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: Third-year undergraduate dental students were taught wire-bending skills via FC teaching method using a series of pre-recorded online video demonstrations. As part of the formative assessment, the students were given the results and assessment rubrics of their prior wire-bending assessment before every subsequent session. Purposive sampling method for focus group discussion was used to recruit eight students comprising four high achievers and four low achievers. Strengths, weaknesses and suggestions for improvement of the FC with formative assessment were explored. Data were transcribed and thematically analysed.
RESULTS: Students perceived that FC allowed for a more convenient and flexible learning experience with personalised learning and improved in-class teaching efficiency. The pre-recorded online videos were useful to aid in teaching wire-bending skills but lacked three-dimensional representation of the wire-bending process. Students suggested better standardisation of instructions and access to the marking rubric before and after assessment.
CONCLUSIONS: FC teaching with continuous formative assessment and constructive feedback as a form of personalised learning was viewed favourably by students. The implementation of periodic individual feedback can further enhance their learning experience.
METHODS: All second-year undergraduate Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) students were invited to participate in a TBL-CBL session. These participants were randomly allocated to six different groups of 10-12 students, and the session was conducted by one lecturer as the facilitator. A 23-item questionnaire assessing four domains (perceptions of effectiveness, teacher, team interaction and learning environment) was administered at the end of the TBL-CBL session.
RESULTS: The response rate was 91.9% (n = 68). Mean scores for the questionnaire items ranged from 4.13 to 4.60 suggesting a positive perception among the students towards the hybrid TBL-CBL approach. Regarding the open-response questions, students emphasised that the TBL-CBL session was effective for team interaction and group discussions. However, students wished to have a better venue for future sessions.
CONCLUSION: Positive perceptions of the students encourage future educators to consider the use of TBL-CBL approach in teaching dental materials science and to avoid the reliance on standalone conventional lectures. Future research could consider examining its effects on students' academic achievement as well as the perspectives of teachers regarding its adoption in different dental specialities.