@article{article_1534256, title={Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Distance Learning in Dental Education During COVID-19 Outbreak}, journal={European Journal of Research in Dentistry}, volume={9}, pages={9–17}, year={2025}, DOI={10.29228/erd.87}, author={Kalender, Hatice and Akmansoy, Şükrü Can and Çandereli, Zehra Özge and Beyhan, Tuğba Emine and Aksoy, Burcu and Özyurt, Mehmet and Şişman Kitapçı, Nur and Polat Akmansoy, Berceste and Kitapçı, Okan Cem and Sırma, Nuri Sertaç and et al.}, keywords={COVID-19 Pandemic, Distance Learning, Undergraduate Dental Education, Quantitative analysis, Qualitative analysis.}, abstract={Aim: The aim of this study was to analyse the feedbacks that dental students provided about Distance Learning (DL) and to find clues regarding readiness for possible national or global emergencies during a potential COVID-19 outbreak by using both Quantitative and Qualitative Methods.
Method: This cross-sectional study involved 608 dental students (F/M: 405/203). Data were collected by using online Focus-Group discussions as a Qualitative method and electronic-questionnaires (E-Questionnaire) as a Quantitative method. In both methods, students were asked to evaluate questions or statements focused on cognitive load and the advantages and disadvantages of DL. Moreover, in the E-Questionnaire, the integration of technology into the dental education was evaluated by Tendency Scale for Technology Use in Class (TSTUC). Factor analysis was carried out for construct validity of the TSTUC scale. Items regarding “Internalizing the professional environment” and “Critical thinking” were used for content validity of the TSTUC scale. Results: Two subtopics, namely “Technology Use” and “Motivation and Technology” were defined for TSTUC scale in the Factor Analysis. Elevated scores were observed in dental students’ responses, whose professional improvements regarding “Internalizing the professional environment” (4,214±0,630 vs 3,991±0,766)” and “Critical thinking” (4,026±0,683 vs 3,667±0,891)” were positively affected by DL (p<0.05). The lowest scores for items regarding “DL increased Motivation”, “DL increased Student-Course Content Interaction", and “DL increased Student-Lecturer Interaction” were observed in the first-year students’ responses (p<0,05). During the focus-Group discussions, “Difficulties in the Understanding of the Course Content”, “Inability to Relate Theoretical Knowledge with Practice”, “Insufficient Interactions between the Students and Lecturers” were defined to be the main problems regarding DL. Conclusion: Future DL strategies for national or international emergencies should be taken into account, considering the constraints of DL for dentistry students’ professional developments as well as effective ways of corporating technology into education. Moreover, TSTUC scale was found to be a valid and reliable tool to evaluate the implementation of DL for dental students’ education.}, number={1}, publisher={Marmara University}