Effectiveness of distance learning for preclinical periodontal education

Abstract

IntroductionThis study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of distance learning (DL) for the second‐year periodontics course compared to classroom learning (CL).Materials and MethodsDL for Class A (n1 = 126) and CL for Class B (n2 = 133) were implemented. The same instructors recorded or delivered the same lectures in the two learning modules during the second‐year periodontics course. Classes A and B took the same final examinations (a total % score of 200). General linear model (GLM) and ordinal logistic regression (OLR) analyses were conducted after considering individual first‐year final % scores as a covariate to test if the second‐year final % scores and the distributions of letter grades were significantly different between Class A and B.ResultsThe mean second‐year final % score of the DL group (166.4) was significantly higher than that of the CL group (160.8) (independent t‐test, p = .019). However, in GLM, the first‐year final % scores significantly affected the second‐year scores (p = .016); the second‐year final % scores between the two groups were not significantly different (p = .268) after considering the individual first‐year scores. In OLR, there was no difference in the likelihood of getting lower grades in the second‐year course between the two groups (odds ratio = 1.6; 95% confidence interval = [0.95, 2.72], p = .078) after considering the first‐year final % scores.ConclusionWithin the limitations of the study, the DL for preclinical periodontics resulted in comparable student learning outcomes when compared to the traditional CL.

Evaluation of student readiness for clinical dental education at the end of preclinical education

“…This finding agreed with that from another study reporting written and basic science examination scores did not impact students' clinical performance examination scores in medical education. 15 The written examination demands students to recall the facts or apply the concepts with reasoning, 16 which may not require for them to perform certain procedures appropriately. Therefore, students may use different skills or strategies to prepare for the written and the clinical examination, respectively.…”

Correlation Between Student Performances on Case-Based Constructed-Response Formative Assessment and Summative Assessment

“…Students paid more attention to medical history rather than dental clinical data because they were confused among the etiologic, risk, and local contributing factors for periodontal disease. 3 , 19 This led to students’ poor performance in assigning the grade for a periodontitis case. After reviewing students’ responses, the course director identified these deficiencies and tried to provide constructive feedback rather than simple answers ( Table 2 ).…”

“…While summative assessment at the end of the course is critical to measure student learning, 1 predicting student performance in summative assessment is challenging because various known or unknown factors may affect student performance. 2 – 4 Identifying deficiencies significantly affecting student performance in summative assessment would be helpful to improve student academic achievement. Therefore, low-stakes formative assessment may be useful to collect information and feedback from students with respect to the ongoing teaching and learning context, 5 and predict student performance in high-stakes summative assessment.…”

“…However, students have shown poor performance in case-based CRQs on the second-year periodontics examinations. 3 Their poor performance in the CRQs negatively affected their scores in the final examinations that included MCQs, SAQs, and essay-type questions. The second-year final examination scores had been considerably lower than the first-year final examination scores within the classes.…”