Final Year BDS Student’s Perception and Feedback Regarding Prosthodontics and its Teaching Methodologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Teaching and learning methodologies have been a topic of concern for everyone for a decade. Dental education involves both academic and clinical understanding of subjects included in the curriculum. The study aims to determine the success of a system that could achieve the desired learning outcomes. METHODOLOGY: In this cross-sectional study 229 BDS students at five different dental colleges affiliated with the University of Health Sciences, Lahore responded to a predesigned structured questionnaire regarding the prosthodontic subject. Feedback on the Perception of students regarding prosthodontics as a subject was asked from BDS final year regular batch, before their university final exam. RESULTS: Most students found prosthodontics an interesting subject (82%). On enquiring about the level of difficulty of prosthodontics compared to other dental clinical subjects, 56.9% of students responded negatively. The majority were satisfied with the content (79.1%), delivery, and pace of the lectures (78.2%).85.4% of students reported lecture material was easy to follow and satisfactory. The highly reported useful method for learning and understanding prosthodontics was PowerPoint slides 69%, followed by group discussion 52.70%.MCQs as the mode of assessment reported positive by 75.70%, whereas 77.4% of students want to have an integrated teaching method. CONCLUSION: The majority of the students found the subject interesting but considered it difficult to understand. Further teaching methodologies must be improved to enhance the student's understanding of the subject. Better comprehension will also help in flourishing prosthodontics as a specialty. KEYWORDS: Teaching methodology, Prosthodontics, Effective learning, Assessment, Feedback
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".