Evaluating Dental Faculty’s Perspective regarding Emergency Introduction of Online Teaching and Learning: Early Experience during COVID-19 Lockdown in United States
Table 1
Experience in dental education, academic designation, and self-reported teaching responsibility distribution of Detroit Mercy dental faculty participants that made the transition to complete remote instruction in March 2020 and their experience with different instruction methods prior to and during the shift, experience with training, and words to describe their transition to remote instruction.
Participant Characteristics
Age range
(chi-squared)
Fisher’s exact test
30–49 years
≥50 years
Total
n
(row %)
n
(row %)
n
(col %)
All participants
16
(53.3)
14
(46.7)
30
(100.0)
Dental education experience
0–9 years
13
(81.3)
2
(14.3)
15
(50.0)
<0.001
≥10 years
3
(18.8)
12
(85.7)
15
(50.0)
Academic designation
Clinical track faculty
8
(50.0)
9
(64.3)
17
(56.7)
0.431
Tenure track/tenured faculty
8
(50.0)
5
(35.7)
13
(43.3)
Teaching responsibility
<50% didactic
4
(25.0)
9
(64.29)
13
(43.3)
0.030
≥50% didactic
12
(75.0)
5
(35.71)
17
(56.7)
Instruction methods: used prior to transition to remote instruction
Live classroom lecture (face-to-face)
14
(87.5)
11
(78.57)
25
(83.3)
0.513
In-person lecture, plus online recording
11
(68.8)
10
(71.43)
21
(70.0)
0.873
Online asynchronous (prerecorded)
8
(50.0)
7
(50.00)
15
(50.0)
1.000
Online synchronous (live, online)
0
(0.0)
4
(28.57)
4
(13.3)
0.022
0.037
Instruction methods: used during period of remote instruction
Online asynchronous (prerecorded)
8
(50.0)
7
(50.00)
15
(50.0)
1.000
Online synchronous (live, online)
16
(100.0)
11
(78.57)
27
(90.0)
0.051
0.09
Online small-group discussions
13
(81.3)
10
(71.43)
23
(76.7)
0.526
Instruction methods: most frequently used during period of remote instruction
Online asynchronous (prerecorded)
4
(25.0)
5
(35.7)
9
(30.00)
0.288
Online synchronous (live, online)
8
(50.0)
3
(21.4)
11
(36.7)
Online small-group discussions
2
(12.5)
4
(28.6)
6
(20.0)
Other: online one-on-one meeting
1
(6.3)
0
(0.0)
1
(3.3)
Missing
1
(6.3)
2
(14.3)
3
(10.0)
Did you participate in training for your transition to remote instruction?
Yes
14
(87.5)
10
(71.43)
24
(80.00)
0.272
No
2
(12.5)
4
(28.57)
6
(20.00)
How many hours of remote instruction training did you receive? (% of those that received training)
1–3 hours
6
(37.50)
5
(35.71)
11
(45.83)
0.304
3–6 hours
4
(25.00)
5
(35.71)
9
(37.50)
6–12 hours
3
(18.75)
0
(0.00)
3
(12.50)
>24 hours
1
(6.25)
0
(0.00)
1
(4.17)
Training methods utilized for transition to remote instruction (% of those that received training)
School-provided professional development
13
(92.86)
10
(100.00)
23
(95.83)
0.526
Outside webinar
5
(35.71)
9
(90.00)
14
(58.33)
0.070
One-on-one with instructional design team
5
(35.71)
5
(50.00)
10
(41.67)
0.796
E-learning tools (e.g., YouTube, Coursera)
7
(50.00)
3
(30.00)
10
(41.67)
0.196
One-on-one training from colleague
5
(35.71)
3
(30.00)
8
(33.33)
0.544
Family and friends
3
(21.43)
0
(0.00)
3
(12.50)
0.088
Words to describe transition to remote instruction
Interesting
9
(47.37)
10
(52.63)
19
(63.33)
0.919
Useful
10
(52.63)
9
(47.37)
19
(63.33)
0.919
Time-consuming
10
(58.82)
7
(41.18)
17
(56.67)
0.491
Challenging
9
(56.25)
7
(43.75)
16
(53.33)
0.732
Stressful
9
(75.00)
3
(25.00)
12
(40.00)
0.052
Straightforward
5
(55.56)
4
(44.44)
9
(30.00)
0.873
Efficient
3
(42.86)
4
(57.14)
7
(23.33)
0.526
Cumbersome
3
(60.00)
2
(40.00)
5
(16.67)
0.743
Smooth
3
(60.00)
2
(40.00)
5
(16.67)
0.743
Wasteful
1
(50.00)
1
(50.00)
2
(6.67)
0.922
was determined using Pearson chi-squared test, and when cells had expected value less than 5, Fisher’s exact test was also applied. Two respondents, out of 24 that received training, indicated that their training in remote instruction occurred primarily before February 2020.
