METHODS: Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to 233 undergraduate dental students involved with clinical teaching. This modified and validated questionnaire focusing on students' learning environment was used in order to gain relevant information related to dental clinical teaching. Six domains with different criteria applicable to clinical teaching in dentistry were selected consisting of modelling (four criteria), coaching (four criteria), scaffolding (four criteria), articulation (four criteria), reflection (two criteria) and general learning environment (six criteria). Data analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 20.
RESULTS: Majority of the students expressed positive perceptions on their clinical learning experience towards the clinical teachers in the Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya, in all criteria of the domains. Few negative feedbacks concerning the general learning environment were reported.
CONCLUSION: Further improvement in the delivery of clinical teaching preferably by using wide variety of teaching-learning activities can be taken into account through students' feedback on their learning experience.
METHODS: Forty third-year undergraduate dental students were randomly assigned into FC (n = 20) or LD (n = 20) cohort. Each student attended six teaching sessions, each to teach students' competency in fabricating one type of wire component, for a total competency in fabricating six wire components over the course of six teaching sessions. Either LD or FC teaching methods were used. After each session, wire assignments had to be submitted. Wire assignments were then evaluated using a blinded wire-bending assessment protocol. As part of their formative assessment, the assessment results were distributed to students, lecturers, and technicians before the next session. After the first session (T0) and at the end of all six sessions (T1), students completed a self-reported questionnaire.
RESULTS: The mean wire-bending scores for FC were significantly higher than LD for two of the six assignments, namely the Adams clasp (p Z-spring (p = 0.03). Scores for both LD and FC increased significantly over time, which may be attributed to formative assessment. There was no statistically significant correlation between wire-bending scores and video usage. Students were satisfied with both teaching methods, according to T0 and T1 questionnaires.
CONCLUSIONS: Both LD and FC are equally effective in transferring practical orthodontic wire-bending skills and well-received by students. Continuous formative assessment may have enhanced students' learning of orthodontic wire-bending skills. Further studies with control group are recommended to investigate the effect of formative assessment on teaching practical dental skills.
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.