Optimizing teaching effectiveness in dental education for a new generation of learners
dc.contributor.author | Walinski, Christopher J. | |
dc.contributor.author | Ontiveros, Joe C. | |
dc.contributor.author | Liu, Fei | |
dc.contributor.author | Crain, Geralyn | |
dc.contributor.author | Vardar-Sengul, Saynur | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-03-03T21:07:48Z | |
dc.date.available | 2024-03-03 16:07:47 | en |
dc.date.available | 2023-03-03T21:07:48Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2023-02 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Walinski, Christopher J.; Ontiveros, Joe C.; Liu, Fei; Crain, Geralyn; Vardar-Sengul, Saynur (2023). "Optimizing teaching effectiveness in dental education for a new generation of learners." Journal of Dental Education 87(2): 182-188. | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0022-0337 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1930-7837 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/175870 | |
dc.description.abstract | PurposeToday’s dental students, Generation Z (Gen Z), are said to learn differently than those of previous generations. As generations of dental students vary, our teaching styles must keep up with unique and changing groups of individuals.MethodsThis article discusses learner-focused teaching methods including techniques that address the characteristics of Gen Z learners. Blended learning methods that combine online media with traditional face-to-face sessions, team-based learning, and a flipped classroom format have previously been suggested as ways to increase learning effectiveness and student satisfaction.ResultsIn this paper, the characteristics and preferences of Gen Z students are described along with the challenges they create with conventional teaching methods. An implementation strategy using principles from organizational agility and Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames Model is proposed for dental schools to transition to a more learner-centered teaching approach.ConclusionsThe suggested strategy can be customized and could be useful to schools that wish to enhance their teaching methods to meet the learning needs of Gen Z dental students and beyond. | |
dc.publisher | Center for the Future of Work | |
dc.publisher | Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | |
dc.subject.other | Generation Z | |
dc.subject.other | institutional/organizational development | |
dc.subject.other | teaching effectiveness | |
dc.subject.other | team-based learning | |
dc.subject.other | dental education | |
dc.subject.other | blended learning | |
dc.subject.other | curriculum innovation | |
dc.subject.other | computer-assisted instruction | |
dc.subject.other | flipped classroom | |
dc.title | Optimizing teaching effectiveness in dental education for a new generation of learners | |
dc.type | Article | |
dc.rights.robots | IndexNoFollow | |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Dentistry | |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Health Sciences | |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/175870/1/jdd13108.pdf | |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/175870/2/jdd13108_am.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1002/jdd.13108 | |
dc.identifier.source | Journal of Dental Education | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Slaven CM, Wells MH, DeSchepper EJ, et al. Effectiveness of and dental student satisfaction with three teaching methods for behavior guidance techniques in pediatric dentistry. J Dent Educ. 2019; 83 ( 8 ): 966 - 972. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Henzi D, Davis E, Jasinevicius R, et al. North American dental students’ perspectives about their clinical education. J Dent Educ. 2006; 70 ( 4 ): 361 - 377. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Parry E, Urwin P. Generational differences in work values: a review of theory and evidence. Int J Manag Rev. 2011; 13: 79 - 96. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Palley W, Gen Z. Digital in their DNA [Online]. Available from: https://www.jwtintelligence.com/2012/04/april-trend-report-examines-the-digital-world-of-gen-z/. 2012. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Turner A. Generation Z: technology and social interest. J Individ Psychol. 2015; 71 ( 2 ): 103 - 113. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Parker K, Igielnik R. On the cusp of adulthood and facing an uncertain future: what we know about Gen Z so far. Pew Research Center. 2014. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Chicca J, Shellenbarger T. Connecting with generation z: approaches in nursing education. Teach Learn Nurs. 2018; 13 ( 3 ): 180 - 184. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Isaacs AN, Scott SA, Nisly SA. Move out of z way millennials. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2020; 12 ( 12 ): 1387 - 1389. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Cetin M, Halisdemir M. School administrators and generation z students’ perspectives for a better educational setting. J Educ Train Stud. 2019; 7 ( 2 ): 84 - 97. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Cho MJ, Hong JP. The emergence of virtual education during the COVID-19 pandemic: the past, present, and future of the plastic surgery education. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021; 74 ( 6 ): 1413 - 1421. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Dost S, Hossain A, Shehab M, et al. Perceptions of medical students towards online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national cross-sectional survey of 2721 UK medical students. BMJ Open. 2020; 10 ( 11 ): e042378. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Singhi EK, Dupuis MM, Ross JA, et al. Medical hematology/oncology fellows’ perceptions of online medical education during the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Cancer Educ. 2020; 35 ( 5 ): 1034 - 1040. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Sadid-Zadeh R, Wee A, Li R, et al. Audience and presenter comparison of live web-based lectures and traditional classroom lectures during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Prosthodont. 2021; 30 ( 5 ): 412 - 419. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Sener J. Updated e-learning definitions. Definitions of E-learning courses and programs, version 2.0. Online Learning Consortium. 2015. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Turner A. Generation Z: technology and social interest. J Individ Psychol. 2015; 71 ( 2 ): 103 - 113. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Perera C, Zainuddin Z, Piaw C, et al. The pedagogical frontiers of urban higher education: blended learning and co-lecturing. Educ Urban Soc. 2020; 52 ( 9 ): 1305 - 1329. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Arnold-Garza S. The flipped classroom teaching model and its use for information literacy instruction. Commun Info Lit. 2014; 8 ( 1 ): 7 - 22. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Mahesh J, Bhat A, Suresh R. Are Gen Z values the new disruptor for future educational institutions? J Higher Ed Theory Prac. 2021; 21 ( 12 ): 102 - 123. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Burgess A, van Deggele C, Roberts C, et al. Team-based learning: design, facilitation and participation. BMC Med Educ. 2020; 20: 461. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Qutieshat AS, Abusamak MO, Maragha TN. Impact of blended learning on dental students’ performance and satisfaction in clinical education. J Dent Educ. 2020; 84 ( 2 ): 135 - 142. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Nijakowski K, Lehmann A, Zdrojewski J, et al. The effectiveness of the blended learning in conservative dentistry with endodontics on the basis of the survey among 4th-year students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18 ( 9 ): 4555. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Park SE, Howell TH. Implementation of a flipped classroom educational model in a predoctoral dental course. J Dent Educ. 2015; 79 ( 5 ): 563 - 570. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Vanka A, Vanka S, Wali O. Flipped classroom in dental education: a scoping review. Eur J Dent Educ. 2020; 24 ( 2 ): 213 - 226. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Bolman LG, Deal TE. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. Jossey-Bass; 2013. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Tallon PP, Pinsonneault A. Competing perspectives on the link between strategic information technology alignment and organizational agility: insights from a mediation model. MIS Q. 2011; 35 ( 2 ): 463 - 486. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Mallon D. Getting decision rights right. Deloitte Insights. [Online] Available from: https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/talent/organizational-decision-making.html. 2020. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Menon S, Suresh M. Factors influencing organizational agility in higher education. Benchmarking. 2021; 28 ( 1 ): 307 - 332. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Berk A, Kaše R. Establishing the value of flexibility created by training: applying real options methodology to a single HR practice. Org Sci. 2010; 21 ( 3 ): 765 - 780. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Zhou KZ, Wu F. Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and product innovation. Strat Mgmt J. 2010; 31 ( 5 ): 547 - 561. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Palatta AM, Kassebaum DK, Gadbury-Amyot CC, et al. Change is here: ADEA CCI 2.0 – a learning community for the advancement of dental education. J Dent Educ. 2017; 81 ( 6 ): 640 - 648. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Gausby A. Microsoft attention spans research report. Microsoft Corporation. 2015. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Priestly T, Cognizant WilliamsB. Protecting Customers from Information Overload. Center for the Future of Work; 2021. | |
dc.working.doi | NO | en |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe its collections in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in them. We encourage you to Contact Us anonymously if you encounter harmful or problematic language in catalog records or finding aids. More information about our policies and practices is available at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.