| Literature DB >> 31543934 |
Shivani Kohli1, Ashwin Kumar Sukumar1, Cheah Tze Zhen2, Andrew Sim Lim Yew2, Alvena Ann Gomez2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Even though there are diverse varieties of teaching methods to motivate and educate students, not many are used in dental institutions, where most rely only on traditional lectures. Hence, the objective of this study was to compare traditional lectures with newer teaching methods, specifically the flipped classroom and spaced learning method.Entities:
Keywords: Feedback; knowledge; lecture
Year: 2019 PMID: 31543934 PMCID: PMC6749854
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dent Res J (Isfahan) ISSN: 1735-3327
Gender-wise comparison for grades for all the groups
| Grades and percentages | Group A | Group B | Group C | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short-term | Long-term | Short-term | Long-term | Short-term | Long-term | ||||||||
| Male | Female | Male | Female | Male | Female | Male | Female | Male | Female | Male | Female | ||
| 90-100 | A+ | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||
| 80-89 | A | 2 | 13 | 14 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 2 | |||||
| 75-79 | A− | 1 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 70-74 | B+ | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 3 | |||
| 65-69 | B | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | ||||||
| 60-64 | B− | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 55-59 | C+ | 1 | |||||||||||
| 50-54 | C | ||||||||||||
Comparison of grades within the three groups for short-term learning gains
| Grades | Short-term learning gains | Long-term knowledge retention | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | Group B | Group C | Group A | Group B | Group C | |
| A+ | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| A | 14 | 7 | 11 | 11 | 8 | 4 |
| A− | 4 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 6 |
| B+ | 1 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| B | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| C+ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 0.025 | 0.1 | |||||
Comparison for all the groups in short- and long- term knowledge retention
| Short/Long term | Mean | Std. deviation | Chi-square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short term | |||||
| Conventional lecture | 20 | 163.70 | 10.84 | 11.509 | 0.003* |
| Flipped classroom | 20 | 153.25 | 11.050 | ||
| Spaced learning | 20 | 165.38 | 13.677 | ||
| Total | 60 | 160.85 | 12.938 | ||
| Long term | |||||
| Conventional lecture | 20 | 147.50 | 9.231 | 0.840 | 0.657 |
| Flipped classroom | 20 | 145.05 | 10.625 | ||
| Spaced learning | 20 | 146.90 | 10.319 | ||
| Total | 60 | 146.49 | 9.966 |
*Kruskall-Wallis ANOVA-significant P≤0.05
Graph 1Intergroup comparison between short and long term for knowledge retention.
Trierer Inventar zur Lehrevaluation questionnaire: Students feedback toward different teaching methodology
| Questions | Conventional lecture | Flipped classroom | Spaced learning | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
| Topic 1: Structure and didactics | |||||||
| Q1. The course materials (manuscripts, PowerPoint slides, etc.,) provided during the course was helpful for the understanding of the learning content | 4.25 | 0.64 | 4.1 | 0.64 | 4.1 | 0.45 | 0.60 |
| Q2. Didactic aids (PowerPoint slides, models, etc.) were used in an adequate way | 4 | 0.65 | 3.95 | 0.83 | 3.9 | 0.45 | 0.75 |
| Q3. The lecturer gave short summaries in order to make clear which were the crucial points for the understanding of the topic | 4.3 | 0.57 | 3.95 | 0.89 | 4.25 | 0.64 | 0.43 |
| Q4. The time management of the lecturer was adequate | 3.5 | 0.83 | 3.85 | 0.67 | 3.25 | 0.79 | 0.05 |
| Q5. The learning contents of the single sessions were adapted to the learning targets | 3.9 | 0.45 | 3.95 | 0.69 | 3.8 | 0.62 | 0.72 |
| Q6. The course materials were always provided on time | 3.2 | 1.11 | 3.15 | 0.93 | 3.7 | 0.66 | 0.09 |
| Topic 2: motivational skills of the lecturer | |||||||
| Q7. The style of speech of the lecturer was fluently and clear | 3.9 | 0.72 | 3.75 | 0.97 | 3.85 | 0.59 | 0.83 |
| Q8. The lecturer was able to explain difficult learning content in an understandable way | 4.1 | 0.72 | 3.95 | 0.76 | 3.85 | 0.49 | 0.34 |
| Q9. The lecturer’s speech was acoustically understandable | 3.95 | 0.76 | 3.75 | 0.91 | 3.85 | 0.49 | 0.70 |
| Q10. The lecturer was able to keep contact to the audience (e.g., by eye-contact) | 3.95 | 0.6 | 4 | 0.56 | 3.8 | 0.7 | 0.67 |
| Q11. The lecturer created an inspiring atmosphere | 3.45 | 0.83 | 3.35 | 0.93 | 3.4 | 0.6 | 0.88 |
| Q12. The lecturer was able to deal with disturbances (technical problems, noisiness, etc.) | 3.6 | 0.6 | 3.65 | 0.75 | 3.85 | 0.67 | 0.39 |
| Q13. It was easy for me to remain concentrated during the course | 3.05 | 1.05 | 3.2 | 0.89 | 3.6 | 0.6 | 0.01 |
| Q14. I was inspired to follow the train of thoughts during the course | 3.15 | 0.9 | 3.15 | 0.81 | 3.55 | 0.6 | 0.18 |
| Topic 3: the lecturer’s skills in creating a favorable climate | |||||||
| Q15. The lecturer stopped discussions at the right point of time | 3.45 | 0.6 | 3.65 | 0.75 | 3.6 | 0.68 | 0.05 |
| Q16. The lecturer treated the students friendly and was open-minded | 4 | 0.56 | 3.8 | 0.77 | 3.9 | 0.45 | 0.65 |
| Q17. The lecturer allowed asking questions that concerned the learning content and answered them adequately | 4 | 0.65 | 4.05 | 0.83 | 3.9 | 0.55 | 0.65 |
| Q18. The students received the possibility to give feedback to the course | 3.9 | 0.9 | 3.95 | 0.69 | 4.1 | 0.55 | 0.75 |
| Q19. The lecturer was able to fulfill needs expressed by the students concerning content, structure, and organization of the topic | 3.95 | 0.6 | 3.7 | 0.8 | 3.95 | 0.51 | 0.41 |
| Topic 4: Practical relevance of the course | |||||||
| Q20. During the course, the relation between theoretical knowledge and practical application was demonstrated | 3.6 | 0.8 | 3.55 | 0.76 | 3.45 | 0.6 | 0.79 |
| Q21. The learning content of the course was adequately illustrated by practical examples (case studies, clinical applications) | 3.5 | 0.76 | 3.25 | 0.91 | 3.6 | 0.68 | 0.30 |
| Q22. I was inspired to deal with the learning content critically | 3.3 | 0.86 | 3.3 | 0.8 | 3.6 | 0.68 | 0.04 |
| Q23. The practical relevance of the learning content should have been highlighted even more intensively | 4.1 | 0.72 | 3.9 | 0.79 | 3.55 | 0.51 | 0.05 |
| Topic 5: Questions on different additional aspects | |||||||
| Q24. I prepared myself for the lectures on a regular basis (e.g., By reading additional literature) | 2.7 | 0.92 | 2.8 | 0.95 | 2.65 | 0.75 | 0.90 |
| Q25. I did follow-up course work on a regular basis (e.g., Discussion with other students or reading of additional literature) | 2.8 | 0.89 | 2.95 | 0.1 | 3.15 | 0.93 | 0.51 |
| Q26. The degree of difficulty of the course was (1=Too low, 2=Low, 3=Adequate, 4=High, 5=Too high) | 3.1 | 0.31 | 3.4 | 0.5 | 3.25 | 0.55 | 0.09 |
SD: Standard deviation
The segment of the Trierer Inventar zur Lehrevaluation questionnaire to evaluate specifically the student’s perception who underwent alternative teaching methods
| Topic 6: Flipped classroom evaluation | ||
| Q1. Did you find the flip classroom learning method beneficial? | 3.75 | 0.72 |
| Q2. Did you find this method to have better understanding of the topic than conventional lectures? | 3.65 | 0.81 |
| Q3. Do you think this method can be incorporated as a teaching method in the curriculum? | 3.75 | 0.72 |
| Q4. Do you feel this method helps to study at your own pace and convenience? | 3.85 | 0.88 |
| Q5. Do you think that this method is time-saving than conventional lectures? | 3.85 | 0.93 |
| Topic 7: Spaced learning evaluation | ||
| Q1. Did you find the spaced learning method beneficial? | 3.45 | 0.94 |
| Q2. Did you find this method to have better understanding of the topic than conventional lectures? | 3.4 | 1.1 |
| Q3. Do you think this method can be incorporated as a teaching method in the curriculum? | 3.1 | 0.91 |
| Q4. Does the repetition of the contents in the session help you to understand the topic better than conventional lectures? | 3.9 | 0.91 |
| Q5. Do the activities in between the session help you to focus more on the topic than conventional lectures? | 3.25 | 0.91 |