Ebru Sağlam, Ayşe Toraman, Serhat Köseoğlu

Diş hekimliği eğitiminde eğitimcilerin uzaktan eğitim ve e-öğrenim hakkındaki görüşleri: anket çalışması

Amaç: Gelişen bilgi ve iletişim teknolojisi, eğitim kurumların- da uzaktan eğitim teriminin ve yeni öğrenme materyallerinin ortaya çıkmasına neden olmuştur. Pandemi gibi öngörüleme- yen durumlar geleneksel eğitimle birlikte uzaktan eğitimi bir seçenek olmaktan çok bir zorunluluk haline getirebilir. Bu ça- lışmada, diş hekimliği eğitimcilerinin zorunlu sosyal izolasyon önlemlerine uymak için uygulanan uzaktan eğitime yönelik algılarını değerlendirmek amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışmada Türkiye'deki çeşitli diş he- kimliği fakültelerindeki eğitimcilere 11 maddelik 5'li Likert ölçeği (Google Forms®) içeren 29 maddeden oluşan yapı- landırılmış bir e-anket uygulanmıştır ve toplam 140 tam yanıt alınmıştır. Veriler T-testi, ANOVA ve faktör analizleri ile değer- lendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Veriler eğitimcilerin e-öğrenme araçlarını ve uzak- tan eğitimi diş hekimliği eğitimi için destekleyici bir araç olarak yararlı bulduklarını göstermiştir. Bununla birlikte, eğitimcilerin, öğrencileri internet ve dijital bilgi okuryazarlığı konusunda yetkin bulmadıkları görülmüştür (faktör 3 ort = 2,9). Katılım- cıların çoğu (n = 87, % 62,1) sınıfta yüz yüze öğretimle daha rahat bilgi aktarımı yapabildiğini belirtirken, %72,3'ü (n = 102) sınıfta daha iyi motive olduklarını bildirmiştir. Uzaktan eğitim algı ölçeğinin Cronbach alfa değeri 0,69'dur. Faktör analizi ile dört alt boyut belirlendi. Sosyal medyadaki video kanallarını eğitim verirken genellikle ve ara sıra kullandıklarını söyleyen eğitimcilerin uzaktan eğitim puanları (ort = 3,58; SS = 0,44/ ort = 3,48; SS = 0,43), nadiren kullandığını belirten eğitimcilerden anlamlı düzeyde yüksekti (ort. = 3,17, SS = 0,37; p = 0,002/ p = 0,009). Sonuç: Uzaktan eğitimin diş hekimliği eğitiminde tek başına kullanılabilecek bir model olarak görülmediği belirlenmiştir. Uzaktan eğitim ve e-öğrenme yöntemlerinin diş hekimliği mesleki eğitiminde etkili olabilmesi için kurumların mevcut eğitim programlarını yeniden değerlendirmeleri gerekmekte- dir.

Opinions of educators on distance education and e-learning in dentistry education: a survey study

Aim: Developing information and communication techno- logy have led to advent of distance education term and new learning materials in training institutions. Pandemic can turn distance education into a necessity along. The aim of this study was to evaluate the dentistry educators perceptions of distance education. Material and Methods: In the current study, a structured e-questionnaire comprising 29 items, including a 5-point Li- kert scale with 11 items was administered to dental educators and a total of 140 complete responses were received. The data were evaluated by T-test, ANOVA and factor analysis. Results: The results showed that educators found e-le- arning tools and distance education useful as a suppor- tive tool for dental education. However, educators did not find students competent in internet and digital infor- mation literacy (factor 3 mean = 2.9). Most participants (62.1%) stated that they transfer information more easily with face-to-face teaching in the classroom, while 72.3% were better motivated in the classroom. Cronbach’s alpha value of distance-education perceptions scale was 0,69. The distance education scores of the educators who said that they generally and occasionally use video channels in social media while teaching (mean = 3.58 / mean = 3.48) were significantly higher than the educators who stated that they rarely used them (p=0.002/p=0.009). Conclusion: It has been determined that distance edu- cation is not seen as a model that can be used alone in dentistry education. In order for distance education and e-learning methods to be effective in dentistry professi- onal education, institutions need to re-evaluate their cur- rent education programs.

PDF

___

1. Peterson D, Kaakko T, Smart E, Jorgenson M, Herzog C. Dental students attitudes regarding online education in pediatric dentistry. J Dent Child (Chic) 2007;74:10-20.
2. Rasmussen K, Belisario JM, Wark PA, Molina JA, Loong SL, et al. Offline eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on know- ledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction. J Glob Health 2014;4:010405.
3. George PP, Papachristou N, Belisario JM, Wang W, Wark PA, et al. Online eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction. J Glob He- alth 2014;4:010406.
4. Linjawi AI, Walmsley AD, Hill KB. Online discussion bo- ards in dental education: potential and challenges. Eur J Dent Educ 2012;16:e3-9.
5. Pahinis K, Stokes CW, Walsh TF, Tsitrou E, Cannavina G. A blended learning course taught to different groups of learners in a dental school: follow-up evaluation. J Dent Educ 2008;72:1048-1057.
6. Ward JP, Gordon J, Field MJ, Lehmann HP. Communi- cation and information technology in medical education. Lancet 2001;357:792-796.
7. Hillenburg KL, Cederberg RA, Gray SA, Hurst CL, Joh- nson GK, et al. E-learning and the future of dental educa- tion: opinions of administrators and information techno- logy specialists. Eur J Dent Educ 2006;10:169-177.
8. Reynolds PA. Back to the Future of Dental Education: "Lock up your libraries if you like, but there is no gate, no lock, no bolt that you can set upon the freedom of my mind"Virginia Woolf, A Room of One's Own, 1929. Acta Stomatol Croat 2014;48:2-5.
9. Souza CLE, Mattos LB, Stein AT, Rosario P, Magalhaes CR. Face-to-Face and Distance Education Modalities in the Training of Healthcare Professionals: A Quasi-Experi- mental Study. Front Psychol 2018;9:1557.
10. Oakley M, Spallek H. Social media in dental education: a call for research and action. J Dent Educ 2012;76:279- 287.
11. Carbonaro M, King S, Taylor E, Satzinger F, Snart F, et al. Integration of e-learning technologies in an interprofes- sional health science course. Med Teach 2008;30:25-33.
12. Sarsar F, Kaval ME, Klasser GD, Guneri P. Impact of in- ternet supported dental education: Initial outcomes in a study sample. . J Human Sci 2016;13:4986–4997.
13. Boulos MN, Maramba I, Wheeler S. Wikis, blogs and podcasts: a new generation of Web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education. BMC Med Educ 2006;6:41.
14. Khatoon B, Hill K, Walmsley AD. Mobile learning in dentistry: challenges and opportunities. Br Dent J 2019;227:298-304.
15. Prensky M. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part1. On the Horizon 2001;9:1-6.
16. Kennedy G, Judd T, Dalgarno B, Waycott J. Beyond natives and immigrants: exploring types of net generation students. J Comput Assist Lear 2010;26:332-343.
17. Jones V, Jo J, Martin P. Future Schools and How Tech- nology can be used to support Millennial and Generati- on-Z Students. 1st International Conference of Ubiquitous Information Technology 2017:886-891.
18. Linjawi AI, Alfadda LS. Students' perception, attitudes, and readiness toward online learning in dental educati- on in Saudi Arabia: a cohort study. Adv Med Educ Pract 2018;9:855-863.
19. Andrews KG, Demps EL. Distance education in the U.S. and Canadian undergraduate dental curriculum. J Dent Educ 2003;67:427-438.
20. Jackson DL. Revisiting sample size and number of pa- rameter estimates: Some support for the N : q hypothesis. Struct Equ Modeling 2003;10:128-141.
21. Mattheos N, Stefanovic N, Apse P, Attstrom R, Bucha- nan J, et al. Potential of information technology in dental education. Eur J Dent Educ 2008;12 Suppl 1:85-92.
22. Seo CW, Cho AR, Park JC, Cho HY, Kim S. Dental stu- dents' learning attitudes and perceptions of YouTube as a lecture video hosting platform in a flipped classroom in Korea. J Educ Eval Health Prof 2018;15:24.
23. Büyüköztürk Ş. Faktör Analizi: Temel Kavramlar ve Öl- çek Geliştirmede Kullanımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi 2002;32:470-483.
24. Scherer RF, Wiebe FA, Luther DC, Adams JS. Dimen- sionality of coping: factor stability using the Ways of Co- ping Questionnaire. Psychol Rep 1988;62:763-770.
25. Karagöz Y. SPSS ve AMOS Uygulamalı Nicel-Nitel Kar- ma Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri ve Yayın Etiği. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık; 2021.
26. Simpson O. Student retention in distance education: are we failing our students? Open Learn 2013;28:105-119.
27. Gavira RL, Omoteso K. Perceptions of the Usefulness of Virtual Learning Environments in Accounting Educa- tion: A Comparative Evaluation of Undergraduate Ac- counting Students in Spain and England. Account Educ 2013;22:445-466.
28. Brown KM. The role of internal and external factors in the discontinuation of off-campus students. Distance Education 1996;17:44-71.
29. Handy SA. An exploratory study of learners’ use of a computerised accounting tutorial. Information Techno- logy, Learning and Performance Journal 2005;23:17-29.
30. Maki RH, Maki WS, Patterson M, Whittaker PD. Evalu- ation of a Web-based introductory psychology course: I. Learning and satisfaction in on-line versus lecture cour- ses. Behav Res Meth Ins C 2000;32:230-239.
31. Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of E-le- arning in medical education. Acad Med 2006;81:207-212.
32. Kingsley K, Galbraith GM, Herring M, Stowers E, Stewart T, et al. Why not just Google it? An assessment of information literacy skills in a biomedical science curricu- lum. Bmc Medical Education 2011;11.
33. Greysen SR, Kind T, Chretien KC. Online professio- nalism and the mirror of social media. J Gen Intern Med 2010;25:1227-1229.
34. Kind T, Genrich G, Sodhi A, Chretien KC. Social media policies at US medical schools. Med Educ Online 2010;15.