The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 5 ( May, 2019 ) > List of Articles


Student\'s Perception of the Impact of E-learning on Dental Education

Ilser Turkyilmaz, Niki H Hariri, Leila Jahangiri

Keywords : Curriculum, Dental education, Dentistry, E-learning, Social media

Citation Information : Turkyilmaz I, Hariri NH, Jahangiri L. Student\'s Perception of the Impact of E-learning on Dental Education. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (5):616-621.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2568

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-05-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Aim: The aim of this study is to assess the influence of e-learning on dental education as perceived by predoctoral dental students. Materials and methods: In an institutional review board (IRB) approved protocol, a 14-question survey was created and electronically distributed to second-, third-, and fourth-year dental students. The participation was considered voluntary and all responses were anonymous. Results: The survey targeted 1,130 predoctoral students, of which 255 (22.6%) responded. Of the respondents, 124 students (48.6%) preferred traditional lecture mixed with online learning, while 46 students (18%) preferred only the traditional lecture style. The top three electronic resources/applications, which students perceived as having the greatest impact on their learning, were: YouTube, Bone Box, and Google. The responses also indicated that 76.5% of the students gave high credibility (scores of 4 and 5) to electronic resources recommended by faculties. Sixty percent of students spent 1 to more than 4 hours per day on electronic resources for academic performance. The most important factor for online applications influencing academic performance was “organization and logic of content” (54%). E-learning had a significant perceived effect (scores of 4/5) on didactic understanding (65.1%) and on clinical understanding (71.4%). Students observed that faculties estimated to be under 50 years of age were more likely to incorporate e-learning into courses (52.6%) and more likely to use social media for communication (41.6%). Conclusion: The results indicate that e-learning may successfully be used in a dental school\'s curriculum to enhance students’ perceptions of fundamental concepts and to enable students to apply this knowledge to clinical cases. Clinical significance: E-learning has recently been proposed as a basic supplementary tool to enhance medical and dental education. It is crucial to determine dental students’ preferences regarding social media, online applications, and databases in order to incorporate e-learning into dental school courses.

PDF Share
  1. Hillenburg KL, Cederberg RA, et al. E-learning and the future of dental education: opinions of administrators and information technology specialists. Eur J Dent Educ 2006;10:169–177. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600- 0579.2006.00413.x.
  2. Bhola S, Hellye P. The risks and benefits of social media in dental foundation training. Br Dent J 2016;221:609–613. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.854.
  3. Naser-ud-Din S. Introducing scenario based learning interactive to postgraduates in UQ orthodontic program. Eur J Dent Educ 2015;19:169–176. DOI: 10.1111/eje.12118.
  4. Miller C, Metz M. Can clinical scenario videos improve dental students’ perceptions of the basic sciences and ability to apply content knowledge? J Dent Educ 2015;12:1452–1460.
  5. Mahmoodi B, Sagheb K, et al. Catalogue of interactive learning objectives to improve an integrated medical and dental curriculum. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17:965–968.
  6. Blaum WE, Jarczweski A, et al. Towards Web 3.0: taxonomies and ontologies for medical education—a systematic review. GMS Z Med Ausbild 2013;30:Doc 13. DOI: 10.3205/zma000856.
  7. Cook DA, Erwin PJ, et al. Computerized virtual patients in health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med 2010;85:1589–1602. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181edfe13.
  8. Hempel G, Neef M, et al. Study of medicine 2.0 due to Web 2.0 – risks and opportunities for the curriculum in Leipzig. GMS Z Med Ausbild 2013;30:Doc 11. DOI: 10.3205/zma000854.
  9. Sucha M, Engelhardt S, et al. Internet discussion forums as part of a student-centered teaching concept of pharmacology. GMS Z Med Ausbild 2013;30:Doc 2. DOI: 10.3205/zma000845.
  10. Schonwetter DJ, Reynolds PA, et al. Online learning in dentistry: an overview of the future direction for dental education. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37:927–940. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02122.x.
  11. Kavadella A, Tsiklakis K, et al. Evaluation of a blended learning course for teaching radiology to undergraduate dental students. Eur J Dent Educ 2012;16:88–95. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0579.2011.00680.x.
  12. Jackson T, Hannum W, et al. Effectiveness of web-based teaching modules: test-enhanced learning in dental education. J Dent Educ 2011;75:775–781.
  13. Tan PL, Hay DB, et al. Implementing e-learning in a radiological science course in dental education: a short-term longitudinal study. J Dent Educ 2009;73:1202–1212.
  14. Al-Jewair TS, Azarpazhooh A, et al. Computer-assisted learning in orthodontic education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Educ 2009;73:730–739.
  15. Al-Riyami S, Moles DR, et al. Comparison of the instructional efficacy of an Internet-based temporomandibular joint (TMJ) tutorial with a traditional seminar. Br Dental J 2010;209:571–576. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.1085.
  16. Chen ML, Su ZY, et al. Influence of dentistry students’ e-learning satisfaction: a questionnaire survey. J Med Syst 2011;35:1595–1603. DOI: 10.1007/s10916-010-9435-x.
  17. Gautum M, Shaw DH, et al. Physiology education in North American dental schools: the basic science survey series. J Dent Educ 2013;78:886–894.
  18. Bains M, Reynolds PA, et al. Effectiveness and acceptability of faceto- face, blended and e-learning: a randomized trial of orthodontic undergraduates. Eur J Dent Educ 2011;15:110–117. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600- 0579.2010.00651.x.
  19. Haden NK, Andrieu SC, et al. The dental education environment. J Dent Educ 2006;70:1265–1270.
  20. Henzi D, Davis E, et al. North American dental students’ perspectives about their clinical education. J Dent Educ 2006;70:361–377.
  21. Miller CJ, Aiken SA, et al. Perceptions of D.M.D. student readiness for basic science courses in the United States: can online review modules help? Eur J Dent Educ 2015;19:1–7.
  22. Azab E, Saksena Y, et al. Relationship among dental students’ class lecture attendance, use of online resources, and performance. J Dent Educ 2016;80:452–458.
  23. Phillips JA, Schumacher C, et al. Time spent, workload, and student and faculty perceptions in a blended learning environment. Am J Pharm Educ 2016;80:102. DOI: 10.5688/ajpe806102.
  24. Ariana A, Amin M, et al. Integration of rraditional and E-learning methods to improve learning outcomes for dental students in histopathology. J Dent Educ 2016;80:1140–1148.
  25. Santos GN, Leite AF, et al. Effectiveness of E-learning in oral radiology education: a systematic review. J Dent Educ 2016;80: 1126–1139.
  26. Barry DS, Marzouk F, et al. Anatomy education for the YouTube generation. Anat Sci Educ 2016;9:90–96. DOI: 10.1002/ase.1550.
  27. Hendricson WD, Panagakos F, et al. Electronic curriculum implementation at North American dental schools. J Dent Educ 2004:68:1041–1057.
  28. Tricio JA, Montt JE, et al. Impact of faculty development workshops in student-centered teaching methodologies on faculty members’ teaching and their students’ oerceptions. J Dent Educ 2017;81: 675–684. DOI: 10.21815/JDE.017.014.
  29. Grillo AC, Murdoch-Kinch CA, et al. Student evaluations of teaching: dental and dental hygiene students’ and faculty members’ perspectives. J Dent Educ 2016;80:439–451.
  30. Abdelkarim A, Benghuzzi H, et al. U.S. Dental students’ and faculty members’ attitudes about technology, instructional strategies, student diversity, and school duration: a comparative study. J Dent Educ 2014;78:614–21.
  31. Browne L, Mehra S, et al. Comparing lecture and e-learning as pedagogies for new and experienced professionals in dentistry. Br Dent J 2004;197:95–97. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4811484.
  32. Clark GT, Mulligan R, et al. Developing and providing an online (webbased) clinical research design course in Japan: lessons learned. J Prosthodont Res 2011;55:61–68. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2011.01.004.
  33. Asiry MA. Dental students’ perceptions of an online learning. Saudi Dent J 2017;29:167–170. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2017.03.005
  34. Pilcher ES. Students’ evaluation of online course materials in fixed prosthodontics: a case study. Eur J Dent Educ 2001;5:53–59.
  35. McCann AL, Schneiderman ED, et al. E-teaching and learning preferences of dental and dental hygiene students. J Dent Educ 2010;74:65–78.
  36. Mukhopadhyay S, Kruger E, et al. YouTube: a new way of supplementing traditional methods in dental education. J Dent Educ 2014;78:1568–1571.
  37. Duncan I, Yarwood-Ross L, et al. YouTube as a source of clinical skills education. Nurse Educ Today 2013;33:1576–1580. DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2012.12.013.
  38. Knosel M, Jung K, et al. YouTube, dentistry, and dental education. J Dent Educ 2011;75:1558–1568.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.