | 1) Dr. Lester’s right to use free time2) Community’s right to basic health3) Dr. Lester’s right to his health and well-being vs. the rights to health and well-being of other practitioners4) Society’s right to expect help from profession |
| The Marilyn Anderson Case | 1) Dr. Larsen’s right to practice2) Dr. Anderson’s right to practice3) Obligation to influence prejudice |
| The Dr. Carlson Case | 1) Fairness to community-Dr. Carlson’s right to practice vs. the community’s right to be protected from harm2) Fairness to community-Dr. Carlson’s right to be reimbursed for services rendered vs. the community’s right not to be cheated3) Fairness to women-Rights of women not to be violated/abused vs. Dr. Carlson’s right to practice4) Fairness to patients-Rights of Dr. Carlson’s other patients to continued care vs. the rights of those that were harmed to be vindicated
5) Fairness to profession-Duty to help Dr. Carlson address his problems vs. duty to promote the image of the profession 6) Fairness to Dr. Carlson-Dr. Carlson’s right to respect/privacy vs. the public’s right to be warned |
| The Jeremy Lee Case | 1) Patient autonomy2) Noncompliance3) Conflict of duties: to benefit vs. to remove harm4) Rights of Jeremy vs. other MA patients
5) Rights of Jeremy vs. the rights of society |
Appendix item 4- Case study example (2)
The Jeremy Lee Case
Jeremy Lee is a 33 year-old black male. He suffers from a heart valve disease and had an aortic valve inserted seven years ago. Since surgery, he has intermittently been on antibiotic therapy for infections. Also, he has been on an anticoagulant, Coumadin, to prevent clotting of the blood. This medication is necessary, as from time-to-time particles of infected or even normal tissue break off and impact in parts of the small vessels supplying the brain. As a result, Jeremy has had several strokes. However, to date, the strokes have not caused any substantial deficit in his neurological abilities. In part, his difficulties are related to his failure to consistently take his medications. He
has been on welfare often, and is currently unemployed.
Jeremy has five or six badly broken and neglected teeth left in the maxilla, and about twelve teeth in the mandible. At least seven of the teeth in the mandible are in very good condition in that they have no caries and are very firm. The gingiva is inflamed and there is some pocketing, but there is no gross pocketing. There is some tartar, but a good prophylaxis could improve the tissue. Jeremy has been given oral hygiene instruction, but according to the record has show no interest in improving his hygiene.
Because of his medical problems, Jeremy has to be hospitalized to have his teeth pulled. His physician has to stop the Coumadin, switch to Heparin (which can only be given intravenously), and perform surgery under general anesthetic. Following surgery, intravenous antibiotics have to be continued for 48 hours and the Coumadin resumed and monitored, until appropriate levels are reached. The procedure requires five days of hospitalization, services of oral surgeons (who not only extract the teeth but contour the ridges and prepare the tissues for a denture), an anesthesiologist for one and onehalf hours, recovery time, etc., at a cost of approximately $4,800.
Restoration of the teeth is out of the question, as it would be very costly and is not covered by Medicare. You have to decide whether to remove all the teeth in the mandible or to leave the seven sound teeth. Normally, this would be preferable, as wearing a lower denture is difficult. In a person as young as Jeremy, after long years of wearing a denture, resorption would occur making it increasingly more difficult to achieve a good fit. However, if Jeremy doesn’t change his oral hygiene habits, a partial denture could even accelerate the demise of the remaining teeth. Also, any infection could further complicate his health problems, and the teeth might need to be extracted at a later date, requiring hospitalization and further expense quite possibly to society. On the other hand, the experience of wearing an upper denture might influence him to change his ways in order to avoid having a lower denture as well.
Should You Remove All The Teeth? Yes No Why?
What Reasons Would You Give To Support Your Position?
Modified from case developed by Muriel J. Bebeau, Ph.D., University of Minnesota
Notes for assessors
ISSUES
Patient Autonomy. In most every case to date, we have argued that the patient’s right to be informed of alternatives, to choose the preferred treatment, or to refuse treatment take precedence. In this particular case, we are provided with no information about the patient’s involvement in the treatment decision. Should we presume that the referring dentist has consent for the proposed treatment? The oral surgeon has a referral for extraction of all the teeth, and must decide whether to follow the directive of the referring dentist, or to overrule that decision and make his own judgment as to the best interest of the patient. While we might argue that he should at least consult with the referring dentist, it is interesting to explore whether or not to pull all the teeth, given the circumstances in this case.
One factor to consider is the limitations placed on Jeremy’s autonomy by his lack of financial resources. As a medical assistance recipient, Jeremy is provided with relief from pain, swelling and infection, but restorative services are limited. For example, he is entitled to new dentures every five years. Or, if the dentist decides to leave the seven sound teeth, Jeremy would be eligible for a partial; but, more functional and esthetic restorations, e.g., crowns and bridges, are not covered.
Noncompliance. While we might argue that many people would be likely to change their health care habits after experiencing an upper denture, Jeremy has a history of noncompliance, at least as it relates to his general health. Failure to take his medications has life threatening consequences. He has experienced these consequences without improving his compliance. Although there may be important questions as to whether Jeremy understands the consequences of his actions, and is making an informed decision when he fails to comply, the surgeon cannot ignore his past noncompliant behavior, as it is the single best predictor of his future actions. It is important for students to consider the range of possible reasons for lack of compliance.
(1) A patient simply lacks understanding of the consequences, in which case he could be educated.
2) A patient lacks understanding of the consequences and has cognitive deficiencies or beliefs that make education difficult, in which case he may need a guardian or supervision if the provider cannot achieve comprehension.
(3) A patient may be consciously or unconsciously engaging in self-destructive behaviors because of depression, mental illness, or chemical dependency. In such a case, mental health interventions are needed.
Research indicates that people usually don’t make major changes in health habits and behaviors. The dentist needs to consider prior behavior in his assessment of this case, especially in view of the patient’s serious medical problems.
Conflict Of Duties: To Benefit Vs. To Remove Harm. One thing that makes this dilemma so difficult is that dentistry has become much more focused on preservation of tooth structure and on restoration of function rather than extraction of teeth. The incredible decreases in dental disease we have witnessed in the last 20 to 30 years is responsible for this change of focus. The principle of beneficence, the active promotion of goodness, kindness, and charity, seems to be the preeminent value of the profession. The idea that removing seven sound teeth might be in the patient’s best interest, given his health habits and the significant health risks associated with a second surgery, seems to fly in the face of the profession’s emphasis on restoration of function, and the idea that removing healthy teeth is, in and of itself, harmful.
In this case, it seems the surgeon would actually be “doing harm” in order “to prevent harm” that may come about if the teeth and surrounding tissue were left to fall victim to disease that is likely to result from the patient’s continued habits.
A second conflict of duties arises between the surgeon’s obligation to serve as an advocate of Jeremy’s interests, and his obligation to the rest of society, e.g., not to spend a disproportionate amount of public money on this patient. Many situations involving public funds are predetermined. This is one situation where the dentist may be able to argue that the patient’s seven sound teeth have resisted decay and disease in the face of Jeremy’s health habits, and therefore are less likely to become diseased in the future.
Rights Of Jeremy vs. Other MA Patients. Given that society sets aside some funding for care to the poor and disadvantaged, questions arise about the distribution of those scarce resources. For example, is it fair to use a disproportionate amount of public money on one person, if so doing diminishes the resources available to others? This might be a time to refer to the Oregon plan, and the Case of Coby Howard, which was presented in the introductory course on dental care delivery.
Rights Of Jeremy vs. The Rights Of Society. Some students will take the view that health care is a privilege rather than a basic right. They may feel that Jeremy should not be given any care that he cannot pay for. Such ideas are rooted in concepts of individualism and the puritan ethic, values that underlie much of American history and culture. Many of us have been socialized to believe that anyone could take care of him or herself, if only he or she would put forth the effort to do so (as we do). Or, a corollary idea, that God rewards hard work and punishes slothfulness.
Other students may take the view that there should be no discrimination on the basis of ability to pay, that the same packages of benefits should be available to all, irrespective of ability to pay. (Note: This case can arouse deeply held convictions. It is important to help students identify the beliefs that are at the root of these conflicting ideas, rather to argue which is the “right” view.) It is also important to help students see that society does provide “basic care” for those who are poor and disadvantaged, but the benefits provided do not represent “ideal oral health care.”
AFFECTED PARTIES
Jeremy
You, (The Surgeon)
Jeremy’s Family
Other MA Patients
Society
CONSEQUENCES
Threat To Jeremy’s Life. The dentist must consider two kinds of threats: the danger of repeated surgery and the possibility of bacteremia if Jeremy does not maintain the health of his gingival tissue. However, the possible problems could result from sore spots on ill fitting dentures, as well as from inflamed gingival tissue. If Jeremy retains the seven sound teeth, antibiotic prophylaxis would be required each time he has his teeth cleaned.
Enhance/Compromise Quality Of Life. Quality of life is affected, as the quality of function of dentition, e.g., the ability to eat and chew are either enhanced, by retaining the lower teeth, or compromised, by removing all teeth. This case illustrates a trade of risks and benefits.
Potential Lawsuit If Valid Consent Is Not Obtained. Professionals have an obligation to involve the patient in the decision making. At the same time, the professional has the ability to sway the decision by the manner in which the risks and benefits are presented. It would be important for the surgeon to review the consent process to determine whether valid consent was obtained.
Change Of Habits/Change Of Circumstances. In considering the case, one always has to entertain the possibility that the patient will have a change of heart about his health care habits, or that a change of circumstances in a persons life (a new job, a new relationship, etc.,) will motivate a change in habits, or a return to earlier healthy habits.
Increased Cost To The State If Additional Services Are Required. Additional costs are potentially incurred if Jeremy requires a second surgery. Additional costs are also incurred if he requires teeth cleaning in addition to periodic repair or replacement of a partial or full denture.
DUTIES
This case raises interesting questions about the responsibilities of both the surgeon and
the referring dentist. Obviously, the referring dentist has the primary burden:
• To Inform Jeremy Of The Options, Risks, Benefits And Consequence.
• To Recommend Therapy That Considers The Patient’s Best Interest.
• To Ensure That Jeremy Is Aware Of The Risks And Benefits Of His Behavior.
The surgeon has several duties:
To “Remove Evil Or Harm”. The diseased teeth are the source of life threatening infections, which the surgeon has been asked to remove. He of course has the duty not to inflict harm in the process. Some might argue that to override the referring dentist is to inflict harm.
To Do No Harm/To Preserve Health. In this case, removal of sound teeth may serve a larger goal, to preserve the patient’s health.
To Promote The Patient’s Health.
To Ensure That Consent Is Informed. The oral surgeon has an obligation to verify that the initial treating dentist involved the patient in the decision making process, and
To Advocate For The Patient With The Referring Dentist if, in his judgment, the course of treatment recommended is not in the patients interest.
To Mind The Public Purse. Should the surgeon consider the rights of other Medical Assistance patients that might be affected by the amount of resources that would be consumed by a “second surgery?” Clearly, the surgeon should put the patient’s interests over the interests of the surgeon (to generate more business), but health care providers are often in a position to judge how resources could best be allocated. The health care provider must consider the interests of others, especially in cases like this. Preauthorization would not be required in this or a subsequent case that might arise because of life threatening infections. As the oral surgeon who told me this dilemma stated, “Don’t I have a responsibility to ‘mind the public purse’?”
Appendix item 5- Example of training materials (2)
Transfer of file format incompatible, email author for details of these materials (see Contact tab)
Appendix item 6- forum participation assessment framework (Adapted from Nandi et al 2009) (3)
| Area of assessment | Criteria | Poor (0) | Satisfactory (1) | Good (2) | Excellent (3) |
| Content | Interpretation | Regurgitation of information | Basic paraphrasing of available information | Available information is explained using relevant examples | Available information is articulated to expand on ideas presented, including the use of examples |
| Justification | No justification of points made | Justification of points based on personal opinion | Justification using existing cases, concepts or theories | Justification using existing cases, concepts or theories and discussion of implications | |
| Prioritisation | No prioritization of information or knowledge | Some basic comparison of information | Ability to prioritise information and knowledge | Ability to prioritise information and knowledge based on an established criteria | |
| Breadth of knowledge | Narrow and limited knowledge | Some indication of a wider view of the topics discussed | Presenting a wider view of the topics discussed by showing a good breadth of knowledge | Ability to point out other perspectives, including drawing from other fields of studies | |
| Interaction quality | Critical discussion of contributions | No engagement with other learners’ contributions | Some basic discussion about other learners’ contributions | Consistent engagement with other learners’ contributions and acknowledgement of other learners’ comment on own contributions | Contributing to a community of learners, with consistent engagement and advancement of each others ideas |
| New ideas from interactions | No evidence of new ideas and thoughts from interaction | Some new ideas developed as a result of interaction | Some solutions and new ideas as a result of interactions | Collaborative approach to solution seeking and new ideas developed | |
| Sharing outside knowledge | No sharing of outside knowledge | Sharing generic information that is easily available from outside sources | Sharing real world examples that may not be immediately obvious to other learners | Sharing real life knowledge, personal experience and examples of similar problems/solutions | |
| Using social cues to engage other participants | No engagement with others in the discussion forum | Answering some basic question posed by facilitator or other learners | Engaging with the work and discussion of other learners | Engaging and encouraging participation with fellow discussants in the forum | |
| Objective measures | Participation rates | Less than 2 posts in the one month discussion period | Between 2-4 good quality posts in the 1 month discussion period | Between 4-8 good quality posts in the one month discussion period | Over 8 good quality posts |
| Consistency of participation | Rarely posts with occasional activity | Occasional activity | Consistent activity | Consistent and productive activity |
Appendix item 7- Feedback evaluation criteria
| Criteria | No evidence (0) | Some evidence (0.5) | Good evidence (1) |
| Feedback uses the comments/track changes function as instructed and does not change or delete the content of the submitter. | |||
| Feedback abides by the ‘rules of engagement’ and shows respect for the submitter’s opinions. | |||
| Feedback is timely and completed within the outlined schedule. | |||
| There is at least 4 relevant points of feedback with sufficient information to justify the points made. | |||
| The feedback provided expands the scope of discussion and appears to be provided in the best interests of the submitter. |
TOTAL= …………. /5
Appendix item 8- Draft schedule of assessment for ethical and legal decision-making 5th year DENT.
| Assessable item | Submission due | Peer Feedback (PF) | Faculty Feedback (FF) | Faculty Summative (FS) Mark | Mark |
| Case Report 1 | Jan (PF)March (FF)May (FS) | Feb | April | June
|
15% |
| Case Report 2 | Feb (PF)April (FF)June (FS) | March | May | July | 15% |
| Case Report 3 | March (PF)May (FF)July (FS) | April | June | August | 15% |
| Forum participation | Feb | March | April | 15% | |
| Feedback on Case 2 | March | April | May | 5% | |
| Feedback on Case 3 | April | May | June | 5% | |
| Personal case report progress report | JulySeptember | August | September (10%)October (20%) | 30% |
Appendix item 9- University of Queensland GPA requirements as they relate to course marks
|
Grade |
Category | Raw Mark Range |
|
7 |
Pass with high distinction | 85-100% |
|
6 |
Pass with distinction | 75-84% |
|
5 |
Credit | 65-74% |
|
4 |
Pass | 50-64% |
|
3 |
Fail3SSupplementary examination granted on grade of 33S- Fails to undertake supplementary assessment 3S1 Fail following supplementary examination on grade of 3 3S2 Fail following supplementary examination on grade of 3
3S3 Fail following supplementary examination on grade of 3 3S4 Pass following supplementary examination on grade of 3
|
35-50% |
|
2
|
2Fail2SSupplementary examination granted on grade of 2
2S- Fails to undertake supplementary assessment 2S1 Fail following supplementary examination on grade of 2 2S2 Fail following supplementary examination on grade of 2 2S3 Fail following supplementary examination on grade of 2 2S4 Pass following supplementary examination on grade of 2
|
20-35% |
|
1
|
Fail | <20% |
REFERENCES
1. Porter S, Girdis T. Teaching dental ethics and law at the University of Queensland. Bulletin of the International Dental Ethics and Law Society. 2009;9(2):19-26.
2. Bebeau M. Teaching and Assessment Materials for a Dental Ethics Course Designed to Facilitate the Development of Moral Reasoning and Judgment. Journal [serial on the Internet]. 2007 Date 02/09/2012]: Available from: www.ethicaldevelopment.ua.edu/…/Rev-2-Teaching-Assessment-Mat...
3. Nandi D, Chang S, Balbo S, editors. A conceptual framework for assessing interaction quality in online discussion forums; 2009; Auckland. Ascilite.