Dental hygiene students and faculty attitudes and utilization of a single source electronic textbook platform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Transitioning to interactive e-textbooks has been considered revolutionary for enhancing student learning. However, adopting this technology has been met with hesitation. This study investigates student and faculty attitudes and utilization of mandatory e-textbooks in a dental hygiene program. METHODS: In 2017, an online questionnaire was distributed to students and a focus group was conducted with faculty to examine their perspectives about using VitalSource™. Using a 5-point Likert scale with five indicating strongly agree, the questionnaire examined convenience; compatibility with learning style; perceived enjoyment; and usefulness. Open-ended questions captured benefits and challenges. The focus group gathered faculty perspectives. Questionnaire data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Data from the open-ended questionnaire questions and focus group transcript followed a narrative analysis process. RESULTS: Survey response was 48% (n = 105). Students scored all factors below neutral. Results from four categories showed convenience (M = 2.75, SD = 0.92); compatibility (M = 1.93, SD = 0.83); perceived effectiveness (M = 2.15, SD = 0.90); and perceived usefulness (M = 2.36, SD = 1.04). A high correlation between all factors suggests they were uniformly rated by students. Majority of students (71%) did not use a textbook greater than once a month. Narrative analysis revealed few benefits; challenges included technical glitches, eyestrain, cost and inability to choose books as desired. Faculty's perspectives aligned with the students, but they appreciated portability of texts and quality of clinical images. CONCLUSIONS: Students strongly disliked the platform and the online medium and do not frequently access e-textbooks but rely on PowerPoint handouts for studying. Faculty felt e-textbooks do not align with positive learning experiences.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".