Kathleen Fischer, Michael Sekula, David Hannigan, Randall Vaught, Tarin Williams
{"title":"Analysis of different factors on dental students' perception of a flipped classroom model: A 6-year follow-up study","authors":"Kathleen Fischer, Michael Sekula, David Hannigan, Randall Vaught, Tarin Williams","doi":"10.1111/eje.13025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate different factors affecting two different cohorts of dental students' perceptions with the flipped classroom (FC) model in a preclinical dental course over six years.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>In 2016 (cohort #1) and 2022 (cohort #2), second-year dental students participated in FC model in a preclinical dental course consisting of pre-class recorded videos and lectures along with classroom interactive exercises. Students then completed an anonymous pen-and-paper survey evaluating three factors influencing students' overall study experience with the FC model. Survey responses from cohort #1 and cohort #2 were compared to assess the effect of generation, student demographics and COVID-19 pandemic on students' perceptions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>When asked to rate the FC experience out of 5, the mean ratings of cohort #1 and cohort #2 were 4.3 (±0.9) and 4.0 (±0.8), respectively. Cohort #2 preferred viewing slides and videos prior to class and had a higher agreement that pre-class course materials were beneficial to class preparation. Conversely, cohort #1 had a higher agreement that in-class discussion and exercises helped them to learn course content. From cohort #2, 88.6% of males and 71.6% of females preferred the FC approach over traditional lecture.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Both cohorts reported positively with the FC model of teaching. Cohort #2 had higher positive reports with the pre-class work and cohort #1 had a higher positive report with in-class work. Course design should reflect the students' points of view and learning perspectives with careful consideration of the student population in the classroom.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50488,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Dental Education","volume":"28 4","pages":"905-912"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Dental Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eje.13025","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
To evaluate different factors affecting two different cohorts of dental students' perceptions with the flipped classroom (FC) model in a preclinical dental course over six years.
Materials and Methods
In 2016 (cohort #1) and 2022 (cohort #2), second-year dental students participated in FC model in a preclinical dental course consisting of pre-class recorded videos and lectures along with classroom interactive exercises. Students then completed an anonymous pen-and-paper survey evaluating three factors influencing students' overall study experience with the FC model. Survey responses from cohort #1 and cohort #2 were compared to assess the effect of generation, student demographics and COVID-19 pandemic on students' perceptions.
Results
When asked to rate the FC experience out of 5, the mean ratings of cohort #1 and cohort #2 were 4.3 (±0.9) and 4.0 (±0.8), respectively. Cohort #2 preferred viewing slides and videos prior to class and had a higher agreement that pre-class course materials were beneficial to class preparation. Conversely, cohort #1 had a higher agreement that in-class discussion and exercises helped them to learn course content. From cohort #2, 88.6% of males and 71.6% of females preferred the FC approach over traditional lecture.
Conclusion
Both cohorts reported positively with the FC model of teaching. Cohort #2 had higher positive reports with the pre-class work and cohort #1 had a higher positive report with in-class work. Course design should reflect the students' points of view and learning perspectives with careful consideration of the student population in the classroom.
期刊介绍:
The aim of the European Journal of Dental Education is to publish original topical and review articles of the highest quality in the field of Dental Education. The Journal seeks to disseminate widely the latest information on curriculum development teaching methodologies assessment techniques and quality assurance in the fields of dental undergraduate and postgraduate education and dental auxiliary personnel training. The scope includes the dental educational aspects of the basic medical sciences the behavioural sciences the interface with medical education information technology and distance learning and educational audit. Papers embodying the results of high-quality educational research of relevance to dentistry are particularly encouraged as are evidence-based reports of novel and established educational programmes and their outcomes.