Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
      • Resources
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
    • Subscribing
  • About
    • About the JDE
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • My Saved Searches
    • Feedback
    • Help
  • Other Publications

User menu

  • My Alerts
  • Log In
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Dental Education
Visit the American Dental Education Association's main website
  • My Alerts
  • Log In
  • My Cart
Journal of Dental Education

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
    • Subscribing
  • About
    • About the JDE
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • My Saved Searches
    • Feedback
    • Help
  • Visit jde Template on Facebook
  • Follow jde Template on Twitter
  • Follow jde Template on YouTube
  • View jde RSS feed
  • TOC Alerts
Research ArticleUse of Technology in Dental Education

Exploring the Relation Between Online Case-Based Discussions and Learning Outcomes in Dental Education

Sebastiaan Koole, Stijn Vervaeke, Jan Cosyn and Hugo De Bruyn
Journal of Dental Education November 2014, 78 (11) 1552-1557;
Sebastiaan Koole
Dr. Koole is Educational Advisor, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Ghent University, Belgium; Dr. Vervaeke is Researcher, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Ghent University, Belgium; Dr. Cosyn is Associate Professor, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Ghent University, Belgium and Visiting Professor, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Free University of Brussels (VUB), Belgium; and Dr. De Bruyn is Professor, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Ghent University, Belgium and Visiting Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Malmö University, Sweden.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: sebastiaan.koole@ugent.be
Stijn Vervaeke
Dr. Koole is Educational Advisor, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Ghent University, Belgium; Dr. Vervaeke is Researcher, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Ghent University, Belgium; Dr. Cosyn is Associate Professor, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Ghent University, Belgium and Visiting Professor, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Free University of Brussels (VUB), Belgium; and Dr. De Bruyn is Professor, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Ghent University, Belgium and Visiting Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Malmö University, Sweden.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jan Cosyn
Dr. Koole is Educational Advisor, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Ghent University, Belgium; Dr. Vervaeke is Researcher, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Ghent University, Belgium; Dr. Cosyn is Associate Professor, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Ghent University, Belgium and Visiting Professor, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Free University of Brussels (VUB), Belgium; and Dr. De Bruyn is Professor, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Ghent University, Belgium and Visiting Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Malmö University, Sweden.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hugo De Bruyn
Dr. Koole is Educational Advisor, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Ghent University, Belgium; Dr. Vervaeke is Researcher, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Ghent University, Belgium; Dr. Cosyn is Associate Professor, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Ghent University, Belgium and Visiting Professor, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Free University of Brussels (VUB), Belgium; and Dr. De Bruyn is Professor, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Ghent University, Belgium and Visiting Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Malmö University, Sweden.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site

GTranslate

English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Online case-based discussions, parallel to theoretical dental education, have been highly valued by students and supervisors. This study investigated the relation between variables of online group discussions and learning outcomes. At Ghent University in Belgium, undergraduate dental students (years two and three) are required to participate in online case-based discussion groups (five students/group) in conjunction with two theoretical courses on basic periodontics and related therapy. Each week, a patient case is discussed under supervision of a periodontist, who authored the case and performed the treatment. Each case includes treatment history and demand, intra- and extraoral images, and full diagnostic information with periodontal and radiographic status. For this retrospective study, data were obtained for all 252 students in forty-three discussion groups between 2009 and 2012. Spearman’s rank correlations were calculated to investigate the relation among group dynamics (number of group posts and views), individual student contributions (number of individual posts, newly introduced elements, questions, and reactions to other posts), supervisors’ interventions (number of posts and posed questions), and learning outcomes (examination result). The results showed that learning outcomes were significantly related to the number of student posts (Spearman’s rho (ρ)=0.19), newly introduced elements (ρ=0.21), reactions to other posts (ρ=0.14), number of supervisors’ interventions (ρ=0.12), and supervisors’ questions (ρ=0.20). These results suggest that individual student contributions during online case-based discussions and the provided supervision were related to learning outcomes.

  • dental education
  • problem-based learning
  • periodontics
  • online discussion groups
  • educational methodologies
  • Belgium

In educational settings, clinical case simulations are typically used to create a bridge between knowledge and its application in a realistic clinical environment. An important advantage of case-based learning is the ability to align the degree of complexity to the expected student’s capacity to create an optimal learning environment.1,2 Furthermore, clinical situations can be offered without the need of patient contact. From a student’s perspective, cases offer the opportunity to engage in clinical reasoning without the pressure and responsibility related to patient care and safety issues.3,4 As a result, patient cases can be a useful educational strategy in preparing students for real clinical training or challenging students with rare (and complex) clinical situations.1

Discussing patient cases in small student groups adds another dimension as this cooperative learning strategy stimulates students to express their views, to reflect on emerging opinions of themselves or their peers, and to consider alternatives before reaching a collective conclusion.5 Technological developments now make available the opportunity for students to discuss patient cases on asynchronous forums. Online discussions have the advantage of being time- and place-independent, giving students the ability to participate at their own pace. Consequently, students have the time to individually think, reflect, and search for additional information in preparation of a contribution to the discussion, enabling deep learning.6

In search of a method of teaching information within its clinical context and as an approach to stimulate clinical reasoning and deeper learning,7–9 online case-based discussions were introduced in the undergraduate dental curriculum at Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. A blended learning strategy was implemented in a periodontal course, combining traditional lecture-based teaching with small-group discussions on diagnostics and treatment planning based on presented patient cases. A previous study10 demonstrated that both students and supervisors considered this educational approach a valuable addition to the dental curriculum with high appreciation of feasibility and learning potential. These results are consistent with other studies in dental and other health professions education.4,5,11

Users’ perceptions are useful to assess the acceptance of teaching methods. To optimize this teaching method for dental education, however, increased understanding of the relation between case-based discussions and learning outcomes was needed to unravel its underlying mechanism. Although a considerable amount of research on online discussions has been performed, understanding their effects remains inconclusive due to divergence in educational approach and research focus and methodologies.12 Nevertheless, some influential factors have been identified. Social interaction in discussion groups relates to a constructivist approach of knowledge-building in collaboration with peers. This interactive process is characterized by the contributions that a participant makes and the (re)actions of others. On group level, the total number of posts and participants viewing the posts creates a dynamic environment that influences the outcome.13,14 Individual contributions, as an indicator of active participation, have also been related to learning gain.15 In addition to peer interaction, the supervisor’s role can raise a discussion to a higher level and affect the outcome.12,16

Our aim for this study was to investigate the influence of participation in online case-based discussion groups on learning outcomes in dental education. We sought to test the following hypothesis: group dynamics, individual student contributions, and supervision in online periodontal case-based discussions in undergraduate dental education are related to learning outcomes.

Materials and Methods

Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Ghent University Hospital Ethics Committee. The undergraduate dental curriculum at Ghent University is a five-year educational program (three years of bachelor-level study and two years at the master’s level). In years two and three, the curriculum incorporates two consecutive periodontal courses. These courses introduce students to a variety of periodontal-related topics from the basic principles to more advanced diagnostics, treatment planning, and various modalities of periodontal therapy.

The introduction of online case-based discussion groups to these periodontal courses was grounded in social constructivist learning theory, which considers that learners actively build their own knowledge, rather than passively receiving information via transfer.17 Consequently, educational strategies following social constructivist principles focus on creating an environment that stimulates this process in learners, including active participation,18 critical thinking and reflection,7 collaboration,19 and authenticity of content.20

The combination of theoretical lectures and online case-based discussion groups resulted in a course with a blended learning approach. Patient cases were introduced to present the course content in an authentic clinical situation, stimulating students to review their previous knowledge and seek additional information in the discussion process. Students were allocated to small groups of five to provide the best opportunity to fully participate in the case discussions.15 At the onset of the course, students received an in-class introduction about the online discussion groups. Subsequently each week, a new case was provided online in a structure proposed by Johnsen et al.;21 the case included a patient history and demands, intra- and extraoral pictures, periodontal charts, and radiographic status. Guiding questions that had to be addressed were incorporated to organize the student discussions.

Students were instructed to provide at least two contributions to the case discussion each week. Each group discussion was supervised by the author of the case, who was also the treating periodontist of the patient. This allowed students to ask questions related to the case in a broad sense. Online feedback was provided regularly by the author of the case, who could redirect discussions if necessary to stimulate students to critically analyze all elements in the patient case and to answer more specific treatment-related questions beyond the students’ current knowledge. The actual treatment of the patient was disclosed to all students during a seminar at the end of the course.

Evaluation occurred during an end course exam. Open-ended questions were used to evaluate students’ knowledge of periodontics. A patient case, similar to the one used in the discussion groups, was introduced to assess students’ ability to apply knowledge in a clinical context. After a written preparation, students had to discuss their answers to the questions and the patient case with an examiner.

To investigate the hypothesis of our study, a retrospective analysis was conducted. All students in the periodontal courses in years two and three and the online case-based discussion groups used during three consecutive academic years (2009–12) were identified and screened. To ensure a structured approach, a conceptual research framework (Figure 1) was developed to illustrate the relation among all variables in the hypothesis. Since group dynamics, individual student contribution, and supervision are important variables that influence the learning effect in group discussions, data on each variable were collected. The total number of posts in the discussion and the number of views by all participants were identified as indicators for group dynamics; these were the same for all participants in a discussion group. Individual student contribution was defined by the number of individual posts in the discussion group by a student, which could include introduction of a new element, a question, or a reaction to another post. Supervision was investigated by the numbers of posts by the supervisor and the supervisor’s questions to the students. These group discussion variables were related to the end course results as indicators of learning outcomes.

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1

Conceptual research framework

Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests and Q-Q plots were used to evaluate the distribution of the data.17 As results showed an absence of normal distribution, Spearman’s rank correlations were calculated to analyze the relation between the group discussion indicators and learning outcomes.22 All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) with a significance level set at p≤0.05.

Results

Data from all 252 students in forty-three discussion groups were included in the screening process, containing 221 discussed cases and 3,370 posts. Descriptive characteristics of the data and Kolmogorov-Smirnov analysis, demonstrating the absence of a normal distribution, are shown in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Descriptive statistics (median, interquartile range) and results of Kolmogorov-Smirnov analysis (D, degrees of freedom, significance) of group discussion variables-indicators and learning outcome

Spearman’s correlation coefficients between group discussion indicators ranged between 0.05 and 0.21. Significant correlations were present between learning outcomes and indicators of individual student contribution (total number of posts, introduction of new elements, and reaction to another post) and supervision (total number of posts and posed questions). An overview of the Spearman’s correlation analysis appears in Table 2.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Spearman’s correlation coefficient (Spearman’s ρ) and significance between group discussion variables-indicators and learning outcome

Discussion

In an attempt to unravel the underlying mechanism of learning in online case-based discussion groups, we conducted a study to investigate the relation among group dynamics, individual student contributions, supervision, and learning outcomes. The results could confirm the hypothesis only partially. Significant (albeit weak) positive correlations were found between learning outcomes and indicators of student contributions and supervision. Group dynamics, however, did not significantly relate to learning outcomes.

The absence of significant correlations between indicators of group dynamics and learning outcomes demonstrate that popularity and size of a discussion was not related to individual student learning. Instead, the results may suggest a need for students to actively engage in discussions, rather than passively observing the ongoing discussion from the sidelines.11 Individually contributing to a discussion forces students to analyze the previous messages and relate them to their own knowledge and possible external information sources to create a reaction. It stimulates them to actively engage in a learning process. Active learning is considered an efficient approach to learning and may have influenced the outcomes.18,23

Within this learning process, supervision was found to be an important facilitating factor. Next to providing confirmative feedback, supervisors in this study were instructed to enter into the discussions when students were introducing the wrong assumptions or incorrect quotes, when their reasoning led to the wrong conclusions, or when questions remained unanswered. The results suggest that, in addition to providing the correct information, supervisors also could ask thought-provoking questions, which is in support of the current view of supervisors as facilitators of student reflections.24 By asking the right questions, students are triggered to analyze their thoughts and engage in reflection.25 The relation between reflection and case-based clinical reasoning for medical students26 and portfolio learning for dental students27 has been previously suggested and could explain the influence of supervision. Consequently, it emphasizes the importance of supervisors’ being trained in reflection and coaching skills, rather than merely focusing on their clinical competence.28

The rather small correlations in this study (Spearman’s ρ 0.12–0.21) indicate the complex and subtle character of the underlying mechanism of learning during online case-based discussions. They also suggest the presence of other factors besides the variables included in this study, such as quality of contributions, motivation, self-efficacy, competence in clinical reasoning, or individual learning style. All of these factors are part of the rich educational environment in this study and are causing noise. Hence, the results have to be interpreted within this context. To filter out the noise, future research should integrate additional factors to investigate their influence on learning outcome and their relation to individual students’ contributions and supervision.

The scope of this study was directed towards quantitative rather than qualitative analysis. As a result, the findings are limited to interpretation of observed actions. The quality of students’ and supervisors’ contributions was not considered, which also could influence the depth of the discussion and consequently the outcome of a discussion group.

Furthermore, our findings are limited in identifying a causal relation between the indicators of online group discussions and learning outcomes. Establishing cause would require a research design with a control group with no individual contributions or no supervision, which could be considered unethical as students in the same course should receive the same learning content and instructional methods. To counter these ethical problems, one could consider a quasi-experimental design using multiple student populations29 or to offer additional education after wards to students in the control group. Although a causal relation remains to be confirmed by future research, our findings demonstrate a significant relation between learning outcomes and participating in online case-based discussion groups.

Conclusion

This retrospective study investigated the relation between variables of online group discussions and learning outcomes among all 252 dental students in a periodontal course at Ghent University in Belgium between 2009 and 2012. The results suggest that, in online case-based discussion groups, learning outcomes were related to a balanced combination of students’ individual contributions to advance the discussion and the supervision that was provided.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Maarten Glibert for his support during data collection.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Oliver R,
    2. Kersten H,
    3. Vinkka-Puhakka H,
    4. et al
    . Curriculum structure: principles and strategy. Eur J Dent Educ 2008;12:74–84.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Kim S,
    2. Phillips WR,
    3. Pinsky L,
    4. et al
    . A conceptual framework for developing teaching cases: a review and synthesis of the literature across disciplines. Med Educ 2006;40:867–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Alzahem AM,
    2. van der Molen HT,
    3. Alaujan AH,
    4. et al
    . Stress amongst dental students: a systematic review. Eur J Dent Educ 2011;15:8–18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Zhang SY,
    2. Zheng JW,
    3. Yang C,
    4. et al
    . Case-based learning in clinical courses in a Chinese college of stomatology. J Dent Educ 2012;76(10):1389–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Kumar V,
    2. Gadbury-Amyot CC
    . A case-based and team-based learning model in oral and maxillofacial radiology. J Dent Educ 2012;76(3):330–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. De Wever B,
    2. Schellens T,
    3. Valcke M,
    4. Van Keer H
    . Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: a review. Comput Educ 2006;46:6–28.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Hendricson WD,
    2. Andrieu SC,
    3. Chadwick DG,
    4. et al
    . Educational strategies associated with development of problem-solving, critical thinking, and self-directed learning. J Dent Educ 2006;70(9):925–36.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Popil I
    . Promotion of critical thinking by using case studies as teaching method. Nurse Educ Today 2011;31:204–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Nadershahi NA,
    2. Bender DJ,
    3. Beck L,
    4. et al
    . An overview of case-based and problem-based learning methodologies for dental education. J Dent Educ 2013;77(10):1300–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Koole S,
    2. De Wever B,
    3. Aper L,
    4. et al
    . Using online periodontal case-based discussions to synchronize theoretical and clinical undergraduate dental education. Eur J Dent Educ 2012;16:52–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Thistlethwaite JE,
    2. Davies D,
    3. Ekeocha S,
    4. et al
    . The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education: a BEME systematic review. BEME Guide No. 23. Med Teach 2012;34:e421–44.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Kay RH
    . Developing a comprehensive metric for assessing discussion board effectiveness. Br J Educ Technol 2006;37:761–83.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Linjawi AI,
    2. Walmsley AD,
    3. Hill KB
    . Online discussion boards in dental education: potential and challenges. Eur J Dent Educ 2012;16:e3–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Schellens T,
    2. Valcke M
    . Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: what about the impact on cognitive processing? Comput Hum Behav 2005;21: 957–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    1. Schellens T,
    2. Van Keer H,
    3. Valcke M,
    4. De Wever B
    . Learning in asynchronous discussion groups: a multilevel approach to study the influence of student, group, and task characteristics. Behav Inform Technol 2007;26:55–71.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Andresen MA
    . Asynchronous discussion forums: success factors, assessments, and limitations. Educ Technol Soc 2009;12:249–57.
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Mann K
    . Theoretical perspectives in medical education: past experience and future possibilities. Med Educ 2011;45:60–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Graffam B
    . Active learning in medical education: strategies for beginning implementation. Med Teach 2007;29:38–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Slavin RE
    . Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educ Leadership 1991;48:71–81.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Snape P,
    2. Fox-Turnbull W
    . Perspectives of authenticity: implementation in technology education. Int J Technol Des Educ 2013;23:51–68.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Johnsen DC,
    2. Finkelstein MW,
    3. Marshall TA,
    4. Chalkley YM
    . A model for critical thinking measurement of dental student performance. J Dent Educ 2009;73(2):177–83.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Field A
    . Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd ed. London: Sage, 2009.
  22. ↵
    1. Prince M
    . Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng Educ 2004;93:223–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. ↵
    1. Guldberg K,
    2. Pilkington R
    . Tutor roles in facilitating reflection on practice through online discussion. Educ Technol Soc 2007;10:61–72.
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Koole S,
    2. Dornan T,
    3. Aper L,
    4. et al
    . Factors confounding the assessment of reflection: a critical review. BMC Med Educ 2011;11:104.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Koole S,
    2. Dornan T,
    3. Aper L,
    4. et al
    . Does reflection have an effect upon case-solving abilities of undergraduate medical students? BMC Med Educ 2012;12:75.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Koole S,
    2. Vanobbergen J,
    3. De Visschere L,
    4. et al
    . The influence of reflection on portfolio learning in undergraduate dental education. Eur J Dent Educ 2013;17:e93–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Subramanian J,
    2. Anderson VR,
    3. Morgaine KC,
    4. Thomson WM
    . Effective and ineffective supervision in postgraduate dental education: a qualitative study. Eur J Dent Educ 2013;17:e142–50.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Campbell DT,
    2. Stanley JC
    . Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1963.
View Abstract

This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Dental Education: 78 (11)
Journal of Dental Education
Vol. 78, Issue 11
1 Nov 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

GTranslate

English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Dental Education.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Exploring the Relation Between Online Case-Based Discussions and Learning Outcomes in Dental Education
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Dental Education
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Dental Education web site.
Citation Tools
Exploring the Relation Between Online Case-Based Discussions and Learning Outcomes in Dental Education
Sebastiaan Koole, Stijn Vervaeke, Jan Cosyn, Hugo De Bruyn
Journal of Dental Education Nov 2014, 78 (11) 1552-1557;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Request Permissions

Share
Exploring the Relation Between Online Case-Based Discussions and Learning Outcomes in Dental Education
Sebastiaan Koole, Stijn Vervaeke, Jan Cosyn, Hugo De Bruyn
Journal of Dental Education Nov 2014, 78 (11) 1552-1557;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Linkedin Share Button

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgments
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Scopus
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • An Interactive Online Approach to Teaching Evidence-Based Dentistry with Web 2.0 Technology
  • Training to Care for Limited English Proficient Patients and Provision of Interpreter Services at U.S. Dental School Clinics
  • Facilitating Dental Student Reflections: Using Mentor Groups to Discuss Clinical Experiences and Personal Development
  • Scopus (5)
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Contribution of Haptic Simulation to Analogic Training Environment in Restorative Dentistry
  • 3D Printed Teeth with Enamel and Dentin Layer for Educating Dental Students in Crown Preparation
  • Assessment of Digital Workflow in Predoctoral Education and Patient Care in North American Dental Schools
Show more Use of Technology in Dental Education

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • dental education
  • problem-based learning
  • periodontics
  • online discussion groups
  • educational methodologies
  • Belgium

About

  • About ADEA
  • About the JDE
  • Editorial Review Board
  • Contact Us

Author Information

  • Submit a Paper
  • Submission Information
  • FAQ for Authors
  • Reprint Policies

More Information

  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • My Saved Searches
  • Help

© 2019 Journal of Dental Education

Powered by HighWire