S Chutinan1, C A Riedy2, S E Park1,3. 1. Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterial Science Department, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Oral Health Policy and Epidemiology Department, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Office of Dental Education, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess dental student learning in a dental anatomy module between traditional lecture and flipped classroom cohorts. METHODS: Two cohorts of predoctoral dental students (N = 70 within each cohort) participated in a dental anatomy module within an Introduction to the Dental Patient (IDP) course ([traditional/lecture cohort: academic year (AY) 2012, 2013] and [flipped classroom cohort: AY 2014, 2015]). For the dental anatomy module, both cohorts were evaluated on pre-clinical tooth waxing exercises immediately after each of five lectures and tooth identification after all lectures were given. Additionally, the cohorts' performance on the overall IDP course examination was compared. RESULTS: The flipped classroom cohort had statistically significant higher waxing scores (dental anatomy module) than students in the traditional classroom. There was no statistically significant difference for tooth identification scores and the overall IDP course examination between the traditional vs flipped approach cohorts. This is due to the latter two assessments conducted at the end of the course gave all students enough time to review the lecture content prior to the assessment resulting in similar scores for both cohorts. CONCLUSION: The flipped classroom cohort promoted students' individual learning and resulted in improved students' performance on immediate evaluation but not on the end of the course evaluation. Redesign of courses to include a new pedagogical approach should be carefully implemented and evaluated for student's educational success.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess dental student learning in a dental anatomy module between traditional lecture and flipped classroom cohorts. METHODS: Two cohorts of predoctoral dental students (N = 70 within each cohort) participated in a dental anatomy module within an Introduction to the Dental Patient (IDP) course ([traditional/lecture cohort: academic year (AY) 2012, 2013] and [flipped classroom cohort: AY 2014, 2015]). For the dental anatomy module, both cohorts were evaluated on pre-clinical tooth waxing exercises immediately after each of five lectures and tooth identification after all lectures were given. Additionally, the cohorts' performance on the overall IDP course examination was compared. RESULTS: The flipped classroom cohort had statistically significant higher waxing scores (dental anatomy module) than students in the traditional classroom. There was no statistically significant difference for tooth identification scores and the overall IDP course examination between the traditional vs flipped approach cohorts. This is due to the latter two assessments conducted at the end of the course gave all students enough time to review the lecture content prior to the assessment resulting in similar scores for both cohorts. CONCLUSION: The flipped classroom cohort promoted students' individual learning and resulted in improved students' performance on immediate evaluation but not on the end of the course evaluation. Redesign of courses to include a new pedagogical approach should be carefully implemented and evaluated for student's educational success.