MATERIALS AND METHODS: The module was developed based on the ADDIE (Analyse, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate) model. First, a need analysis was conducted, followed by designing the module to address the needs. Next, the module sought experts' feedback and was piloted. The revised module was implemented among all second-year undergraduate dental students. Finally, a validated questionnaire (5-point Likert scale items and open-ended questions) was used to evaluate students' learning experiences. The questionnaire Likert scale items were analysed descriptively, whereas open-ended responses were analysed using content analysis.
RESULTS: In the analysis phase, a slight misalignment in cognitive competency levels was observed, alongside a need for the inclusion of more hands-on activities. In the design phase, learning objectives and resources were listed. Subsequently, a module consisting of four teaching sessions (3 h each) was developed, and the pilot test showed favourable feedback. The module was then implemented in small groups of 10-12 students. In the evaluation phase, 72 students (97% response rate) completed the questionnaire. The majority of students agreed with all items, with mean scores ranging from 4.53 to 4.72. Open-ended responses highlighted that hands-on activities and reflective feedback sessions were useful.
CONCLUSION: Students demonstrated positive learning experiences after participating in the module, advocating for dental educators to consider more hands-on activities and reflective feedback sessions in teaching dental materials science.
METHODS: Clinical audit learning was introduced in Year 3 of a 5-year curriculum for dental undergraduates. During classroom activities, students were briefed on clinical audit, selected their audit topics in groups of 5 or 6 students, and prepared and presented their audit protocols. One chosen topic was RCT, in which 3 different cohorts of Year 3 students conducted retrospective audits of patients' records in 2012, 2014 and 2015 for their compliance with recommended record keeping criteria and their performance in RCT. Students were trained by and calibrated against an endodontist (κ ≥ 0.8). After each audit, the findings were reported in class, and recommendations were made for improvement in performance of RCT and record keeping. Students' compliance with published guidelines was presented and their RCT performances in each year were compared using the chi-square test.
RESULTS: Overall compliance with of record keeping guidelines was 44.1% in 2012, 79.6% in 2014 and 94.6% in 2015 (P = .001). In the 2012 audit, acceptable extension, condensation and the absence of mishap were observed in 72.4, 75.7% and 91.5%; in the 2014 audit, 95.1%, 64.8% and 51.4%; and in 2015 audit, 96.4%, 82.1% and 92.8% of cases, respectively. In 2015, 76.8% of root canal fillings met all 3 technical quality criteria when compared to 48.6% in 2014 and 44.7% in 2012 (P = .001).
CONCLUSION: Clinical audit-feedback cycle is an effective educational tool for improving dental undergraduates' compliance with record keeping and performance in the technical quality of RCT.
METHODS: An online well-structured and validated faculty self-perceived competency questionnaire was used to collect responses from medical faculty. The questionnaire consisted of four purposely build sections on competence in student engagement, instructional strategy, technical communication and time management. The responses were recorded using a Likert ordinal scale (1-9). The Questionnaire was uploaded at www.surveys.google.com and the link was distributed through social media outlets and e-mails. Descriptive statistics and Independent paired t-test were used for analysis and comparison of quantitative and qualitative variables. A p-value of ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: A total of 738 responses were assessed. Nearly 54% (397) participants had less than 5 years of teaching experience, 24.7% (182) had 6-10 years and 11.7% (86) had 11-15 years teaching expertise. 75.6% (558) respondents have delivered online lectures during the pandemic. Asynchronous methods were used by 61% (450) and synchronous by 39% (288) of participants. Moreover, 22.4% (165) participants revealed that their online lectures were evaluated by a structured feedback from experts, while 38.3% participants chose that their lectures were not evaluated. A significant difference (p feedback was more competent in comparison to peers teaching without feedback.