↓ Skip to main content

Comparison between flipped classroom and team-based learning in fixed prosthodontic education

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Prosthodontic Research, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison between flipped classroom and team-based learning in fixed prosthodontic education
Published in
Journal of Prosthodontic Research, May 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.jpor.2016.04.003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keisuke Nishigawa, Katsuhiro Omoto, Rika Hayama, Kazuo Okura, Toyoko Tajima, Yoshitaka Suzuki, Maki Hosoki, Shuji Shigemoto, Mayu Ueda, Omar Marianito Maningo Rodis, Yoshizo Matsuka

Abstract

We previously investigated the effects of team-based learning (TBL) on fixed prosthodontic education and reported that TBL could have higher efficiency with high student satisfaction than traditional lecture. In the current report, we introduced flipped classroom to the fixed prosthodontic education and compared their effectiveness based on the final examination score in addition to TBL. Participants were 41 students from Tokushima University School of Dentistry who attended a fixed prosthodontics course. The first six classes adopted the flipped classroom style while the latter eight classes adopted TBL. To evaluate the relationship between learning styles and their effectiveness, we compared results from the term-end examination between the curriculum covered by flipped classroom and TBL-style classes. To draw comparisons, a referential examination with the same questions was conducted to eight faculty members who had not attended any of these classes. Term-end examination results showed that TBL classes had slightly higher scores than flipped classroom classes. Referential examination results also showed higher scores for the same curriculum and no significant interaction was found between class formats and the term-end and referential examination scores. Analysis revealed no noticeable difference in the effectiveness of the class formats. Our previous study reported that TBL had higher efficiency than traditional style lecture. In the current study, there was no statistical difference in the examination score between flipped classroom and TBL. Therefore, we conclude that both styles are highly effective than traditional style lecture and constitute valid formats for clinical dental education.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 158 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 17 11%
Student > Master 17 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 14 9%
Researcher 13 8%
Other 37 23%
Unknown 48 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 26 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 8%
Computer Science 7 4%
Psychology 6 4%
Other 38 24%
Unknown 47 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Prosthodontic Research
#222
of 288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,160
of 328,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Prosthodontic Research
#7
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 288 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,715 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.