Assessing the Impact of Voice‐Over Screen‐Captured Presentations Delivered Online on Dental Students’ Learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The traditional lecturing method is still one of the most common forms of delivering content to students in dental education, but innovative learning technologies have the potential to improve the effectiveness and quality of teaching dental students. What challenges instructors is the extent to which these learning tools have a direct impact on student learning outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of a voice-over screen-captured learning tool by identifying a positive, nil, or negative impact on student learning as well as student engagement (affective, behavioral, and cognitive) when compared to the traditional face-to-face lecture. Extraneous variables thought to impact student learning were controlled by the use of baseline measures as well as random assignment of second-year dental students to one of two teaching conditions: voice-over screen-captured presentation delivered online and the traditional classroom lecture. A total of 28 students enrolled in the preclinical course in endodontics at a Canadian dental school participated in the study, 14 in each of the two teaching conditions. The results showed that, in most cases, the students who experienced the online lecture had somewhat higher posttest scores and perceived satisfaction levels than those in the face-to-face lecture group, but the differences did not achieve statistical significance except for their long-term recognition test scores. This study found that the students had comparable learning outcomes whether they experienced the face-to-face or the online lecture, but that the online lecture had a more positive impact on their long-term learning. The controls for extraneous variables used in this study suggest ways to improve research into the comparative impact of traditional and innovative teaching methods on student learning outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it