Postgraduate student perceptions of face-to-face and distance education in orthodontics: A cross-sectional qualitative study

Abstract

Objective: To investigate postgraduate student perceptions of face-to-face and distance education on a three-year programme in orthodontics. Design: Cross-sectional qualitative study. Setting: UCL Eastman Dental Institute, London. Participants: A total of 25 current postgraduate orthodontic students in the first, second and third years of training were included in this study. Methods: Postgraduate student perceptions were obtained by conducting online focus groups on Zoom Video Communications Inc. A focus group topic guide was developed, and a facilitator was trained to host the focus groups. There were separate focus groups for each year group, with a maximum of five participants in each group. The focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were assessed by all members of the research team and analysed using a thematic content analysis, with a framework approach to identify themes and subthemes regarding perceptions of distance and face-to-face education. Results: A total of 25 students participated. Six key themes were identified relating to student perceptions of face-to-face and distance education: (1) social support network; (2) technology; (3) learning experience; (4) education environment; (5) interpersonal interactions; and (6) effective teaching/learning. There were perceived benefits and drawbacks for both modes of teaching delivery. In particular, students highlighted the importance of reliable technology, peer support and accessibility of educational resources for their academic learning. Students favoured a blended approach to learning where practical skills were taught in person and some theoretical aspects taught remotely. Conclusion: The results aid the understanding of how educational tools and digital technology can enrich the student academic experience. The results provide important information for the future development and delivery of orthodontic postgraduate education.

The Role of Digital Technologies in Building Research Competencies of Future Doctors of Philosophy

“…Modern technologies facilitated access to educational resources. When the blended approach was used for learning, it involved conducting practical classes in the laboratory, while theoretical material was studied online (Johnson King et al, 2022). Digitisation of university libraries contributes to the development of research competencies.…”

E-learning & Artificial Intelligence

“…However, here it is important to distinguish distance learning into synchronous and asynchronous learning, as asynchronous learning takes place in the form of e-learning, i.e. without a live connection with other participants (Gherhes et al, 2021, King et al, 2022, Anderson et al, 2020. The term m-learning can then be encountered when the learning takes place using mobile devices (Klimova, 2015).…”

“…Since the beginning of the 21st century, many studies have been conducted on online learning, comparing the learning outcomes and motivation of online and face-to-face learners, e.g., Mollenkopf et al (2017), King et al (2022), and others. In our research, we set out to find out whether these data are still valid, or whether they have changed in any way over the years.…”

“…On the other hand, online learning offers flexibility and the ability to learn from anywhere with an internet connection. Students have control over their learning pace and can organize their study time according to their needs (Gherhes et al, 2021, King et al, 2022, Anderson et al, 2020. However, both forms of learning also have limitations.…”

Psychometric properties of a new instrument for the measurement of the perceived quality of distance learning during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic

“…Furthermore, instruments we are not suitable for the pandemic context. Finally, studies analyzed perceptions of the difference between face-to-face and distance education or blended learning and face-to-face environments ( Smith, 2013 ; Platt et al, 2014 ; Tichavsky et al, 2015 ; Wright, 2017 ; Yilmaz, 2019 ; Gherheș et al, 2021 ; Mali and Lim, 2021 ; Johnson King et al, 2022 ). These studies were not specifically on measuring students’ perception of face-to-face learning environments.…”