Cited by 11Innovations in Medical EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackDental Education, Practice, Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mixed‐methods analysis of videoed expert‐student dialogue supporting clinical competence assessments

Botelho, Michael, Gao, Xiaoli, Bhuyan, Sangeeta Y.·2020·European Journal of Dental Education

Abstract

Introduction: This mixed methods study evaluates the use and perceptions of a novel video genre of authentic, in‐the‐moment expert‐student dialogue to support student preparation for a summative clinical competence assessment. Methods: Expert‐student dialogue videos were available on the university learning management system (Moodle) for self‐directed access for a fixed prosthodontics course. These comprised 3 categories of video relating to dialogic episodes of previous student's performance relating to a clinical competence assessment. These were as follows: case suitability, case discussion and self‐evaluation. Fourteen students who were taking the competence test and had watched the supporting videos were invited for focus group interviews. Twelve students participated in three focus groups within 24 hours of the assessment and the audio recordings were analysed. A thematic analysis was performed using an inductive approach. Video access data were also retrieved and analysed based on when the videos were watched. Results: Three key themes were identified: assessment preparation, enhanced learning and affordance phenomena. By accessing the videos, students gained insights into the case suitability, assessment process and criteria, and the examiners’ expectations. They reported reduced uncertainty and stress, improved confidence and better preparedness for the assessment. Students also reported this video genre stimulated higher‐order thinking and provided a broader clinical experience. A diverse array of viewing patterns was observed immediately before the assessment and across the year. For the focus group of students, they watched 65% of all their videos for the prosthodontics course one week before their competency testing periods. Conclusion: The expert‐student dialogue videos that captured peers clinical competence tests improved students’ assessment literacy, increased their assessment preparedness, reduced stress and enriched their learning.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/eje.12515

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. 10.1111/eje.12099 · DOI
  2. 10.1002/j.0022-0337.2015.79.8.tb05983.x · DOI
  3. Brecht HD, 2012, Learning from online video lectures, J Inform Technol Educ, 11, 227
  4. 10.1111/eje.12373 · DOI
  5. 10.1111/eje.12371 · DOI
  6. 10.1002/j.0022-0337.2015.79.2.tb05870.x · DOI
  7. 10.1002/j.0022-0337.2008.72.12.tb04620.x · DOI
  8. 10.5116/ijme.5910.b961 · DOI
  9. 10.1111/eje.12059 · DOI
  10. Winning T, 2007, Supporting Undergraduate Dental Students to Become Effective Self‐assessors in Clinical Settings
  11. 10.1111/medu.13047 · DOI
  12. 10.1111/eje.12353 · DOI
  13. 10.1080/1356251042000216642 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.2147/AMEP.S46211 · DOI
  15. 10.1080/02602930500187014 · DOI
  16. 10.1111/eje.12257 · DOI
  17. 10.1186/1472-6920-14-56 · DOI
  18. 10.1017/CBO9781139547369.025 · DOI
  19. 10.1002/acp.1348 · DOI
  20. 10.1002/acp.1345 · DOI
  21. 10.1002/9781119239086 · DOI
  22. 10.1007/s10648-007-9046-3 · DOI
  23. 10.1177/016235329601900304 · DOI
  24. 10.21815/JDE.017.103 · DOI
  25. Norman DA., 2013, The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition
  26. 10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1111/cogs.12086 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Chi MT, 2000, Self‐explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models, Adv Instruct Psychol, 5, 161
  29. 10.1207/s15327809jls0201_1 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Botelho, M., Gao, X., & Bhuyan, S. Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
Corresponding author
Botelho, Michael
Venue
European Journal of Dental Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-03-03
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
398-406
ISSN
  • 1396-5883 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0579
OpenAlex
W3008241777
Cited by
11
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3
FWCI
1.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal Of Dental Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Dental Education, Practice, Research
Keywords
clinical competence assessment, summative assessment, assessment preparation, assessment literacy, prosthodontic education, student perceptions, self-directed learning, peer feedback, dental education
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Education, Dental, Humans, Learning, Prosthodontics, Self-Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review