The perceptions of dental hygiene students about an asynchronous oral biology course.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Medical and dental schools have long-established pedagogical approaches to teacher-centred face-to-face learning. The 3-year baccalaureate dental hygiene (DH) program at the University of Alberta, which enrolls 42 students of diverse ages and experiences each year, is no exception. Oral Biology II (OBIOL 302) is an intermediate-level course in the DH program; it was moved to an asynchronous online format to manage the disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic. This mixed-method study explores the factors affecting the dental hygiene student experience in this online, asynchronous learning environment. Methods: This study used a quantitative anonymous survey with a 5-point Likert scale to evaluate the workload and flexibility of the course as well as student acceptance of the assessments. The mean score and standard deviation were calculated for each question in the online survey. A research facilitator conducted interviews using a semi-structured interview guide to further explore student experiences. The qualitative data were then analyzed using a 6-step method of thematic analysis. Results: The study participants found the format and workload of the online course appropriate and well-suited to the spring term. Thematic analysis of the qualitative data revealed 3 intersecting elements-course structure, communication, and non-curricular aspects-as the key factors shaping student experiences in an online environment. Conclusion: ,This study identified the major factors affecting the online learning experience of students from the students' point of view, which will be a useful guide to design more effective online courses for health science education.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".