Exploring students’ perspectives from two Canadian dental schools toward online learning experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The utilization of online teaching and learning in dental education has grown during the past two academic years. In addition to its numerous advantages, the modality also has its limitations. The objective of this qualitative study was to explore the perceptions of oral health sciences students at the University of British Columbia (UBC) and the University of Toronto (UofT) regarding their experiences with online learning over the course of 2 pandemic-impacted years. METHODS: Interpretive Description was used as a methodology to guide semi-structured data collection. Individual interviews and focus groups were conducted with graduate and undergraduate dental and dental hygiene students at UBC and UofT. Qualitative data were coded and analyzed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: A total of 31 interviews and 4 focus groups were conducted. Online teaching and learning demonstrated many advantages, including flexibility, sustainability of curricular content, and promoting inclusivity in the classroom. Students indicated that due to online learning, there were opportunities to gain resources in practicing self-care and additional time to connect with family. Reported limitations of online classrooms included the loss of attentiveness, challenging content, and logistical challenges. Isolation and physical symptoms experienced in online classrooms with prolonged screen times were described as potential threats. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study call for developing a structured and sustainable blended approach that balances the limitations of online classrooms with the interaction and engagement of in-person classrooms and patient care experiences. Based on the students' perspectives toward online learning, a road map was provided to dental educators to consider when designing future dentistry curricula.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".