Ilse R de Boer1, Maxim D Lagerweij, Merlijn W de Vries, Paul R Wesselink, Johanna M Vervoorn. 1. From the Institute of Education (I.R.d.B.); Department of Cariology, Endodontology and Pedodontology (M.D.L.); Department of Cariology, Endodontology and Pedodontology (M.W.d.V., P.R.W.); and Institute of Education (J.M.V.), Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study investigated the effect of force feedback (FFB) on student performance in a virtual learning environment (VLE) using the Simodont dental trainer (Moog, Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands) and evaluated the students' satisfaction with and without FFB. METHODS: The Simodont dental trainer, which was used as a VLE, was randomly assigned to 101 first-year dental students with no previous experience in cutting a tooth or working in a VLE with FFB. This study was designed as a crossover study. One half of the students practiced without FFB, whereas one half practiced with FFB. Both groups practiced four sessions lasting 45 minutes on a cross preparation. In the fifth session, test 1 was scheduled. After test 1, the same practicing and testing protocol was followed, although the environment was switched. After test 2, participants filled out a questionnaire. For the statistical analysis, only the questionnaires of the students who participated in both tests were processed. RESULTS: The results of test 1 and test 2 revealed that only students who used FFB were able to pass the tests. The questionnaire outcomes supported the results of both tests; 100% of the students preferred working with FFB. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that FFB is important for performance in a VLE and essential for satisfaction.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: This study investigated the effect of force feedback (FFB) on student performance in a virtual learning environment (VLE) using the Simodont dental trainer (Moog, Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands) and evaluated the students' satisfaction with and without FFB. METHODS: The Simodont dental trainer, which was used as a VLE, was randomly assigned to 101 first-year dental students with no previous experience in cutting a tooth or working in a VLE with FFB. This study was designed as a crossover study. One half of the students practiced without FFB, whereas one half practiced with FFB. Both groups practiced four sessions lasting 45 minutes on a cross preparation. In the fifth session, test 1 was scheduled. After test 1, the same practicing and testing protocol was followed, although the environment was switched. After test 2, participants filled out a questionnaire. For the statistical analysis, only the questionnaires of the students who participated in both tests were processed. RESULTS: The results of test 1 and test 2 revealed that only students who used FFB were able to pass the tests. The questionnaire outcomes supported the results of both tests; 100% of the students preferred working with FFB. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that FFB is important for performance in a VLE and essential for satisfaction.