First‐Year Learners' Preferred Delivery of Preclinical Operative Demonstrations: A Pilot Study Comparing Two Styles of Demonstration Videos With Live Demos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This mixed-methods pilot study evaluated first-year dental learners' perceptions of two styles of operative video demonstrations. METHODS: First-year learners enrolled in the preclinical operative course were exposed to two styles of demonstration videos-a time-lapse, technical style video (Instructional) and a real-time, charismatic style video (Operator). Learner perceptions of the videos as well as their preferred mode of delivery of procedural demonstrations were assessed via a survey instrument that included Likert Scale responses, rankings, and a comments section. RESULTS: With an 86% response rate, the majority of learners agreed that the video demonstrations in general were of good quality, should be available for every preclinical exercise in all practical courses, improved preparation for preclinical sessions, improved practice sessions, and improved psychomotor skills. The majority of learners preferred the course demonstration videos in general over actual live demonstrations and over other non-course videos they viewed online. However, students did not express a clear preference for one style of course video over another, and strongly advocated for the following mode of delivery: use of the Operator video as preparation for preclinical lab, followed by in-lab review with the Instructional video, followed by a live demonstration. Students strongly supported the continued development of videos in both styles as essential adjuncts to live demonstrations. CONCLUSIONS: First-year dental learners clearly preferred the demonstration videos in general to live demonstrations alone and to other non-course videos viewed online and advocated for the use of both Operator and Instructional styles as essential adjuncts to live demonstrations.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".