METHODS: Forty third-year undergraduate dental students were randomly assigned to two groups: FC (n = 20) and LD (n = 20). Students in group FC attended FC, while students in group LD attended LD. Both groups underwent a series of standardized teaching sessions to acquire skills in fabricating six types of orthodontic wire components. Eight students (four high achievers and four low achievers) from each group were randomly selected to attend separate focus group discussion (FGD) sessions. Students' perceptions on the strengths, weaknesses, and suggestions for improvement on each teaching method were explored. Audio and video recordings of FGD were transcribed and thematically analyzed using NVivo version 12 software.
RESULTS: Promoting personalized learning, improvement in teaching efficacy, inaccuracy of three-dimensional demonstration from online video, and lack of standardization among instructors and video demonstration were among the themes identified. Similarly, lack of standardization among instructors was one of the themes identified for LD, in addition to other themes such as enabling immediate clarification and vantage point affected by seating arrangement and class size.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, FC outperformed LD in fostering personalized learning and improving the efficacy of physical class time. LD was more advantageous than FC in allowing immediate question and answer. However, seating arrangement and class size affected LD in contrast to FC.
METHODS: All fourth-year undergraduate dental students (n = 69, response rate = 100%) participated in the Photodentistry learning activity developed by specialists from the areas of dentistry, arts, education, and psychology. A survey using the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) was conducted both pretest and posttest, followed by an open-ended written survey of their reflection towards the learning activity. Quantitative data were analyzed via paired t-test (P < 0.05), while qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: There was a significant increase in both students' total mean empathy score and the individual scores for 8 (out of 16) items of the TEQ after the learning activity. Students stated that they had an improved understanding of managing patients in a comprehensive manner (e.g., managing medically compromised patients, performing treatment planning, communication with patients who have special health care needs). Students also reported the development of skills (e.g., observation, critical thinking) and positive attitudes (e.g., empathy, responsibility) towards patients.
CONCLUSION: Photodentistry is an effective learning approach for improving dental students' empathy and learning experience in comprehensive patient care.
METHODS: In the GCD program, year-2 dental students from universities in Egypt, Hong Kong, Malaysia, UK, and the United States developed a portfolio of a restorative procedure in simulation laboratory and uploaded to an online platform (https://gcd.hku.hk/). Through the platform, the students left comments on each other's portfolios to share and discuss their knowledge and experiences on restorative dentistry. This study invited students from Hong Kong in 2018-2019 to complete an open-ended questionnaire to explore their experience on the GCD program. The feedback was compiled and analyzed.
RESULTS: All 71 year-2 students completed the questionnaire. Their most dominant comments were positive feelings about learning different clinical principles and methods from universities abroad. The students also enjoyed the cultural exchange from the comfort of their own devices. Other recurrent comments included the improvement of the skills of communication and comments on the peers' work in a professional manner. The students were enthusiastic about being able to apply their critical thinking in evaluating their work. They shared their learning barriers, including the extra time needed for the program, some unenthusiastic responses from groupmates, and delayed replies from peers. They made suggestions to remove the barriers in the learning process of the GCD program.
CONCLUSION: Students generally welcomed the GCD program and benefitted from the global academic exchange, development of critical thinking, enhancing professional communication skills, as well as opportunities of cultural exchange.
METHODS: The study was conducted among second-year dental students in a dental materials science class, during which students participated in a mock assessment that included extended matching questions (EMQs) and single correct answer (SCA) questions. An online questionnaire comprising three sections: demographic information, Honey and Mumford's Learning Styles Questionnaire, and 15 closed-ended questionnaire items employing a 5-point Likert scale were administered to assess students' perceptions of the assessment methods. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U test, and a post-hoc Bonferroni test.
RESULTS: All 70 students participated in the study with the majority being female, Chinese, and activist learners. Median total scores among various learning styles, gender, and ethnicity did not exhibit significant differences. Analysis of individual questionnaire items revealed mixed perceptions regarding EMQs. Reflectors generally held more positive perceptions of EMQs, while theorists showed the lowest total median scores toward EMQs. Most students did not prefer EMQs over SCAs, and some students expressed confusion about EMQs, especially those with a theorist learning style.
CONCLUSION: Although students generally showed good perceptions towards these assessment methods, further research is needed to better understand the interplay of learning styles, assessment preferences, and educational outcomes in dental education.