See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/45277161

The structure of observed learning outcome (SOLO) taxonomy: A model to

promote dental students' learning

Article  in  European Journal Of Dental Education · August 2010

DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0579.2009.00607.x · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

9 2,916

4 authors:

Henriette Lucander Lars Bondemark

Malmö University Malmö University
5 PUBLICATIONS   33 CITATIONS    107 PUBLICATIONS   2,928 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

George Brown Kerstin Knutsson

University of Nottingham Malmö University
211 PUBLICATIONS   3,125 CITATIONS    43 PUBLICATIONS   947 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Retention and stability of maxillary front teeth View project

CBCT use in endodontics - decisions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by George Brown on 03 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

To be submitted to Eur J Dent Educ

The SOLO (Structure of Observed Learning Outcome) taxonomy: a

model to promote dental students’ learning

Running title: The SOLO taxonomy: a model to promote learning

Henriette Lucander, School of Technology, Malmö University, Sweden

Lars Bondemark, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Sweden
George Brown, Leeds Dental Institute, UK
Kerstin Knutsson, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Sweden

Corresponding author: Henriette Lucander

Malmö University
School of Technology
Henriette Lucander
SE 205 06 Malmö
Sweden

Telephone: + 46 40 6657241
e-mail: henriette.lucander@mah.se

Keywords
SOLO-taxonomy, develop learning quality, promoting deep approach to learning

2009-09-28
ABSTRACT

Selective memorizing of isolated facts or reproducing what is thought to be required – the

surface approach to learning – is not the desired outcome for a dental student or a dentist in

practice. The preferred outcome is a deep approach as defined by an intention to seek

understanding, develop expertise and relate information and knowledge into a coherent whole.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the SOLO taxonomy could be used as a

model to assist and promote the dental students to develop a deep approach to learning

assessed as learning outcomes in a summative assessment.

Thirty-two students, participating in course eight in 2007 at the Faculty of Odontology at

Malmö University, were introduced to the SOLO taxonomy and constituted the test group.

The control group consisted of 35 students participating in course eight in 2006. The effect of

the introduction was measured by evaluating responses to a question in the summative

assessment by using the SOLO taxonomy. The evaluators consisted of two teachers who

performed the assessment of learning outcomes independently and separately on the coded

material.

The SOLO taxonomy as a model for learning was found to improve the quality of learning.

Compared to the control group significantly more strings and structured relations between

these strings were present in the test group after the SOLO taxonomy had been introduced,

(P<0.01, one tailed test for both results). The SOLO taxonomy is recommended as a model

for promoting and developing a deeper approach to learning in dentistry.

INTRODUCTION

Norris (1) defines critical thinkers as those who seek reasons, attempt to be well-informed,

use and acknowledge credible sources, consider alternatives and other points of view,

withhold judgement until they have sufficient evidence and seek to be as precise as possible.

This paper is based on the assumption that dental education like other forms of higher

education should lead to such higher order thinking (2) – allowing students to develop deep

knowledge in their disciplines and learn to think and critically reflect on their experience.

During the last 20 years a new area of research that focuses on learning in an institutional

context has emerged (3-8). Studies have identified that students have broadly two different

approaches to learning – the surface approach and the deep approach (3-10). Schöns (11)

ideas presume that a deep approach to learning will promote the development of a reflective

practitioner. Thus, much effort has been expended, at different dental schools as well as other

medical schools, in changing curricula in order to promote a deep approach to learning (12-

16). The presence of a surface approach can be interpreted as a signal of need for change in

the teaching and learning environment towards the deep approach as defined by an intention

to seek understanding, develop expertise and relate information and knowledge into a

coherent whole (10).

Biggs (17) argues persuasively that all the different factors within the learning environment,

curricula, assessment and learning outcomes, should be in alignment. These principles of

“Constructive Alignment” can be used when constructing and analyzing a learning

environment that encourages students to adopt the deep approach to learning. This notion of

“Constructivism” is based on the theory that learners use their own activities to create

meaning and thereby construct their knowledge (17). “Alignment” is based on the need for the
learning activities and the assessment tasks to be aligned with the learning outcomes (17). The

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) curriculum, at the Faculty of Odontology at Malmö

University, corresponds well to the constructivist approach (18). It is widely agreed that

assessment is a strong motivator for learning (19, 20). Thus, it is essential that the assessment

is constructed in alignment with the intended learning outcomes. When striving for a deep

approach, the learning outcomes must be defined accordingly, the assessment need to

encourage such an approach – and – the performance be evaluated in accordance with these

learning outcomes (19).

These considerations led to the development of a “learning spiral” which illustrates students’

construction of knowledge (Figure 1). The learning spiral is a metaphor that illustrates how

knowledge and competence is constructed as the learning outcomes increase in complexity,

breadth and depth. When learning outcomes collaborate with each other and stimulate each

other, the spiral rapidly expands upwards and outwards (21). This learning spiral was used in

conjunction with the SOLO taxonomy.

The SOLO taxonomy

The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of Observed Learning Outcome), developed by Biggs and

Collis is a way of evaluating responses of students and their performance in assessment, and

thereby evaluate the quality of learning (22). The SOLO taxonomy is a way of relating

responses to a certain level of learning quality. According to the SOLO taxonomy, the

structural complexity is increasing with increased student learning. In the early stages, most of

the learning is quantitative and the amount of detail increases. Further, the learning becomes

more qualitative as details are integrated in a structural pattern (10). The quantitative

dimension aims for an increase in knowledge while the qualitative dimension aims for a
deeper understanding: both are major curriculum aims. The taxonomy has five levels of

learning quality, as is shown in Figure 2.

The deep approach to learning is a prerequisite for reaching higher levels of complexity. If the

students are to construct knowledge with increasing complexity, the ability to reflect on ones

learning is of the essence. Boulton-Lewis (23) suggests that students need to learn more about

their own learning, acquire a meta-perspective, in order to become independent self-directed

learners. From this perspective, we thought it would be interesting to evaluate whether the

SOLO taxonomy could be used as a model for improving students´ meta-reflection and as an

effect, promote a deep approach to learning. It is acknowledged that there are other

taxonomies and other ways of assessing cognitive structure (19, 24). The SOLO taxonomy

was chosen since it makes it possible to evaluate the display of learning outcomes.

Furthermore the SOLO taxonomy, as is shown in figure 2 illustrates graphically the

differences between the different levels of learning quality. Illustrations serve a supportive

function when constructing knowledge and solving problems (25). Other reasons for our

choice were SOLO is a general instrument applicable across modes of learning and it is not

too difficult to use. As far as we know, the SOLO taxonomy has not been used as a model for

improving student learning within dental education.

Background: The learning environment

Dental students at Malmö University must complete successfully ten full semester courses.

The Problem Based Learning curriculum at the Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University is

based on strong links between aims, objectives, learning activities, criteria used for

assessment, feedback to students and course evaluation. In the undergraduate PBL dental

programme students work through problems in small study-groups of 6 to 8 students, led by a

facilitator (tutor). Course eight (eighth semester) was chosen as the test group for this study.

The theme of the course is the “Comprehensive oral health care of children, adolescents and

adults”. In this course the practical studies and the progressing PBL are assessed in a

formative way with substantial feedback while the theoretical studies are assessed in a

summative way resulting in a grade of pass or fail. The criteria for the assessments are known

to the students. The summative assessment with tasks that are integrated or multidisciplinary

is completed at the end of the semester.

General discussions at seminars with students who participated in course eight revealed that

most students use different approaches for the formative and summative assessments,

respectively. In the formative assessment of the practical competencies the students seem to

understand the need for a deep approach to learning, for relating the different facts, i.e. strings

of details to each other and showing the ability to generalize using related aspects. In the

summative assessment of the theoretical studies however, most students seem to have a

surface approach where they focus on passing the assessment by learning how to pass the

assessments of previous years.

AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the SOLO taxonomy could be used as a

model to assist and promote the dental students to evolve a deep approach to learning. This

deep approach to learning is expressed as learning outcomes in the summative assessment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Students

The test group consisted of the 32 students who participated in course eight “Comprehensive

oral health care of children, adolescents and adults” in 2007 at the Faculty of Odontology at

Malmö University. The control group consisted of the 35 students who participated in course

eight in 2006. The groups were comparable in terms of entry requirements, gender, ethnicity

and performance in earlier courses.

Introduction of the framework for learning – the SOLO taxonomy

The seminars

During a seminar in the middle of the course, the students were introduced to the SOLO

taxonomy. This introduction, made by one author with experience from working with the

taxonomy in Graphic Design courses, suggested that the taxonomy could be used not only as

a method for evaluating the level of understanding that a student has reached (or at least

exhibits) but also as a framework for reflecting on one’s own learning in conjunction with

ideas of lifelong learning (19, 26). It was made clear to the students that the taxonomy was

introduced with the purpose to promote a deep approach to learning and that the assessment

criteria was to remain the same as previous years. The students were introduced to the

different levels of the taxonomy in accordance with Figure 2. Problems that arise in dental

healthcare with examples of responses that display understanding at the different levels of the

SOLO taxonomy, were discussed. After the seminar, the students performed an exercise task

in tutorial groups. The exercise involved writing responses at the Multistructural and

Relational levels (Figure 2) to a question that was relevant to the upcoming summative

assessment.
The responses were discussed at a second seminar two weeks later. The teachers provided oral

feedback on the quality of the responses and pointed out how the display of the relations in

the structural pattern seemed to enhance the level of detail and understanding. The responses

showed that the students had understood the principles of the different levels of the SOLO

taxonomy.

The assessment question

A question from the assessment of 2006 was randomly chosen and incorporated in the

assessment of 2007.

The question read:

Mohammad, a 6-year-old boy, visits your clinic for an examination. He has lived in

Sweden for 4 months. He and his mother do not understand Swedish. Thus, it is

impossible for you to make a proper anamnesis.

During the clinical (visual tactile) examination you find occlusal caries in the fissures of

the right maxillary first permanent molar [tooth 16] and the right first primary molar

[tooth 54]. He has microbiological plaque in connection with the posterior teeth in both

jaws.

a) What complementary information do you need, and what diagnostic tests,

besides those presented in the case, do you want to perform? Give reasons for

your answer.

b) What are your treatment strategies and your treatment plan as suggested to the

patient and his mother? Give reasons for your answer.

The analyzing procedure

The examination responses from 2006 and 2007 were mixed and coded by an independent

person not involved in the study, thereby enabling a blinded evaluation. All responses to the

question were analyzed and evaluated using the SOLO taxonomy.

A marking protocol, in alignment with the SOLO-levels, was jointly constructed by the

analyzing group and the examination group. The analyzing group consisted of two teachers

who performed the evaluation of learning independently and separately. Neither of these

teachers was involved in the course or the assessment. One teacher was a dentist, a radiology

specialist, at the Faculty of Odontology at Malmö University. The other was a teacher at the

Department of Technology and Society at Malmö University. The latter was also the teacher

who introduced the SOLO taxonomy to the students. These two teachers did the markings,

which were compared. The few minor differences were discussed until a mutual agreement

could be reached.

The marking protocol showed relevant strings of details below each subheading and these

strings could be joined by different relations. The relations could be apparent within a group,

i.e. below the same subheading, or between groups of strings of details. An example of

subheadings and strings of details is presented in Figure 3.

One marking protocol was used for each student’s response. In this protocol the strings of

details – as well as each display of a relation between strings of details – were marked. The

number of strings and the number of relations were counted.

Statistical analyses

The Student’s t-test was used for analyzing differences in number of strings of details, and

number of relations, between the test group and the control group. The level of significance

was set at P=0.05. For the statistical analyses we used SPSS 17.0.
RESULTS

Both results were highly significant (p<0.01) using a one tailed t-test. The test group produced

more strings of details (n = 372 for the test group and n=350 for the control group). More

relationships between strings of detail were found in the test group in comparison with the

control group (n = 117 for the test group and n = 30 for the control group). From these results

one can conclude that the test group used more strings of details and were considerably better

at generating relationships between strings of details. Table 1 summarizes the results.

******Table 1 About here

DISCUSSION

In this study, we found a higher display of a deep approach to learning by students in an

examination question after a short introduction to the SOLO taxonomy. Compared to the

control group, more test group students gave responses at the Relational level.

A few similar studies (27, 28) have been performed in which the SOLO taxonomy was

introduced with discussions and examples in an attempt to shape students’ learning outcomes.

In these studies the results in terms of improving students’ structural organization of

knowledge were disappointing to the authors as the majority of the students remained at the

Multistructural level. The more favourable results found in this study indicate that a brief

intervention can enhance the development of deep approaches to learning in PBL. But some

caution is necessary in interpreting the results. The experimental cohort did demonstrate

deeper approaches to learning on this occasion. But this result is likely to be due to the

tendency of dental students to be compliant and their desire to succeed rather than their desire

to be deep learners. Without clear explicit assessment criteria which stress deep learning it is

unlikely that dental students will use deep approaches to learning. Put simply, if you want

dental students to become deeper learners then change the assessment criteria to include deep

learning.

However, the positive results from this study are robust. The assessment responses from the

test and control group were mixed and coded which means that the teachers who did the

marking were unaware of which group each response belonged to. The close agreement of the

results of the marking by the two teachers, despite their different backgrounds, further
indicated that the SOLO taxonomy was a useful and reliable tool for evaluating the quality of

learning.

The results may be generalisable to other dental students and other contexts but again some

caution is necessary. The results were obtained in the context of a PBL course in which

students are very familiar with notion of alignment and expect the assessments to be in line

with the learning outcomes of a course. Both cohorts took the test under examination

conditions and both cohorts had access to previous examination papers. But the test group, or

rather some individuals in the test group, might have tried the question in private study as part

of their revision. It could be argued that it was this opportunity to have a preliminary attempt

at the question not their knowledge of SOLO which produced the highly significant results.

However, students in the control group also had access to past papers and many of these

contain exactly the same questions as used in their examinations. Yet the overall performance

of the 2006 cohort was consistent with that of earlier years. What distinguished the control

group from the test group was the test group was taught SOLO.

It is interesting to note that all the students in both groups passed in the formal examinations

but, as the results show, overall the test group performed at the higher Relational level, the

control group at the Multistructural level or lower. Again, this result highlights the importance

of providing guidance to students on deep learning approaches and providing criteria which

emphasise deep learning.

These findings have wider implications for teaching and assessing deeper approaches to

learning. The findings indicate that the focus should be on the relationships between strings

of facts rather than the number of strings of facts taught or learnt. Fewer facts and more
connections between the facts is the path towards deep learning. The SOLO taxonomy is

helpful on this path. It can remind teachers to focus upon cognitive relationships. The

graphic output of the marking protocols illustrate clearly the results of marking can be seen in

the examples in Figure 4 and 5. Graphic output can be used in teaching as well as assessment.

The approach is likely to be appealing to dental students who, usually, prefer visualisation to

verbalisation.

As indicated in the introduction, students in both the control group and test group reported

they used surface approaches to learning for examinations. This study showed it is possible to

help students to develop deeper approaches to learning and performance in examinations

through the use of the SOLO taxonomy. Members of the test group were of the opinion that

SOLO should have been introduced earlier in the curriculum. This, they said, would have

raised their awareness of learning and given them a guide to develop their understanding.

The message from this study is clear. The SOLO taxonomy is a useful tool for developing

and assessing deep learning in dentistry. This result does not exclude that other

taxonomies and other ways of developing and assessing cognitive structure might

have gained a similar outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that the SOLO taxonomy could be used as a model for promoting and

developing a deeper approach to learning in dentistry. Using the SOLO taxonomy is

recommended to dental educators interested in developing and assessing deeper approaches to

learning by their students.

REFERENCES

1 Norris SP. Can we test validly for critical thinking. J Educ Res 1989: 18: 21-26.

2 Barnett R. The idea of higher education. Buckingham: The Society for Research

into Higher Education and Open University Press, 1990: 149-205.

3 Marton F, Saljo R. On qualitative differences in learning: 1 - outcome and process.

Br J Educ Psychol 1976: 76: 4-11.

4 Marton F, Saljo R. On qualitative differences in learning: II - outcome as a function

of the learner’s conception of the task. Br J Educ Psychol 1976: 76: 115-127.

5 Entwistle NJ. Styles of learning and teaching: an integrated outline of educational

psychology for students, teachers and lecturers. Chichester: Wiley, 1981.

6 Entwistle NJ, Ramsden P. Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm,

1982.

7 Biggs JB. Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian

council for educational research, 1987.

8 Prosser M, Trigwell K. Understanding learning and teaching. Buckingham: SHRE

and Open University Press, 1999.

9 Prosser M. A student learning perspective on teaching and learning, with

implications for problem-based learning. Eur J Dent Educ, 2004: 12: 51-58

10 Biggs JB, Tang C. Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student

does. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2007: 50-63.

11 Schön D. Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987

12 Reid W, Duvall E, Evans P. Can we influence medical students’ approaches to

learning? Med Teach 2005: 5: 401-407

13 Morris J. The conceptions of the nature of learning of first-year physiotherapy

students and their relationship to students’ learning outcomes. Med Teach 2001: 5:

503-507

14 Reid W, Duvall E, Evans P. Relationship between assessment results and

approaches to learning and studying in year two medical students. Med Educ 2007:

41: 754-762

15 Boyd L. Development of reflective judgement in the pre-doctoral dental clinical

curriculum. Eur J Dent Educ 2008: 12: 149-158

16 McCune V, Entwistle N. The deep approach to learning: analytic abstraction and

idiosyncratic development. Presented at the Innovations in Higher Education

Conference 2000. Helsinki

17 Biggs J. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. High Educ 1996: 32:

347-364.

18 Hobson R, Rolland S, Rotgans J et al. Quality assurance, benchmarking,

assessment and mutual international recognition of qualifications. Eur J Dent Educ

2008: 12: 92-100.

19 Brown G, Bull J, Pendlebury M. Assessing student learning in higher education.

London: Routledge, 1997: 7-38.

20 Schoonheim-Klein M, Habets L, Aartman I et al. Implementing an objective

structured clinical examination (OSCE) in dental education: effects on students’

learning strategies, Eur J Dent Educ 2006: 10: 226-235

21 Hudson J, Knutsson K, Lucander H, Skedinger-Jacobson M, Svensson H.

Bedömning av studenternas prestationer [Assessment of students’ achievement].

In: Serder V, ed. Kvalitetsarbete då och nu – med sikte på framtiden [Working with

quality then an now – aiming for the future]. Malmö: Malmö University, 2006: 63-

88.

22 Biggs JB, Collis KF. Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy

(Structure of the observed learning outcome). New York: Academic Press, 1982.

23 Boulton-Lewis GM. The SOLO taxonomy as a means of shaping and assessing

learning in higher education. High Educ Res Develop 1995: 14: 143-154.

24 McKeachie W, Pintrich P, Lin Y, Smith D. Teaching and learning in the college

classroom: A review of the research literature (1986) and November 1987

Supplement. Michigan: National center for research to improve postsecondary

teaching and learning, 1987: 11-37.

25 Lewalter D. Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals.

Learn Instruc 2003: 13: 177-189.

26 Dunlap JC. Preparing students for lifelong learning: A review of instructional

methodologies. In: Abel O, Maushak N, Egeland Wright K, Eds. Proceedings of

Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1997 National Convention

 of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Albuquerque:

Research and theory division, 1997: 35-46.

27 Boulton-Lewis GM. The SOLO taxonomy and levels of knowledge of learning.

Research and development in higher education. 1992: 15: 482-489.

28 Boulton-Lewis GM, Dart BC. Assessing students’ knowledge of learning: A

comparison of data collection methods. In: Gibbs G, ed. Improving student

learning through assessment and evaluation. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and

Learning Development (OCSLD), 1995: 263-277.

Page 19 of 24 European Journal of Dental Education

1
2
3
Table 1
4
5
6 The test group was compared (T-test) to the control group according to number of
7
8 strings of details as well as number of relationships between these strings of detail.
9
10
11
12 Variable Test Test Control Control T value Sig
13 group group group group level
14 Mean SD Mean SD
15 (n = 32) (n = 35)
16
17
Strings 11.63 1.93 9.99 2.03 3.38 P<0.01
18 Relationships 3.66 2.05 0.77 0.88 7.35 P<0.01
19
20 SD = standard deviation T value = T test result sig level = significance level (eg P<
Fo

21 0.01)
22
23
One tailed test used.
24
rP

25
26
27
28
29
ee

30
31
32
rR

33
34
35
36
37
ev

38
39
40
41
iew

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Official Journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe

 European Journal of Dental Education Page 20 of 24

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe

25
26
27
28
er

29
30
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37 Figure 1. The Learning Spiral (12). The learning spiral was developed in a quality project at Malmö
38 University as a basis for discussions concerning the progression of learning outcomes and how the
39 relations among learning outcomes within Knowledge and understanding (red), Skills and abilities
ew

40 (green) and Judgement and approach (blue) interact and expand the construction of knowledge
41 upwards and outwards. Consequently, learning outcomes should be written so that they interact
42 and stimulate the progression of competence.
43 78x71mm (600 x 600 DPI)
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Official Journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe
Page 21 of 24 European Journal of Dental Education

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe

25
26
27
28
er

29
30
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48 Figure 2. The Solo taxonomy (13). At the prestructural level, the answer misses the point. At the
49 unistructural level, the answer displays one string of relevant details. At the multistructural level,
the answer contains several strings of details that are unrelated to each other. At the relational
50
level, the answer shows how the different strings of details relate to each other. The relevant
51 aspects are integrated into a coherent overall structure. The final level is the extended abstract, in
52 which the answer shows the construction of knowledge and the coherent whole is generalised or
53 reconceptualised to a higher level of abstraction.
54 78x105mm (600 x 600 DPI)
55
56
57
58
59
60
Official Journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe
 European Journal of Dental Education Page 22 of 24

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Pe

25
26
27
28
er

29
30
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48 Figure 3. This example of a marking protocol shows the main groups of strings of details. Each
49 group consists of several strings as shown under the treatment plan. Each string of details that was
present was marked in the marking scheme. The relations were marked with arrows between the
50
relevant strings within or between the groups of strings.
51 70x99mm (600 x 600 DPI)
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Official Journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe
Page 23 of 24 European Journal of Dental Education

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
Figure 4. Graphic representation of minimum and maximum result in a marking protocol
22 157x59mm (600 x 600 DPI)
r
23
24
Pe

25
26
27
28
er

29
30
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Official Journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe
 European Journal of Dental Education Page 24 of 24

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
Figure 5. Graphic representation of the average result of the test group and control group
22 157x59mm (600 x 600 DPI)
r
23
24
Pe

25
26
27
28
er

29
30
31
32
Re

33
34
35
36
vi

37
38
39
ew

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Official Journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe

View publication stats