teaching with technology: learning outcomes for a · pdf fileteaching with technology:...

732 Journal of Dental Education ■ Volume 77, Number 6

Teaching with Technology: Learning Outcomes for a Combined Dental and Dental Hygiene Online Hybrid Oral Histology CourseCynthia C. Gadbury-Amyot, M.S.D.H., Ed.D.; Amul H. Singh, D.D.S.; Pamela R. Overman, B.S.D.H., Ed.D. Abstract: Among the challenges leaders in dental and allied dental education have faced in recent years is a shortage of well-qualified faculty members, especially in some specialty areas of dentistry. One proposed solution has been the use of technol-ogy. At the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Dentistry, the departure of a faculty member who taught the highly specialized content in oral histology and embryology provided the opportunity to implement distance delivery of that course. The course is taught once a year to a combined group of dental and dental hygiene students. Previous to spring semester of 2009, the course was taught using traditional face-to-face, in-class lectures and multiple-choice examinations. During the spring semesters of 2009, 2010, and 2011, the course was taught using synchronous and asynchronous distance delivery technology. Outcomes for these courses (including course grades and performance on the National Board Dental Examination Part I) were compared to those from the 2006, 2007, and 2008 courses. Students participating in the online hybrid course were also given an author-designed survey, and the perceptions of the faculty member who made the transition from teaching the course in a traditional face-to-face format to teaching in an online hybrid format were solicited. Overall, student and faculty perceptions and student outcomes and course reviews have been positive. The results of this study can provide guidance to those seeking to use technol-ogy as one method of curricular delivery.

Dr. Gadbury-Amyot is Associate Dean and Professor, Instructional Technology and Faculty Development, School of Dentistry, University of Missouri-Kansas City; Dr. Singh is Adjunct Assistant Professor, School of Dentistry, University of Missouri-Kansas City; and Dr. Overman is Associate Dean and Professor, School of Dentistry, University of Missouri-Kansas City. Direct corre-spondence and requests for reprints to Dr. Cynthia C. Gadbury-Amyot, School of Dentistry, University of Missouri-Kansas City, 650 E. 25th Street, Kansas City, MO 64108; 816-235-2054 phone; 816-235-2157 fax; [email protected].

Keywords: educational technology, educational methodology, distance education, online learning, dental education, dental hy-giene education, allied dental education, oral histology

Submitted for publication 1/22/12; accepted 7/12/12

In recent years, leaders in dental and allied den-tal education have identified many challenges facing U.S. dental schools including declining

funding, rising student indebtedness, and a shortage of faculty.1 In truth, these issues have faced dental education over a much longer period,2 and the real challenge has been actual adoption of change in response to the various problems.3 In 2005, the American Dental Education Association (ADEA) began an initiative to foster systematic and collabora-tive change in the U.S. dental education enterprise under the auspices of its Commission on Change and Innovation in Dental Education (ADEA CCI). By including representatives of academic and organized dentistry, as well as the accreditation and licensure communities, the ADEA CCI aimed to develop a blueprint for change in dental education overall and at specific academic dental institutions. ADEA CCI

leaders identified a series of principles to help dental schools create an environment conducive to change. These principles include critical thinking, lifelong and self-directed learning, humanistic environment, scientific discovery and the integration of knowledge, evidence-based oral health care, assessment, faculty development, and collaboration with other health care professionals.4 The ADEA CCI’s efforts are reflected in the recently approved accreditation standards for dental education.5

The University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Dentistry (UMKC-SOD) adopted integration of technology as the theme of change projects to be carried out under the ADEA CCI umbrella, and implementation of some of these projects have been reported in this journal.6-8 In this article, the chal-lenge of faculty shortages will be addressed along with how technology was used to creatively deal

June 2013 ■ Journal of Dental Education 733

previous to each of the three course examinations again using synchronous technology. Office hours and Q&A sessions are captured as archived record-ings, and students are able to access them 24/7 throughout the remainder of the course. In addition, the course director is available through both the Blackboard (during his pre-set evening office hours) and university e-mail, so that students are able to e-mail questions and gain clarity through interaction with the faculty member. Technology allows the instructor to set office hours during evenings and other times when he is not committed to his current full-time position. (The Appendix consists of screen captures of the Blackboard course for the purpose of orienting the reader to the online delivery method and course set-up.)

The course was purposefully designed to foster active learning and application of basic science to clinical practice. Following the first year of offering the course online, the principal author (CGA) sug-gested the addition of a team assignment to further increase the level of active learning, student-to-student interaction, and application of oral histology to clinical practice. The students were divided into teams with an assignment to research a question that related course content to a clinical scenario (Table 1). The assignment is worth 5 percent of the students’ total grade. The teams were instructed to research and develop a two- to three-page document on their assigned topic to include clinical relevance. Wikis were created as collaborative work spaces for the teams since dental and dental hygiene student schedules differed and organizing face-to-face team planning events was challenging. Once developed, the assignments were posted in Blackboard for all course participants to review and learn from. Each team member was also required to evaluate his or her peers using a Team Participation form. Each team was asked to develop five questions on their assigned content area that was then e-mailed to the course director for use in the development of three online quizzes worth 5 percent of the students’ total grade. The remainder of the course grade was based on three comprehensive examinations (90 percent of the students’ total grade).

Outcomes include students’ responses to an author-designed survey; course grades for the 2009, 2010, and 2011 online hybrid course compared to the 2006, 2007, and 2008 on-site course; and students’ performance on National Board Dental Examination (NBDE) Part I. The development and subsequent validity and reliability analysis of the survey used to

with this challenge. Not only are faculty shortages in academic dentistry well documented,9-12 but the particular difficulties in finding faculty members to teach in some specialty and basic science areas present ongoing challenges. When a UMKC faculty member who taught oral histology accepted a faculty position at another dental school, the challenge of finding a replacement presented itself as an opportu-nity to use technology. Although the former UMKC faculty member now lives in another state, the use of technology made it possible for him to continue teaching for the UMKC School of Dentistry as an adjunct professor during the semester in which the course is taught. This report describes the transition of an oral histology course from a traditional lecture face-to-face format to delivery through distance tech-nology. Student learning outcomes along with faculty perceptions of the transition from traditional lecture format to distance, online teaching will be described.

MethodsOne of the coauthors (AHS) had previously

taught oral histology in a face-to-face lecture format with dental and dental hygiene students. His depar-ture to accept a position in another dental school provided the challenge of either replacing him or finding another solution. Under the leadership of the first author (CGA), UMKC has had extensive experience in using distance technology. The decision was made to transition the oral histology course to a distance online hybrid delivery format for 101 sec-ond-year dental and thirty-one junior dental hygiene students. This course has truly been a collaborate process among the three authors of this article and is an excellent example of what collaboration with others can achieve.

The course is defined as hybrid because the examinations are administered on-site at the school, thereby requiring students to be on-site in order to participate in the course. The learning management system, Blackboard, provides the synchronous and asynchronous environment for the course. Course de-livery includes a live orientation using synchronous two-way audio-video technology (Wimba); asyn-chronous course materials are housed in Blackboard; twelve one-and-one-half-hour PowerPoint lectures were prerecorded and archived in Blackboard; and office hours are held using the synchronous Wimba technology. Three question and answer (Q&A) ses-sions are scheduled during the evenings the week


ResultsA convenience sample of first-year dental and

dental hygiene students for three consecutive years following implementation of the online hybrid oral histology course was used, with a survey response rate of 364/403 (90.3 percent). Demographics of this sample are shown in Table 2. The data illustrate that the student sample was predominantly white between the ages of twenty-three and twenty-five, with a greater percentage of males.

Because the level of measurement for the sur-vey data was ordinal in that it was capturing student perceptions, medians and interquartile ranges are reported in Table 3 as measures of central tendency and dispersion. The average median score for each of the dimensions of the survey was 5.0 with the exception of learner-learner interaction, which was rated 4.0. There was greater variability in student ratings in relation to resources, specifically library resources and reliability of the technology used to deliver the course. Overall, the ratings by students would indicate that student perceptions of the course were positive when considering that a scale of l (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) and 6 (N/A) was used. Of the 364 survey respondents, 124 made comments on the survey. Survey comments were coded by topic and affectivity (i.e., positive or negative). The coding by topic followed the dimensions used in the development of the survey (Instructor and Learner-Instructor Interaction, Course Organization and Learner-Content Interaction, Learner-Learner Interaction, and Support Services/Technical Support/Delivery Method). In this study, Delivery Method

capture student perceptions of the online hybrid oral histology course have been reported previously.7 Fi-nally, perceptions of the course director and coauthor (AHS), who transitioned from teaching oral histol-ogy in a traditional onsite lecture format to an online hybrid format utilizing technology, were sought.

Table 1. Two examples of assignments for the team project

Directions: You have been assigned to a team of dental and dental hygiene students (11 team members total). You will be responsible as a team for completing the assignment. All assignments will be available on Blackboard for all students to access. In addition to the assignment, your team is also responsible for creating five multiple-choice quiz questions for submission. These questions will be compiled and used in the online Respondus quizzes that are scheduled. Please use your Blackboard Wiki to communicate with your team. Limit the length of your paper to approximately two pages and use APA formatting.

Team Topic Assignment

1 Clefts Cleft palate patients are common and often have difficulty with speech, mastication, and swallowing. Using the text, suggested materials, and any clinical journal articles, please discuss the etiology of orofacial clefts, their prevalence in syndromes, and possible clinical managements.

(Hint: see article in Facial Plast Surg 2002;18(3):147-53 regarding current understanding of cleft lip malformations.)

2 Amelogenesis This is a difficult type of patient to manage from a dental standpoint. Using the text, suggested materials, Imperfecta and any clinical journal articles, please discuss in detail the possible etiologies, progression, effects,

and management of this condition. (Hint: see article in Cells Tissues Organs 2007;186(1):78-85 regarding enamel formation and amelo-

genesis imperfecta.)

Table 2. Demographics of dental and dental hygiene students participating in study, n=364 (classes of 2009, 2010, and 2011)

Number (Percentage)

Educational Program Dental hygiene students 76 (20.9%) Dental students 273 (75.0%)

Gender Male 197 (54.1%) Female 151 (41.4%)

Ages in Years 20-22 85 (23.3%) 23-25 188 (51.6%) 26-30 49 (13.4%) over 30 26 (7.1%)

Race/Ethnicity Asian 17 (4.7%) White 305 (83.8%) Asian and white 3 (0.8%) Black or African American 5 (1.4%) American Indian/Alaska Native 1 (0.3%) Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 1 (0.3%) Black or African American and white 3 (0.8%) Hispanic or Latino 11 (3.0%)

Note: Due to rounding and differences in responding to ques-tions, percentages may not total 100 percent. Race-ethnicity categories are those used in the U.S. census.


taught by the coauthor, appears in Table 5. Dental hygiene students’ grades are not included because their performance in oral histology is factored into their pathology grade resulting in one combined histopathology grade. The most notable observation in comparing dental grades from three years of face-to-face instruction of the course and three years of online hybrid delivery is that grades generally trended upward over time. To examine this further, students were grouped according to instructional modality (traditional vs. online), and grades were recoded into GPA equivalents (A=4.0, B=3.0, C=2.0). An independent-samples t-test was conducted to evaluate whether there was a significant difference in course grades between groups. The results indicated that the mean GPA for students in the online instruction mo-dality (M=3.83, SD=0.40) was significantly greater than the mean GPA for students in the traditional instruction modality (M=3.68, SD=0.51), p<0.001 (Table 6).

broke out as a separate domain in the analysis. The final coding scheme and results are shown in Table 4. Overall, there were eighty-six positive comments and sixty-five negative comments (does not add to 124 since some students included both negative and positive comments). While the rating of the course was high as shown by Table 3, student comments provided insights for use in future revisions of the course. The team project presented difficulty for the students along with difficulties with the technology. On the positive side, comments related to the avail-ability of the lectures online and the interaction in the synchronous live Q&A sessions indicate pedagogical approaches to teaching and learning in the online environment that should be maintained.

The comparison of grades between the dental classes of 2006 through 2008, who took the tradi-tional on-site lecture course taught by the coauthor (AS), and the dental classes of 2009 through 2011, who took the online hybrid version of this course also

Table 3. Student assessment of online oral histology course: survey results by dimension

Dimension Median (IQR)

Instructor and Learner-Instructor InteractionTimeliness of instructor in responding to students. 5 (1.0)Instructor accessible or available when needed. 5 (1.0)Instructor demonstrates respect and concern for students. 5 (0.0)Stimulation of interest in course. 5 (1.0)Instructor able to coordinate the learning activities of this course with the technology. 5 (1.0)Instructor knowledgeable of the subject matter of this course. 5 (0.0)Encouragement of independent, creative, and critical thinking. 5 (1.0)Overall rating of instructor. 5 (1.0)

Course Organization and Learner-Content InteractionCourse objectives and assignments were clearly explained. 5 (1.0)Performance expectations for course were clear. 5 (1.0)Grading/assessment process and grading scale clearly explained. 5 (1.0)The examination was related to course learning activities. 5 (1.0)The content of this course was up-to-date. 5 (1.0)The content presented in this course was at the appropriate level of difficulty. 5 (1.0)Appropriateness of assigned materials (readings, etc.) to the nature and subject of the course. 5 (1.0)Overall rating of course. 5 (1.0)

Learner-Learner InteractionInteraction opportunities with other students. 4 (2.0)Sense of community among students in this course. 4 (2.0)Contact with other students when needed. 4 (2.0)

Support Services/Technical Support/Delivery MethodAppropriate library resources available during this course. 5 (2.0)Reliability of the technology used to deliver this course. 5 (2.0)Technical support’s ability to resolve technical difficulties. 5 (1.0)Material on the course Blackboard site was accurate. 5 (1.0)

Note: Scale based on 1=poor to 5=excellent with 6=NA.


which the course was transitioned to an online hybrid format (2009). The results for students taking the online hybrid oral histology course in 2010 will not be available until approximately May 2012. Each year the students have performed above the national average in the area of Anatomic Sciences, ranging

Table 7 shows NBDE Part I results in the content area of Anatomic Sciences: out of 100 ques-tions in that area, sixteen relate specifically to oral histology. Results include scores for the three years in which the course was taught in a traditional on-site lecture format (2006-08) and for one of the years in

Table 4. Analysis of survey comments with representative examples

Dimension

Positive(n=total number of comments

per dimension)

Negative(n=total number of comments

per dimension)

Learner-Instructor Interaction (10) (3)

• Heisagreatinstructorand,evenatadistance, was able to convey a genuine concern for every student.

• Greatprofessor,butwishwehadsomefeedback on our group projects.

Learner-Learner Interaction (2) (1)

• Thechatsessionswereawesometofacilitate Q & A and stir up other ques-tions we may have not thought of right then.

• Hardtocommunicatewithotherstu-dents since we never sit in classroom together.

Learner-Content Interaction (9) (0)

• IthinkI’velearnedthemostfromthiscourse out of all the classes I have taken thus far in dental school.

• Thematerialwasinterestingand relevant.

Instructor/Facilitator (37) (2)

• Thiswasoneofmyfavoriteclasses. I think Dr. Singh is a great teacher.

• Hehadalotoftroublewithchats.

Course Organization (9) (35)

• Thecoursewaswellorganized. I didn’t mind that the lectures were online. I think it even helped me.

• Reallynice.Lovetheonlineavailabilityand the structure of material.

• Lovedthiscourse,butnogroupproj-ect—way too hard to collaborate with dental students due to schedule differ-ences.

• Hardtoworkwithdentalhygienestu-dents on project during school hours.

• Questionbankwasnothelpfulasex-pected.

• Aftertheclassacedthefirstexam,theprofessor seemed to make Exam 2 very difficult.

• Havethetestsbeonline.

Support Services/Technical Support (1) (10)

• Thetechnicalsupportwasexcellentand allowed the freedom of listening to lecture at home.

• Bufferingandarrowclicks.Thisshouldnot be online.

Delivery Method (18) (14)

• Ilovethatwecanlistentothelectureatour own pace.

• Thebookmarksmadeitnicetore-listento a section and get it down.

• Veryconvenientforatime-constrainedschedule.

• Difficulttoheartheonlinerecordingsometimes.

• Iwishwecoulddownloadthevideo,not just the MP3.

• Coolclass.Ilikethepodcastsbutrewind/fast forward functionality would be nice.


office hours. In the online format, the course direc-tor kept track of attendance during the synchronous office hours and Q&A sessions (Table 8). Of note is the increase of attendance just prior to exams, but overall the course director stated that office hours were attended at a higher level than when teaching face-to-face. The course director noted that students actively participated in the sessions by either us-ing the text chat available in the Wimba classroom or activating their audio and sometimes video to participate. The course director perceived that the online classroom forum more readily lended itself to collaboration, allowing students to dig a little more deeply into the material and discuss what they were learning in other courses and how it related to the topic of oral histology.

DiscussionIn an environment of faculty shortages, espe-

cially in specialized knowledge areas such as oral histology, creative use of technology combined with solid pedagogy served as a viable solution when a faculty member relocated to another state. Similar to our findings presented in a previous study examining student perceptions of online teaching and learning,7 the majority of the students responded positively to

from a difference of 0.4 to 2.5 points. Mean differ-ences between the Anatomic Sciences subscale scores of each UMKC annual cohort and the correspond-ing national average were tested using confidence intervals. The mean differences were highest for the 2006 and 2009 cohorts: -2.5 and -1.1, respectively. The 95 percent confidence intervals for these mean difference estimates did not include the value of 0 and was therefore significant (p<0.05). The mean differ-ences for the 2007 and 2008 cohorts were -0.4 and -0.9, respectively. Since the 95 percent confidence intervals included the value of 0, these means were not significantly different. What is instructive about these results is that the transition from a traditional on-site to an online hybrid course did not appear to negatively impact NBDE Part I scores.

Finally, faculty perceptions are of particular interest in this study since the same faculty member taught the course in both instructional modalities: face-to-face and online hybrid. One of the differ-ences noted was the degree of active learning and interaction that was possible through the use of the distance technology. For example, in the on-site face-to-face lecture environment, the course direc-tor stated that it was very seldom that students asked questions during the lecture and, if they did, it was typically the same students asking all the questions. In the online hybrid format, students were required to study materials asynchronously using self-directed learning strategies, and by the time they attended the synchronous office hours and Q&A sessions, they were able to seek understanding of content in areas they identified as needing fuller explanations. In the online environment, the course director found that students in general appeared less self-conscious during office hours and Q&A sessions. The course director stated that it was unusual to have more than a couple of students seek him out during his on-site

Table 5. Comparison of grades earned by dental students in traditional delivery vs. distance/online delivery

Semester and Year Course Taken Total A B C (Year of Graduation) Number Number (%) Number (%) Number (%)

Traditional Delivery Spring 2006 (2008) 99 53 (53.5%) 40 (40.4%) 6 (6.1%) Spring 2007 (2009) 100 76 (76.0%) 24 (24.0%) 0 Spring 2008 (2010) 101 80 (79.2%) 21 (20.7%) 0

Online Delivery Spring 2009 (2011) 101 76 (75.2%) 24 (23.7%) 1 (0.01%) Spring 2010 (2012) 100 86 (86.0%) 13 (13.0%) 1 (1.0%) Spring 2011 (2013) 108 99 (91.6%) 8 (7.4%) 1 (0.92%)

Table 6. GPA differences across teaching modality groups

Number of Mean GPA Students (SD) t (df)

Traditional 300 3.68 (0.51) -4.27 (565)*Online 309 3.83 (0.40)

*p<0.001


the survey questions. Also similar to our previous study, it was clear from the student comments that this delivery modality is not always positively re-ceived by 100 percent of the students. In an attempt to increase learner-to-learner interaction and a greater degree of active learning, we implemented the team assignment.

Comments from the survey have provided guidance in the revision of the course to be offered in spring 2012. For example, a grading rubric has been developed for the assignment, so that the teams will be provided both quantitative and qualitative feedback. It has been the primary author’s (CGA) experience that while students today come to us with experience in the use of technology, their experi-ence often does not translate into teaching technol-ogy; this perception was supported by the students’ comments regarding collaboration around the team project. Wikis were provided for each of the teams as working spaces for the very reason documented in the student comments: that it was hard for the dental and dental hygiene students to find mutual times to meet face-to-face given their demanding schedules. The Wiki sites were used only sporadically, so during the orientation for the spring 2012 course, the lead author developed an instructional video for how to use Wikis. This video is loaded into the Bb course for students to view at their convenience 24/7, and time will be spent during orientation on the use of Wikis. In addition, the use of the Wiki for collaboration is included as one of the evaluation criteria on the newly developed grading rubric. In addition, the Wikis provide a common work site where faculty members are able to actually see the level of participation and

Table 7. National Board Dental Examination Part I scores for Anatomic Sciences content

Year and Semester Course Taken NBDE Part I Scores UMKC (Year of Graduation) (National Average) Mean Diff (CI)†

Traditional Delivery Spring 2006 (2008) 68.7 (66.2) -2.5 (-3.55 to -1.45)* Spring 2007 (2009) 68.3 (67.9) -0.4 (-1.43 to 0.63) Spring 2008 (2010) 69.9 (69.0) -0.9 (-1.93 to 0.13)

Online Delivery Spring 2009 (2011) 68.4 (67.3) -1.1 (-2.14 to -0.06)* Spring 2010 (2012) (results not available)

Note: Anatomic Sciences (100 questions) includes: 1.0 Gross Anatomy (49); 2.0 Histology (23); 3.0 Oral Histology (16); 4.0 Develop-mental Biology (11); and 5.0 Professional Ethics/Patient Management (1).

†The best available data for calculation of confidence intervals were the 2011 edition of the NBDE Technical Report provided by the Joint Commission on National Dental Examinations. In the absence of any other estimates, the standard score standard deviation of 5.2 from the 2010 calendar year was utilized. *p<0.05

collaboration in addition to querying statistics for quantitative analysis of team participation.

Grade comparisons of three years of face-to-face instruction of the course and three years of online delivery are interesting in that grades gener-ally trended upward. It is instructive to note that the spring semester of 2006 was the first year the faculty member taught the course. Subsequent years saw an increase in A-level work. We know from research conducted in cognitive psychology that deep pro-cessing of information involves practice in seeking personal meaning and integrating new knowledge with knowledge already available in the brain’s cognitive structure.13,14 Piaget’s work has shown that knowledge is actively constructed and learning is a process of discovery. The learning environment created in the online hybrid oral histology course requires students to actively engage by reading ma-terial, listening to recordings, and completing team assignments designed specifically around clinical relevance. The addition of short online quizzes and three onsite examinations provided the contingency that requires students to actively seek understanding of course materials. In an effort to ensure that course evaluation standards were consistent during the vari-ous offerings of the course, examination items were drawn from a test bank that was maintained during the entire period of the study. Two faculty members reviewed the examinations prior to administration to make sure examination items were reflective of course goals and objectives and to minimize clerical errors. From the Institute of Medicine report in 19952 calling for a change in the way that we deliver dental education to the work of the ADEA CCI, the issue


of lecture-based learning as a predominant teaching strategy in dental education has been challenged in that it fails to require students to take an active role in and, more importantly, responsibility for their own learning. The increase in course grades could be a result of greater student engagement with the course content. We believe that the redesign of this course by necessity from an onsite traditional lecture course to an online hybrid course has resulted in bet-ter outcomes for students because it requires them to be self-directed learners.

One of the obvious outcomes available in den-tal education is student performance on the NBDE. While it is impossible to parse out the board results exclusive to oral histology, we are able to report the results of the NBDE Part I Anatomical Sciences content. The redesign of this course has not had a negative impact on NBDE Part I scores in this con-tent area. As a result, the administration continues to support the delivery of this course using distance technology and solid pedagogy.

Table 8. Class participation in online synchronous office hours and Q&A exam preparation sessions

Date General Office Hours Q&A (Exam Preparation) Number of Attendees

2009 Course 1-26-09 X 43 2-3-09 X 6 2-10-09 X 1 2-17-09 X 9 2-23-09 X 46 03-03-09 X 7 03-10-09 X 3 03-24-09 X 4 03-31-09 X 19 04-06-09 X 49

2010 Course 01-20-10 X 16 02-02-10 X 4 02-09-10 X 2 02-17-10 X 18 03-02-10 X 0 03-09-10 X 2 03-16-10 X 5 03-23-10 X 8 04-06-10 X 32

2011 Course 01-19-11 X 33 02-02-11 X 6 02-09-11 X 12 02-16-11 X 48 03-02-11 X 1 03-09-11 X 5 03-23-11 X 16 03-30-11 X 51

Finally, this study benefitted from the fact that the same faculty member served as course director both prior to and following the redesign of the course. His perspectives were sought as it was felt they would be particularly instructive for faculty members who are considering a course redesign using teaching technology. The course director (coauthor AHS) was very positive about the experience. He felt the synchronous technology was excellent for fostering student engagement. Because students have been more active with questions and discussion, he is able to hear more of their perspectives, whether it is how students are interpreting the lectures and materials or how they are able to collate material taught in other classes to the subject of oral histology. He stated that this kind of interaction allows more readily for the op-portunity to correct misinterpretations and eliminate contradictions that students feel exist. By far the most positive feedback from students has been around the ready availability of the course material, with all lectures, office hours, and Q&A sessions captured as


4. Haden NK, Andrieu SC, Chadwick DG, Chmar JE, Cole JR, George MC, et al. The dental education environment. J Dent Educ 2006;70(12):1265-70.

5. Commission on Dental Accreditation. Accreditation stan-dards for dental education programs. Chicago: American Dental Association, 2010.

6. Gadbury-Amyot CC, Overman PR, Crain G. The develop-ment and implementation of an online applied biochemis-try bridge course for a dental hygiene curriculum. J Dent Educ 2009;73(1):83-94.

7. Gadbury-Amyot CC, Brockman WG. Transition of a traditional pharmacology course for dental students to an online delivery format: a pilot project. J Dent Educ 2011;75(5):633-45.

8. Kumar V, Gadbury-Amyot C. A case-based and team-based learning model in oral and maxillofacial radiology. J Dent Educ 2012;76(3):330-7.

9. Haden NK, Beemsterboer PL, Weaver RG, Valacho-vic RW. Dental school faculty shortages increase: an update on future dental school faculty. J Dent Educ 2000;64(9):657-73.

10. Haden NK, Weaver RG, Valachovic RW. Meeting the de-mand for future dental school faculty: trends, challenges, and responses. J Dent Educ 2002;66(9):1102-13.

11. Chmar JE, Weaver RG, Valachovic RW. Dental school vacant budgeted faculty positions, academic years 2005-06 and 2006-07. J Dent Educ 2008;72(3):370-85.

12. Okwuje I, Sisson A, Anderson EL, Valachovic RW. Dental school vacant budgeted faculty positions, 2007-08. J Dent Educ 2009;73(12):1415-22.

13. Vygotsky LS. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.

14. Piaget J. Biology and knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971.

archive recordings that students can access and view as many times as they would like 24/7.

ConclusionThe transition of an oral histology course from

a traditional face-to-face lecture delivery format to an online hybrid format allowed the school to retain the part-time service of a faculty member with special-ized knowledge when he relocated to another state. Faculty shortages are well documented in academic dentistry with no apparent resolution in the future. Technology has the potential for addressing faculty shortages while solid pedagogy ensures a quality teaching and learning experience for both faculty and students. Similar to the findings of a previous study conducted by the lead author in which a phar-macology course was transitioned to an online hybrid delivery, the transition of an oral histology course from face-to-face lecture to an online hybrid course did not negatively impact student outcomes.

REFERENCES1. Bailit H, Weaver R, Haden K, Kotowicz W, Hovland E.

Dental education summits: the challenges ahead. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134(8):1109-13.

2. Field MJ, ed. Dental education at the crossroads: chal-lenges and change. An Institute of Medicine report. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1995.

3. Pyle M, Andrieu SC, Chadwick DG, Chmar JE, Cole JR, George MC, et al. The case for change in dental education. J Dent Educ 2006;70(9):921-4.


Screen Captures of the Course Blackboard Site

APPENDIX


APPENDIX (continued)

teaching with technology: learning outcomes for a · pdf fileteaching with technology:...

Documents