Table 4.
Comparison of students' feedback post-exposure to light and digital microscopy.
| Questions: I think digital/light microscopy | Mean ± standard deviation |
P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Light | Digital | ||
| Diagnostic skills | |||
| 1. Helped me to interpret variations in histopathology of oral lesions | 3.12 ± 1.13 | 3.53 ± 1.02 | 0.015∗ |
| 2. Helped me in diagnosis | 3.12 ± 1.13 | 3.45 ± 1.03 | 0.048∗ |
| 3. Helped me in identification of histopathological features | 3.30 ± 1.11 | 3.56 ± 0.95 | 0.117 |
| Impact on learning | |||
| 4. Increased my willingness | 3.41 ± 1.06 | 3.64 ± 0.86 | 0.209 |
| 5. Made me more concentrated | 3.48 ± 1.08 | 3.65 ± 0.94 | 0.330 |
| Acceptance rate | |||
| 6. Very time efficient | 3.08 ± 1.01 | 3.59 ± 0.91 | 0.000∗ |
| 7. Very clear | 3.29 ± 1.09 | 3.67 ± 0.94 | 0.013∗ |
| 8. Recommend for learning oral pathology practicals | 3.39 ± 1.11 | 3.67 ± 1.00 | 0.078 |
| 9. Recommend incorporating it in curriculum | 3.45 ± 1.21 | 3.75 ± 1.00 | 0.119 |
∗P < 0.05. Mann–Whitney U test.