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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Qualitative research studies in this review evaluated mainly the students’ perspective: their preferences, perceptions, satisfaction, and attitudes towards online learning, including the online tools being utilised (Botelho et al., 2020; Cakiroglu et al., 2017; García-Martín & García-Sánchez, 2020; Tsai & Tang, 2017).”
From A systematic review on trends in using Moodle for teaching and learning (2022) · cites this paper as Botelho et al., 2020
Citations
Cites
Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning
Sweller, J. (1988) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7 · Cited by 11,048
Bedewy, D., & Gabriel, A. (2015) · Health Psychology Open · doi:10.1177/2055102915596714 · Cited by 836
Research works printed but not linked: 29
- 10.1111/eje.12099 · DOI
- 10.1002/j.0022-0337.2015.79.8.tb05983.x · DOI
- Brecht HD, 2012, Learning from online video lectures, J Inform Technol Educ, 11, 227
- 10.1111/eje.12373 · DOI
- 10.1111/eje.12371 · DOI
- 10.1002/j.0022-0337.2015.79.2.tb05870.x · DOI
- 10.1002/j.0022-0337.2008.72.12.tb04620.x · DOI
- 10.5116/ijme.5910.b961 · DOI
- 10.1111/eje.12059 · DOI
- Winning T, 2007, Supporting Undergraduate Dental Students to Become Effective Self‐assessors in Clinical Settings
- 10.1111/medu.13047 · DOI
- 10.1111/eje.12353 · DOI
- 10.1080/1356251042000216642 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2147/AMEP.S46211 · DOI
- 10.1080/02602930500187014 · DOI
- 10.1111/eje.12257 · DOI
- 10.1186/1472-6920-14-56 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9781139547369.025 · DOI
- 10.1002/acp.1348 · DOI
- 10.1002/acp.1345 · DOI
- 10.1002/9781119239086 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10648-007-9046-3 · DOI
- 10.1177/016235329601900304 · DOI
- 10.21815/JDE.017.103 · DOI
- Norman DA., 2013, The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition
- 10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/cogs.12086 · DOI · Paper page
- Chi MT, 2000, Self‐explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models, Adv Instruct Psychol, 5, 161
- 10.1207/s15327809jls0201_1 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A systematic review on trends in using Moodle for teaching and learning
Gamage, S. H. P. W., Ayres, J. R., & Behrend, M. B. (2022) · International Journal of STEM Education · doi:10.1186/s40594-021-00323-x · Cited by 360
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