Perceptions of students regarding influential factors in delivering didactic dental lectures

Abstract

Introduction

A challenge faced by numerous educators, particularly those who are young and less experienced, is ensuring effective student learning during didactic dental lectures. The lecture stands as a defining feature of university education, while also being one of its most commonly scrutinized aspects. This study aimed to investigate dental students’ attitudes concerning factors that may influence the effectiveness of didactic dental lectures.

Materials and methods

This cross-sectional study was carried out involving 280 dental students at a Dental College in Tamil Nadu. The study was carried out over 3 months. The study was conducted using a pretested questionnaire-based assessment. The students participated in the process voluntarily, and the questionnaire was designed to be anonymous, not requiring any names. The initial section gathered the participant’s personal details and educational history. The second part consisted of 45 multiple-choice questions focused on the effective factors influencing the teaching of didactic dental courses in classroom settings. Each question has been calculated with three choice scales: (1) Agree, (2) Neutral (3) Disagree.

Results

The response rate was 100%. 83.2% (n = 233) of respondents were females and 16.7% (n = 47) were males. Table 1 gives the overall attitude of the students towards didactic lectures. The majority of the students (61.4%) had an average attitude towards effective lecturing in didactic dental lectures. There was no significant difference in attitude among the different years.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the overall attitude of dental students towards the teaching faculty delivering didactic lectures was positive; however, it is essential to implement continuous monitoring of both faculty and student performance through regular assessments. Lecture-based learning, while inherently passive, can be enhanced through the implementation of interactive teaching modalities.

Introduction

A didactic lecture is a scientific oral delivery of information in a systematic and organized manner by an individual who is competent in the field. The didactic teaching approach is arguably the most emblematic aspect of university education, while also being the subject of frequent criticism. The drawbacks of university lectures can be effectively encapsulated in a widely recognized joke: The lecture involves the direct transfer of the lecturer’s notes to the student’s notes, bypassing cognitive processing [1]. A challenge faced by many educators, particularly those who are young and inexperienced, is facilitating practical learning for students during didactic dental lectures [2]. Research indicates that students’ inactivity in traditional teacher-centered classrooms leads to boredom and fatigue, which subsequently diminishes their concentration and learning, ultimately resulting in increased absenteeism [3]. These limitations of traditional lectures have encouraged educators to explore more student-centered and technology-enhanced teaching approaches [4].

Over the last decade, dental education has increasingly incorporated digital technologies and innovative teaching approaches for the betterment of students and learning outcomes [2]. Problem-based learning and case-based learning by teachers has immensely enhanced the critical thinking and self-directed learning effectiveness of students [5, 6]. Studies have also shown that teachers’ virtual lecturing during the pandemic improved students’ didactic performance [7, 8]. The use of technology to support teaching and learning is increasing in dental education [9]. Digital presentation aids and multimedia sources are increasingly integrated into dental lectures to enhance teaching delivery and student engagement [10]. Students are technologically ready to accept simulation-based teaching and learning [11].

However, didactic-based education and clinical training have been the pillars of dental education for decades worldwide. Given that students are the principal beneficiaries of course content in didactic dental lectures, their evaluation of instruction serves as a significant indicator of teaching efficacy. Educators are increasingly integrating active learning strategies within lectures to improve student participation and enhance didactic learning [12]. This includes pausing lectures for note-taking, facilitating small-group discussions, assigning brief writing exercises, administering quizzes, organizing field trips, and incorporating debates and games [13]. Active learning methodologies seek to include students in advanced cognitive tasks, including analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Active learning involves students in two dimensions: executing tasks and reflecting on those tasks [14]. In addition, student-related factors and learning methods also influence the effectiveness of lecture-based learning [15].

An important factor that has to be addressed is that difficulties in understanding lecture content and adapting to different teaching methods may contribute to academic stress among students. Studies have identified that improvements are required for students’ perception of learning and teachers. Consequently, understanding the influential aspects of didactic lectures by students and educators can enhance teaching efficacy, augment student learning, and ultimately inform the planning of future advancements in dental education [16]. In this study, we have tried to assess the traditional didactic-based education for dental students in the current environment. Thus, this study aimed to investigate dental students’ attitudes regarding factors that can affect the teaching effectiveness of didactic lectures.

Materials and methods

This descriptive cross-sectional study was undertaken among students attending lectures at a dental institution in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. The undergraduate program spans four years, including one year of mandatory rotatory internship. Students participating in lectures throughout the study period were considered. Approval was obtained from the Ethical Committee and the institution’s head before commencing the study.

Study design

A total of 280 dental students in the first, second, third, and fourth years participated. The duration of the study was 2 months. A descriptive questionnaire survey was conducted among undergraduate dental students.

Sampling

One of the dental colleges was randomly selected to achieve the required sample size. The estimated sample size was 156. To ensure an adequate sample size considering anticipated nonresponsive rates, this estimate was increased, and all the students attending lectures (a total of 280) in the selected dental institution were included in the study. The sample size was determined using a construct variable defined as attaining ≥ 80% on a series of attitude-based questions, anticipating that 50% of respondents would reach this score (with a 10% margin of error) and establishing α = 0.05. The sample size was calculated using the following formula: t = Expected − worst acceptable frequency [ p(1- p)] / n₀. Students who were present on the day of the survey and gave informed consent were included in the study.

Questionnaire

This descriptive survey involved the assessment of students’ attitudes using a pre-validated questionnaire adapted from a previously published article by Farida Abesi et al. [2]. A pilot test was conducted among a small group of undergraduate dental students who were not included in the final analysis to assess comprehensibility and feasibility. The first part enquired about general information and education. The second part comprised 45 multiple-choice questions about effective factors in teaching didactic dental courses in classrooms. The questionnaire was categorized into five dimensions: Factors related to educators, Contents, Classroom setting, Academic administration, and Study Skills and distractors, which are shown in Table 1. Out of 45 questions, a set of questions corresponded to each of the objectives in question. The reply was assessed based on three-choice Likert scales (0) Disagree, (1) Neutral, and (2) Agree. The overall scores ranged from 0 to 90. The cut-off value to assess the overall attitude was categorised as score 0–30 (poor), 31–60 (average), and 61–90 (good). The cutoffs were adopted from the original questionnaire study based on equal interval distribution.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the Questionnaire

Objective	Question numbers
Educators	1–10
Academic Administration	11–15
Course content	16–26
Physical classroom setting	27–32
Study skills and distractors	33–45

Statistical analysis

All data were analyzed using SPSS version 17.0 (SPSS Inc., South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL, USA). Descriptive statistical analysis, using frequency distribution and percentages, was conducted to determine the characteristics of the participants in this study. The influence of gender and academic year on questionnaire scores was statistically examined using chi-square tests and Pearson correlation coefficients. A P-value of less than 0.05 was deemed statistically significant.

Results

A total of 280 students participated, and the response rate was 100%. 83.2% (n = 233) of respondents were females and 16.7% (n = 47) were males. Table 2 gives the overall attitude of the students towards didactic lectures. The majority of the students, 61.4% (n = 172), had an average attitude towards effective lecturing in didactic dental lectures. There was no significant difference in attitude among the different years, as depicted in Table 3. However, there was a significant difference in the attitude among different age groups, which is shown in Table 4. Tables (5–9) shows the effective factors related to educators, academic administration, course content, physical classroom setting, and study skills and distractors among different age groups and genders, respectively. Tables with data in bold indicate that p value is statistically significant.

Table 2.

Overall attitude of students

Category	Frequency	Percent
Poor	0	0
Average	172	61.4
Good	108	38.6
Total	280	100.0

Table 3.

Attitude among the different years

Year of Study	Overall Category		Total	Approx. Sig.
	Average	Good
First-year	56	41	97	0.9
Second year	53	19	72
Third year	32	30	62
Fourth-year	31	18	49

Table 4.

Attitudes among different genders

Gender	Overall Category		Total	Approx. Sig.
	Average	Good
Male	34	13	47	0.05
Female	139	94	233
Total	172	108	280

Table 5.

Effective factors related to educators among different age groups and gender

Questions	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Year (p-value)	Gender (p-value)
1. Student learning in classrooms is mostly associated with students’ motivations.	185(66.1)	88(31.4)	7(2.5)	0.4	0.4
2. Student learning in the classroom is mostly associated with teaching skills.	203(72.5)	67(23.9)	10(3.6)	0.003	0.7
3. The use of questioning in the classroom increases student attention.	204(72.9)	59(21.1)	17(6.1)	0.9	0.2
4. Educators’ expressive verbal skills and clarity are important qualities in effective classroom lecture presentations.	223(79.6)	48(17.1)	9(3.2)	0.3	0
5. Educators’ ability to organize the content of the course material is important to student learning.	225(80.4)	51(18.2)	4(1.4)	0.5	0.8
6. Enthusiastic lecturing by educators influences the students’ interest in the topic.	233(83.2)	40(14.3)	7(2.5)	0.4	0.5
7. Presenting the topic with a detailed outline is effective for students.	195(69.6)	74(26.4)	11(3.9)	0.9	0.8
8. Young educators outperform expert clinicians in effective teaching.	134(47.9)	123(43.9)	23(8.2)	0.7	0.7
9. Educators who use PowerPoint presentations have more effective lectures.	149(53.2)	85(30.4)	46(16.4)	0.001	0.6
10. Educators should be able to present lectures without using teaching aids such as PowerPoint	123(43.9)	99(35.4)	58(20.7)	0.002	0.7

Table 9.

Effective factors related to study skills and distractors among different age groups and genders

Questions	Never	Sometimes	Always	Year (p-value)	Gender (p-value)
33. Do you read both textbooks and notes?	40(14.3)	199(71.1)	41(14.6)	0.03	0.02
34. Do you repeatedly read each chapter and memorize?	99(35.4)	140(50.00	41(14.6)	0.05	0.2
35. Do you rewrite the notes to memorize?	162(57.9)	84(30.0)	34(12.1)	0.3	0.1
36. Do you have roommates /friends/family around while studying?	84(30.0)	95(33.9)	101(36.1)	0.03	0.7
37. Do you use mnemonics?	46(16.4)	135(48.2)	99(35.3)	0.2	0.06
38. Do you study the topic taught in class on the same day/next day?	115(41.1)	144(51.4)	21(7.5)	0.03	0.5
39. Do you browse social networking sites?	39(13.9)	149(53.2)	92(32.9)	0.2	0.2
40. Do you watch television while studying?	144(51.4)	111(39.6)	25(8.9)	0.3	0.8
41. Do you clarify the doubts that arise while studying?	88(31.4)	157(56.1)	35(12.5)	0.08	0.7
42. Do you listen to music while studying?	137(48.9)	104(37.1)	39(13.9)	0.06	0.7
43. Do you chat/instant message your friends on the phone/internet while studying?	71(25.4)	148(52.9)	61(21.8)	0.02	0.4
44. Do you study with friends/ group study?	63(22.5)	161(57.5)	56(20.0)	0.04	0.1
45. Do you study in the library?	98(35.0)	150(53.6)	32(11.4)	0.8	0.1

Table 6.

Effective factors related to academic administration among different age groups and gender

Questions	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Year (p-value)	Gender (p-value)
11. Changing the lecture timing from 7.15 to 8.00 am is preferred.	67(23.9)	34(12.1)	179(63.9)	0	0.03
12. Mandatories of attendance cause students to attend in-class lectures.	197(70.4)	63(22.5)	20(7.1)	0.7	0.3
13. The educator-student relationship alone cannot motivate students to attend lectures.	123(43.9)	119(42.5)	38(13.6)	0.1	0.7
14. Regular assessments at the beginning of lectures that affect the end-of-course marks are better than compulsory attendance	114(40.7)	129(46.1)	37(13.2)	0.7	0.7
15. Dental school classrooms should be held in an amphitheatre (open /outdoor theatre) style classroom.	147(52.5)	89(31.8)	44(15.7)	0.03	0.6

Table 7.

Effective factors related to course content among different age groups and gender

Questions	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Year (p-value)	Gender (p-value)
16. Topic content should be interesting to the student to engage their attention.	264(94.3)	12(4.3)	4(1.4)	0.1	0.6
17. Having a slide presentation alone is not enough; the slide presentation should be purpose-oriented and augment the educator’s verbal presentation.	217(77.5)	58(20.7)	5(1.8)	0.5	0.1
18. A general dentist doesn’t need to learn topics related to dental specialties.	83(29.6)	87(31.1)	110(39.3)	0.01	0.5
19. Knowledge and exposure to specialty topics help in making appropriate referrals.	197(70.4)	75(26.8)	8(2.9)	0.4	0.8
20. It is necessary for the students to know the justification for theoretical material that will not be used in a clinical situation.	183(65.4)	78(27.9)	19(6.8)	0.5	0.8
21. It is important to revise reference textbooks in classrooms.	135(48.2)	108(38.6)	37(13.2)	0.04	0.4
22. PowerPoint presentations of educators should be available for students.	215(76.8)	49(17.5)	16(5.7)	0.1	0.9
23. Taking notes during lectures facilitates learning	182(65.0)	73(26.1)	25(8.9)	0.01	0.2
24. Dental educators and departments should provide a course outline and lecture topics at the beginning of the semester.	199(71.1)	76(27.1)	5(1.8)	0.1	0.4
25. Dental educators should be aware of the dental curriculum and the prior training students have received.	219(78.2)	55(19.6)	6(2.1)	0.04	0.8
26. Dental educators should inform students about Necessary topics that will be required by students to prepare for forth coming semester.	216(76.8)	56(20.0)	9(3.2)	0.01	0.3

Table 8.

Effective factors related to physical classroom setting among different age groups and genders

Questions	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Year (p-value)	Gender (p-value)
27. Classroom design allows only those who sit in front to pay attention to lectures	105(37.5)	82(29.3)	93(33.2)	0.9	0.02
28. Classroom capacities are less than required for 60–70 Students.	78(27.9)	95(33.9)	107(38.2)	0.04	0.2
29. Limited lecture time and a large number of students prevent the use of questioning techniques during lectures.	121(43.2)	94(33.6)	65(23.2)	0.03	0.6
30. Lack of audio-visual teaching aids wastes lecture time.	125(44.6)	81(28.9)	73(26.1)	0.5	0.8
31. Using appropriate instructional videos is very helpful in some dental subjects.	221(78.9)	51(18.2)	8(2.9)	0.2	0.05
32. The entrance design of classrooms disturbs the lecture presentation.	98(35.0)	96(34.3)	86(30.7)	0.3	0.6

Discussion

The current study was primarily aimed at assessing the dental students’ attitudes regarding factors that can affect the teaching effectiveness of didactic dental lectures, students’ academic engagement, and willingness to attend classes. The results of the analysis highlighted that the overall attitude of students toward didactic dental courses was average. There was no significant difference (P = 0.9) in the overall attitude among the different years; however, it was statistically significant among genders (P = 0.05).

For the effective factors related to educators, significant differences were identified among the gender groups for factors related to expressive verbal skills and clarity, which was considered an important quality in effective classroom lectures. This was by the study conducted by Segabutla M [17]. Similar results were found in the study conducted by Elizabeth L. Rankin [18]. The significant proportion of students who experienced confusion during a lecture indicated a degree of instructional dissonance, which may contribute to suboptimal academic performance. The study conducted by Rodger S, Murray H, and Cummings A [19] demonstrated significant beneficial effects associated with high teacher clarity compared to low teacher clarity, impacting both achievement and motivation measures. These findings suggest that clarity in lecture delivery may be an important factor influencing students’ perceptions of effective teaching.

Significant differences were identified among the year groups for the factor that students’ learning in the classroom is mostly associated with teaching skills, and educators who use PowerPoint presentations have more effective lectures. These findings corresponded well with the work of Khafri S et al., Asokan S. et al. [2], Bartok-Nicolae C et al. [20], Yazdanpanahi F et al.[9]^, and Susskind JE et al. [21]. However, the study conducted by [19] suggested that while PowerPoint can be advantageous, irrelevant material may detrimentally affect students’ learning. Results of the study conducted by Cosgun Ögeyik M [22] suggested that PowerPoint slides can enhance input, provide various dynamic visual opportunities, and increase instructor confidence; however, traditional lecture/discussion formats may facilitate greater student engagement in interactive learning, irrespective of the overall design of the slides.

For the effective factors related to academic administration, significant differences were identified among the year groups for changing lecture timing in the morning, which was preferred and correlated well with the work of Muhammad et al. Preference towards late lecture timings was observed among some students, which may reflect perceived benefits related to alertness, readiness to learn, and academic engagement. Nevertheless, the impact of lecture timing on performance significantly differs among studies; indeed, a general inference from the literature is that the optimal time of day for executing a certain activity and attaining superior results is contingent upon the nature of the work [23]. These findings are interpreted only in the context of students’ preferences toward lecture scheduling.

For factors related to course content, significant differences were identified among the year groups, as it is important to revise reference textbooks in classrooms. According to the study by Mithans et al., textbooks significantly impact the attainment of educational objectives, persist as the educational resources for the compulsory curriculum. The textbook must improve the teaching-learning process through the didactic-methodological organization of information and the utilization of relevant visual and graphic materials [24].

Our study stated that taking notes during lectures facilitates learning, which was statistically significant. This was supported by a study conducted by Neef et al., which supports the statement that providing sets of organized instructors’ notes (guided or otherwise) for students to review is both effective and liked by students [25]. However, contradictory results were seen in the research, which stated that as instructors increasingly transition from conventional content-delivery methods to more student-centered approaches that prioritize in-depth analysis, engagement, and application of material during face-to-face interactions, classroom note-taking practices may evolve. Student accountability in regulating their learning processes may be enhanced, thus transforming their study practices. Lecture transcription may diminish in significance as educators leverage technology to develop offline classes, recorded lectures, and e-learning resources [26].

Dental educators should be aware of the dental curriculum and the prior training students have received. This supports the findings that educators ought to adapt their instructional methods to align with their students’ learning preferences [27]. Dental educators must apprise students of essential subjects required for preparation for the upcoming semester. To enhance learning results, the educator’s teaching methods must align with the students’ learning styles. When both types are aligned, a significant learning environment is established [28]. Findings suggest that students valued educator-related factors such as clarity of communication, interest, organization of content, and awareness of students’ academic background. This suggests that while lecture-based teaching is significant in dental education, its effectiveness is enhanced when educators employ flexible teaching approaches that include diverse learning among larger groups. The findings show that students may value interactive and student-centered elements within lecture-based teaching as effective techniques.

In terms of effective factors related to physical classroom setting, significant differences were identified among the year groups for the results on classroom capacities, with fewer than the required number of 60–70 students having a better impact on learning outcomes. The restricted duration of lectures and the substantial student population hinder the implementation of questioning strategies during instructional sessions. The terms with increased enrolment had markedly inferior course quality scores. Notably, this occurred despite identical course structure and content, along with a comparable allocation of class time dedicated to peer interaction and collaborative learning [29]. A contrast finding was found in the study by Concalves A et al., which states that students in larger classrooms exhibit superior performance compared to those in smaller classes. The findings of this study, in conjunction with those of Bosker, possess the advantage of circumventing the Hawthorne effect [30].

Our analysis of seating zones showed significant differences in academic performance in the traditional classrooms across gender groups and indicated that such designs permit only individuals seated at the front to engage attentively with lectures. The rationale is that students positioned in the front and middle of the classroom are nearer to the teacher and podium than their peers. Consequently, they frequently perceive ideas more clearly, comprehend instructions more distinctly, and grasp teachings more thoroughly than their peers. Students in these seating arrangements can interact with their teacher easily and actively engage in classroom activities [31]. Concerning study skills, significant differences were observed. Students’ academic progress theoretically depends on their talent, effort, and the quality of instruction provided to them [7]. This can be expressed as Ach = f (a + e + i); Ach represents Achievement; “a” denotes Ability, a function of innate and acquired capabilities; “e” signifies Effort, a function of motivation and time invested in the work; and “i” indicates Instruction, a function of the quality of preparation and delivery. This notion demonstrates that a facet of achievement is manifested through self-effort or autonomous study. The duration of study is closely correlated with an individual’s effort in learning, and a student’s success is affected by the proficient application of Self-Directed Learning Techniques (SLT) [32]. Also, a study by Sarath A. Nonis [33] suggests that the influence of study duration on academic achievement was greater when concentration levels were elevated. Although study time did not exhibit a direct correlation with performance, it indicates that study time significantly influences performance in the anticipated direction, albeit only under specific conditions, such as when a student can concentrate.

In terms of distractors, significant differences were identified among the year groups for the questions of having roommates/friends/family people around while studying, chatting/instant messaging your friends on the phone/internet while studying, and studying with friends/group study. Previous studies have suggested that peers significantly impact academic performance. Previous studies demonstrate that reciprocated friendships correlate positively with academic performance, whereas students lacking friendships exhibit diminished academic success [34]. Results also show that the impact of close friends’ aspirations on adolescents’ educational ambitions was less substantial than that of perceived parental aspirations; however, close friends were seen as a notable source of motivation for adolescents [35]. Contradictory results were seen in the study conducted by Dechant A, which said that the positive or negative quality of children’s friendships may not inherently translate to academic performance, which consists of more concrete and rational activities. Furthermore, IQ is not the sole determinant of a student’s academic performance [36].

The study had the following limitations: (a) The study was conducted in a single dental institution, which limits the diversity of the study population, which allows different perceptions, and (b) the representativeness of the sample may be limited. Although an adequate number of students participated, the sample may not fully capture variations across different academic years, and so the perceptions reported in the study may not entirely represent the views of all dental students. (c) Since the study is based on self-reported perceptions, participants may have provided socially desirable responses or responses influenced by recent classroom experiences rather than their long-term perceptions. (d) Dental education systems differ across institutions, states, and countries with respect to the curriculum. Therefore, care should be taken when generalizing the findings to other academic settings.

Conclusion

The overall attitude of dental students towards the teaching faculty conducting didactic lectures was favorable; however, ongoing evaluation of faculty and student feedback may help improve lecture effectiveness. Lecture-based learning (LBL), though passive, can be made active by interactive teaching modalities. Lecture delivery can be enhanced by faculty development initiatives focusing on communication skills, motivation strategies, and effective use of teaching aids. Also, student attitudes can be used to guide future development in dental education, and comparative studies are recommended. Future multicentre studies involving larger and more diverse student populations would allow a comprehensive understanding of factors influencing effective didactic dental lectures.

Authors' contributions

S.S - Conception and design of the work, data acquisition, interpretation of data; drafted the work and reviewed it. N.K - Conception and design of the work, data acquisition, interpretation of data; drafted the work and reviewed it. D.B - Statistical analysis, manuscript preparation and reviewing. S.AV - Interpretation of data; drafted the work and reviewed it. P.P.N - Manuscript editing, and manuscript review. V.R.L - Manuscript editing, and manuscript review.

Funding

Open access funding provided by SRM Institute of Science and Technology for SRMIST – Medical & Health Sciences. Not applicable.

Data availability

The datasets analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was in accordance with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and followed national ethical standards. The ethical approval for the study protocol was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee of SRM Institute of Science and Technology. During data collection, the anonymity of the patients was maintained. Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in this study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.