The use of feedback in teaching undergraduate dental students: feedback sandwich or Ask-Tell-Ask model?
Dental education
Dental materials
Feedback
Teaching method
Undergraduate
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 06 2023
23 06 2023
Historique:
received:
25
03
2023
accepted:
16
06
2023
medline:
26
6
2023
pubmed:
24
6
2023
entrez:
23
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Feedback is regarded as a key component of formative assessment and one of the elements with the greatest impact on students' academic learning. The present study aimed to evaluate and compare students' perceptions of the use of two feedback models, namely feedback sandwich and Ask-Tell-Ask (ATA), in teaching dental materials science courses. All undergraduate second-year dental students were invited to participate in the dental materials science practical session and were randomly allocated into two groups: Group 1 (feedback) sandwich and Group 2 (ATA). The session began with the teacher giving a short briefing on the commonly used dental materials, followed by a short demonstration of the manipulation of those materials. Students were then allowed to mix and manipulate the materials, and teachers provided feedback accordingly. At the end of the session, 16 close-ended (five-point Likert scales) and an open-ended questionnaire were distributed to students to evaluate their perceptions of the feedback given. Internal reliability of the questionnaire items was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. Mean feedback scores were analysed using an independent t-test with ANCOVA for controlling gender and ethnicity. Thematic analysis was used to code the qualitative data. Sixty-nine students participated in the present study with the majority being females (72.5%) and Chinese (79.7%). Cronbach's alpha analysis suggested removing three Likert-scale items, with the remaining 13 items being accepted. Generally, no significant difference was noted between the two groups (p = 0.197), but three items were found to be significant (p < 0.05), with higher mean scores in the feedback sandwich group. Moreover, no significant difference was noted between the two feedback models (p = 0.325) when controlling gender and ethnicity. The open-ended question showed that students in the feedback sandwich group expressed greater positive perceptions. Although students generally had positive perceptions of both feedback models, they tended to favour the feedback sandwich. Neither gender nor ethnicity affected the students' perceptions of the two feedback models.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Feedback is regarded as a key component of formative assessment and one of the elements with the greatest impact on students' academic learning. The present study aimed to evaluate and compare students' perceptions of the use of two feedback models, namely feedback sandwich and Ask-Tell-Ask (ATA), in teaching dental materials science courses.
METHODS
All undergraduate second-year dental students were invited to participate in the dental materials science practical session and were randomly allocated into two groups: Group 1 (feedback) sandwich and Group 2 (ATA). The session began with the teacher giving a short briefing on the commonly used dental materials, followed by a short demonstration of the manipulation of those materials. Students were then allowed to mix and manipulate the materials, and teachers provided feedback accordingly. At the end of the session, 16 close-ended (five-point Likert scales) and an open-ended questionnaire were distributed to students to evaluate their perceptions of the feedback given. Internal reliability of the questionnaire items was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. Mean feedback scores were analysed using an independent t-test with ANCOVA for controlling gender and ethnicity. Thematic analysis was used to code the qualitative data.
RESULTS
Sixty-nine students participated in the present study with the majority being females (72.5%) and Chinese (79.7%). Cronbach's alpha analysis suggested removing three Likert-scale items, with the remaining 13 items being accepted. Generally, no significant difference was noted between the two groups (p = 0.197), but three items were found to be significant (p < 0.05), with higher mean scores in the feedback sandwich group. Moreover, no significant difference was noted between the two feedback models (p = 0.325) when controlling gender and ethnicity. The open-ended question showed that students in the feedback sandwich group expressed greater positive perceptions.
CONCLUSION
Although students generally had positive perceptions of both feedback models, they tended to favour the feedback sandwich. Neither gender nor ethnicity affected the students' perceptions of the two feedback models.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37353763
doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-03141-5
pii: 10.1186/s12903-023-03141-5
pmc: PMC10288793
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
417Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2002;7(1):63-80
pubmed: 11912336
Fam Pract Manag. 2002 Nov-Dec;9(10):43-6
pubmed: 12469676
J Exp Child Psychol. 2018 Jun;170:134-160
pubmed: 29471146
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2020 Jun;19(2):ar12
pubmed: 32453677
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2013 Aug;18(3):397-407
pubmed: 22581568
Resuscitation. 2015 Nov;96:199-207
pubmed: 26316279
Pak J Med Sci. 2020 Nov-Dec;36(7):1698-1702
pubmed: 33235600
Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2021 Jun;44(2):237-247
pubmed: 34049646
Med Teach. 2009 Aug;31(8):685-95
pubmed: 19811204
Postgrad Med J. 2022 Feb;98(1156):138-149
pubmed: 33563716
Eur J Dent Educ. 2020 Aug;24(3):580-589
pubmed: 32363680
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Jun;196(6):508-13
pubmed: 17547874
Br Dent J. 2001 Nov 10;191(9):517-22
pubmed: 11726065
Med Teach. 2002 May;24(3):245-8
pubmed: 12098410
BMC Med Educ. 2022 Aug 1;22(1):588
pubmed: 35915499
J Dent Educ. 2015 Dec;79(12):1461-6
pubmed: 26632301
Med Teach. 2010;32(8):676-82
pubmed: 20662580
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2015 Jul-Sep;15(3):244-9
pubmed: 26929520
J Surg Educ. 2015 Nov-Dec;72(6):e274-9
pubmed: 26123726
Teach Learn Med. 2018 Apr-Jun;30(2):162-172
pubmed: 29240456
Neuropsychology. 2010 Jul;24(4):534-41
pubmed: 20604627
Eur J Dent Educ. 2018 Feb;22(1):1-8
pubmed: 27246501
Med Teach. 2017 Dec;39(12):1245-1249
pubmed: 28927332
Ann Intern Med. 2010 Nov 16;153(10):661-5
pubmed: 21079223