Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Dental Materials, Faculty of Dentistry, Asian Institute of Medicine, Science and Technology (AIMST) University, 08100, Bedong, Kedah, Malaysia. [email protected]
  • 2 Department of Dental Public Health, Faculty of Dentistry, Asian Institute of Medicine, Science and Technology (AIMST) University, 08100, Bedong, Kedah, Malaysia
  • 3 Medical Education and Research Development Unit (MERDU), Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 50603, Malaysia
BMC Oral Health, 2023 Jun 23;23(1):417.
PMID: 37353763 DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03141-5

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Feedback is regarded as a key component of formative assessment and one of the elements with the greatest impact on students' academic learning. The present study aimed to evaluate and compare students' perceptions of the use of two feedback models, namely feedback sandwich and Ask-Tell-Ask (ATA), in teaching dental materials science courses.

METHODS: All undergraduate second-year dental students were invited to participate in the dental materials science practical session and were randomly allocated into two groups: Group 1 (feedback) sandwich and Group 2 (ATA). The session began with the teacher giving a short briefing on the commonly used dental materials, followed by a short demonstration of the manipulation of those materials. Students were then allowed to mix and manipulate the materials, and teachers provided feedback accordingly. At the end of the session, 16 close-ended (five-point Likert scales) and an open-ended questionnaire were distributed to students to evaluate their perceptions of the feedback given. Internal reliability of the questionnaire items was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. Mean feedback scores were analysed using an independent t-test with ANCOVA for controlling gender and ethnicity. Thematic analysis was used to code the qualitative data.

RESULTS: Sixty-nine students participated in the present study with the majority being females (72.5%) and Chinese (79.7%). Cronbach's alpha analysis suggested removing three Likert-scale items, with the remaining 13 items being accepted. Generally, no significant difference was noted between the two groups (p = 0.197), but three items were found to be significant (p 

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.