Evaluation of Online Orthodontics Course Perceptions and Learning Levels of Dentistry Faculty Students

Year 2024, Volume: 2 Issue: 3, 55 - 61, 30.12.2024

Esra Çifçi Özkan , Şirin Hatipoğlu , Ayşe Karkaç

https://doi.org/10.62243/edr.1487026

Abstract

Aim This study aimed to evaluate the perceptions, learning levels, and overall experience of dental school students regarding the online Orthodontics course
Material and method In this cross-sectional study, 145 participants answered a 25-question survey using Google Forms. The questionnaires were sent to the study participants via e-mail. The findings were analyzed by the Pearson Chi-Square test when the sample size assumption was met (n>5) and Fisher's Exact test when it was not met. Multiple Chi-Square test was used to investigate the relationship between multiple-choice questions.
Results A total of 145 participants answered 25 survey questions between February 2022 and May 2022. It was determined that 62.1% of the participants were female and 75.9% were 4th-grade students. It was determined that 57.9% of the participants attended all online courses. Although most of the participants thought that online orthodontic education was well structured (53.1%), well understood (53.8%), had good audio-visual quality (60%), was a good option for orthodontic theoretical learning (54.5%), and provided motivation (42.8%), only 36.7% preferred online education to face-to-face education. It was found that the majority of the participants (37.2%) thought that the amount of online education in the future curriculum should be in the range of 0-25%, regardless of the pandemic.
Conclusion Although students' perceptions and evaluations of online courses were found to be positive, they prefer face-to-face education.

Keywords

Dental students, Learning level, Online learning, Orthodontic education, Undergraduate

Ethical Statement

The study was approved by the University Ethics Committee (Protocol no=2021/63-06).

References

• Moore JL, Dickson-Deane C, Galyen K. e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: are they the same? Internet High Educ. 2011;14(2):129-35.
• Hillenburg KL, Cederberg RA, Gray SA, Hurst CL, Johnson GK, Potter BJ. E-learning and the future of dental education: opinions of administrators and information technology specialists. Eur J Dent Educ. 2006;10:169–77.
• Adeoye I, Adanikin A, Adanikin A. COVID-19 and E-Learning: Nigeria Tertiary Education System Experience. Int. J. Res. Innov. Appl. Sci. 2020; 5: 28–31.
• Peng X, Xu X, Li Y, Cheng L, Zhou X, Ren B. Transmission routes of 2019-nCoV and controls in dental practice. Int J Oral Sci. 2020;12(1):9. doi: 10.1038/s41368-020-0075-9.
• Sweet J, Pugsley L, Wilson J. Stakeholder perceptions of chairside teaching and learning in one UK dental school. Br Dent J. 2008; 205:499– 503. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.934.
• Ebner M, Schön S, Braun C, Ebner M, Grigoriadis Y, Haas M, Leitner P, Taraghi B. COVID-19 Epidemic as E-Learning Boost? Chronological Development and Effects at an Austrian University against the Background of the Concept of “E-Learning Readiness”. Future Internet. 2020;12:94.
• Haden NK, Hendrickson WD, Kassebaum DK, Ranney RR, Weinstein G, Anderson EL, et al. Curriculum changes in dental education, 2003–09. J Dent Educ. 2010; 74(5):539–57.
• Ruiz JG, Mintzer, MJ, Leipzig, RM. The Impact of E-Learning in Medical Education. Acad. Med. 2006; 81, 207–212.
• Cook DA. Web-based learning: pros, cons, and controversies. Clin Med. 2007;7:37–42
• de Jong N, Verstegen DL, Tan FS, O’Connor SJ. A comparison of classroom and online asynchronous problem-based learning for students undertaking statistics training as part of a public health master’s degree. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2013; 18(2):245–64.
• Gaupp R, Körner M, Fabry G. Effects of a case-based interactive e-learning course on knowledge and attitudes about patient safety: a quasiexperimental study with third-year medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2016; 16(1):172.
• Zheng M, Bender D, Reid L, Milani J. An interactive online approach to teaching evidence-based dentistry with Web 2.0 technology. J Dent Educ. 2017; 81(8): 995–1003.
• Nold E, Demeter V, Erdelt KJ, Edelhoff D, Liebermann A. Dental education during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany – cross-sectional lecturer-side evaluation for the application of digital teaching concepts F1000Research. 2022;11:767.
• Istadi Y, RaharjoTJ , Azam M , Mulyono SE. Academic Performance in Medical Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review. Advances in Medical Education and Practice 2022; 13:1423-38.
• Linjawi AI, Alfadda LS. Students’ perception, attitudes, and readiness toward online learning in dental education in Saudi Arabia: a cohort study. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2018;9:855–63.
• Elgreatly A, Mahrous A. Enhancing student learning in dental anatomy by using virtual three-dimensional models. J Prosthodont. 2020;29(3):269-71. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13152
• Mahrous A, Schneider GB. Enhancing student learning of removable prosthodontics using the latest advancements in virtual 3D modeling. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(4):471-472.
• Qutieshat AS, Abusamak MO, Maragha TN. Impact of blended learning on dental students’ performance and satisfaction in clinical education. J Dent Educ. 2020;84(2):135–142.
• Maresca C, Barrero C, Duggan D, et al. Utilization of blended learning to teach preclinical endodontics. J Dent Educ. 2014;78(8):1194–204.