The importance of student monitoring in academic learning: a two-year follow-up

  • Gabriel Pereira Nunes
  • Beatriz Ommati Pirovani
  • Hiago Guimarães Silva
  • Ana Victória Butarelo
  • Juliana da Silva Rossini
  • Jefferson Martins Costa
  • Larissa Pereira Nunes
  • Karina Vieira Martins

Abstract




Abstract: Monitory exercises must provide conditions that support academic and personal development for students during graduation, once it allows a leveling possibility whereas the monitor meets the demands from the students in earlier years. Aim: This study has as objective to analyze the importance of monitory in advantage of the best academic achievement in students. Methods: In the years of 2015 and 2016, sophomore odontology students were monitored on pharmacology, originated from the need of remedial studies due to its high incidence of failure. For such, weekly monitoring on theoretical classes, study groups and content reviews were done. After two years of monitoring the number of failures and respective percentages were determined. The data was submitted to variance analysis and Student-Newman-Keuls test (p< 0,001). Results: The monitory had expressive results,since it reduced significantly failure numbers, statistically muchinferior than previous years. Conclusion: Hence, it was possible to verify that monitory had positive effects on students learning, allowing access to knowledge and being imperative to the covered content systematization on the subject, since advising and monitoring students made their learning more natural.




References

1. Foundation Federal University of Rondônia. Resolution no 129/CONSEA, 2006 Jul 13. [Establishes norms for the Monitoring Program and gives other measures]. Amended by resolution no 291/ CONSEA, 2012 Oct 23. Portuguese.
2. Cordeiro AS, Oliveira BP. [Academic monitoring: the importance for undergraduate chemistry students]. In: 2nd Meeting of Forensic Science and Expertise of the RN. Natal: ANNQ; 2011 [cited 2018 Jan 25]. Available from: Disponível em http://annq.org/eventos/upload/1325330899.pdf. Portuguese.
3. Ferreira AS, Pacheco AB. [Psychopedagogical intervention in a multidisciplinary perspective: working to develop the potential of adolescent students]. In: Federal Council of Psychology. [Professional experiences in the construction of educational processes in the school]. Brasília: CFP; 2010. p. 53-76. Available from: https://site.cfp.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Construcao_de_processos_ educativos_publicacao.pdf. Portuguese.
4. Araujo RB, Tavares LB. [Family and learning difficulties.Pedagogia FAIP]. 2011 Jan 24 [cited 2018 mar 2]. Available from: http://pedagogiafaip.blogspot.com/2011/01/familia-e-dificuldades-de- aprendizagem.html. Portuguese.
5. Soares MAA, Santos KF. [Monitoring as a subsidy to the teaching-learning process: the case of financial administration in CCHSA-UFPB]. In: XI Teaching Initiation Meeting. João Pessoa: Federal University of Paraíba; 2008 [cited 2018 mar 5]. Available from: www.prac.ufpb.br/anais/xenex_xienid/ xi_enid/monitoriapet/ANAIS/Area4/4CCHSADCSAMT04.pdf. Portuguese.
6. Sousa Júnior JA, Silva AL, Magno A, Santos MBH, Barbosa JA. [Importance of the monitor in
the teaching of organic chemistry in the search of the professional training of the agricultural sciences]. In: XI Teaching Initiation Meeting. João Pessoa: Federal University of Paraíba; 2008 [cited 2018 mar 5]. Available from: ww.prac.ufpb.br/anais/xenex_xienid/xi_enid/monitoriapet/ANAIS/ Area4/4CCADCFSMT03.pdf. Portuguese.
7. Perpétuo SC, Gonçalvez AM. [Dynamics of groups in leadership formation]. Rio de Janeiro: DP&A; 2005. Portuguese.
8. Perrenoud P. [Evaluation: from excellence to regulation of learning - between two logics]. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas; 1999. Portuguese.
9. Novaes MH. [School psychology]. Petrópolis: Vozes; 1972. Portuguese.
10. Turner AM, Prihoda TJ, English DK, Chismark A, Jacks ME. Millennial dental hygiene students’ learning preferences compared to non-millennial faculty members’ teaching methods: a national study. J Dent Educ. 2016 Sep;80(9):1082-90.
11. Coelho MT. [Learning problems]. São Paulo: Ática; 1990. Portuguese.
12. Luckesi CC. [Learning evaluation: component of the pedagogical act]. São Paulo: Cortez; 2011. Portuguese.
13. Kokklenberg EC, Dillon M, Christy SM. The effects of class size on student grades at a public university. Econ Educ Rev. 2008 Apr;27(2):221-33.
14. Bedard K, Kuhn P. Where class size really matters: Class size and student ratings of instructor effectiveness. Econ Educ Rev. 2008 Jun;27(3):253-65.
15. Eeteban MT, organizator. [Assessment: a practice in search of new meanings]. Rio de Janeiro: DP&A; 2001. Portuguese.
16. Oliveira AA, Maia Filho AF, Siqueira LBO. [Monitoring of: the first steps in academic life]. In: XI Teaching Initiation Meeting. João Pessoa: Federal University of Paraíba; 2008 [cited 2018 mar 5]. Available from: www.prac.ufpb.br/anais/xenex_xienid/xi_enid/monitoriapet/ANAIS/ Area4/4CCSADEMT04.pdf. Portuguese.
Published
2018-08-18
How to Cite
NUNES, Gabriel Pereira et al. The importance of student monitoring in academic learning: a two-year follow-up. Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences, [S.l.], p. e18887, aug. 2018. ISSN 1677-3225. Available at: <https://www.fop.unicamp.br/bjos/index.php/bjos/article/view/1393>. Date accessed: 17 july 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v17i0.8652940.
Section
Original Research