Preferences of Dental Students towards Teaching Strategies in Two Major Dental Colleges in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Abstract

Objectives. To explore and compare undergraduate dental students’ views and preferences towards various teaching strategies. Methods. A questionnaire was developed and distributed to 345 male and female undergraduate dental students from the two major dental schools in Riyadh (College of Dentistry, King Saud University [KSU], and Riyadh Colleges of Dentistry and Pharmacy [RCsDP]). Students’ preferences for various components of the lecture courses were investigated. Descriptive and crosstab analyses were used to compare the students’ preferences for each school and between genders; the chi-square test was used to measure the significance level ( P = 0.05 ). Results. The majority of students preferred having the lecture schedule announced in advance. Females preferred morning lectures, whereas male students preferred afternoon lectures. Nearly half of the students thought that attending lectures should be mandatory; most of them were from KSU. Most of the students reported preferring a PowerPoint presentation lecture. The students, particularly female students, also preferred to receive lecture handouts and study materials before the session and to have practical demonstrations after the lecture. Conclusion. Teachers should consider students’ opinions when constructing courses because this feedback would have a positive impact on the teaching environment and students’ performance.

Full text

Research Article
Preferences of Dental Students towards Teaching Strategies in
Two Major Dental Colleges in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Eman M. AlHamdan,1Huda I. Tulbah,1Ghaida A. AlDuhayan,2and Lamees S. AlBedaiwi3
1Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, P.O. Box 60169, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia
2Armed Forces Hospital, King Abdulaziz Naval Base, Jubail 35512, Saudi Arabia
3NayelClinics,Riyadh12473,SaudiArabia
Correspondence should be addressed to Eman M. AlHamdan; ealhamdan pros@yahoo.com
Received  May ; Accepted  July 
Academic Editor: Gwo-Jen Hwang
Copyright ©  Eman M. AlHamdan et al. is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.
Objectives. To explore and compare undergraduate dental students’ views and preferences towards various teaching strategies.
Methods. A questionnaire was developed and distributed to  male and female undergraduate dental students from the two
major dental schools in Riyadh (College of Dentistry, King Saud University [KSU], and Riyadh Colleges of Dentistry and Pharmacy
[RCsDP]). Students’ preferences for various components of the lecture courses were investigated. Descriptive and crosstab analyses
were used to compare the students’ preferences for each school and between genders; the chi-square test was used to measure the
signicance level (𝑃 = 0.05). Results. e majority of students preferred having the lecture schedule announced in advance. Females
preferred morning lectures, whereas male students preferred aernoon lectures. Nearly half of the students thought that attending
lectures should be mandatory; most of them were from KSU. Most of the students reported preferring a PowerPoint presentation
lecture. e students, particularly female students, also preferred to receive lecture handouts and study materials before the session
and to have practical demonstrations aer the lecture. Conclusion. Teachers should consider students’ opinions when constructing
courses because this feedback would have a positive impact on the teaching environment and students’ performance.
1. Introduction
One of the most serious challenges that dental educators face
today is improving the learning environment and increasing
the level of student satisfaction with the curriculum []. e
current dental students represent a broad spectrum in terms
of their cultures, experiences, personalities, and learning
preferences and styles. is diversity presents a challenge for
dental educators to meet the educational needs of all students,
since student motivation and performance improve when
teaching is adapted to their learning preference and styles [].
Educators should consider accommodating dierent teach-
ingmodalitiesthatwilleventuallyreectontheirteaching
eectiveness []. Eective teaching is critical for student
learning, especially in professional elds such as dentistry.
Teaching eectiveness can be dened as the extent to which
the teaching activity fullls its intended purpose, function,
and goal []. e routine evaluation of teaching eective-
ness is important to improving faculty, departmental, and
institutional eorts []. Although many teaching approaches
have emerged through the years, the “lecture,” which dates
to the mid-th century, has been the predominant mode of
instruction since universities were founded, and it remains
the predominant form of teaching in education for health care
professions [, ]. e greatest advantage of lectures, in the
opinion of faculty members, is the ability to share information
with a large number of students []. Lectures will continue to
bethemainteachingstrategyofchoicefordeliveringthebasic
curriculum to as many students as will t in a lecture theater
because of the economic constraints on institutions, sta,
facilities, and students [].
Educational researchers postulate that everyone has a
learning style and that if instruction is adapted to accommo-
date that style, improved learning is anticipated [, ]. It is
suggested that instructors should attempt to alter their meth-
ods of teaching so students with diering learning styles can
have an opportunity to learn in an environment that is more
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Education Research International
Volume 2016, Article ID 4178471, 8 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/4178471

Education Research International
conducive to their preferences []. Studies have researched
students’ views on academic preparation [], the learning
environment [], the use of techniques [], curriculum
changes [, ], the impact of dental education on their
stress level [, ], teaching eectiveness in classrooms and
clinics [], and the teaching styles and approaches []. e
current belief is that students have opinions about the quality
of the instruction that they receive []. Although extensive
research has been performed on the eectiveness of teaching
and learning strategies, there remains a lack of research
exploring dental students’ preferences for such strategies.
erefore, the purpose of this study is to explore and compare
the undergraduate dental students’ views and preferences
about various aspects of teaching clinical and lecture courses
in two major dental schools in Riyadh city, the College of
Dentistry, King Saud University (KSU), and Riyadh Colleges
of Dentistry and Pharmacy (RCsDP), and to compare the
experience between males and females.
2. Materials and Methods
A self-developed questionnaire was prepared to determine
students’ preferences for teaching strategies used in lectures
and clinics. e questionnaire was developed based on the
knowledge collected by the researchers from literature review.
It was written in English, with the cover page presenting
theconsentformandanexplanationaboutthepurposeof
the study. Additionally, the condentiality and sole use of
the information for the mentioned purpose were ensured.
e research design was registered at College of Dentistry’s
Research Centre (CDRC) and was reviewed and approved by
the Ethical Committee (/IR).
e questionnaire consisted of three sections. e rst
section included the following demographic data: gender,
student level, and university. e second section was about
lectures (preferred lecture length, time, method of lecturing,
timing of lecture schedule announcement, and attendance).
e third section was about the study materials related to
the lectures and clinical sessions (preference of materials’
provision before the session, having an interactive session,
and having handouts and clinical demonstration aer the
lecture).
Most of the questions were answered using a -point
Likert scale ( = agree,  = neutral, and  = disagree).
e questionnaire was distributed to undergraduate male
and female dental students in the two major dental schools in
Riyadh city, the College of Dentistry, King Saud University
(KSU), and Riyadh Colleges of Dentistry and Pharmacy
(RCsDP). A stratied random sampling method was applied
to collect a sample of  participants, representing .% of
the dental students at the two schools (total of  students).
A pilot study was performed on  students at KSU to
determine the acceptability and clarity of the questionnaire
and to conrm its validity. Depending on the comments,
minor changes were made before questionnaire distribution.
Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS) version . Descriptive and crosstab analyses
were used to compare the students’ preferences for each
Male Female KSU RCsDP
4.4
22.2
39.4
33.9
3.1
19.1
51.2
26.5
5.7
22
39
33.3
1.7
19.6
50.3
28.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
<20 minutes
<30 minutes
<40 minutes
<50 minutes
F : Percentage of dental students’ preferences regarding
lecture length.
Male Female KSU RCsDP
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Morning
Aernoon
76.5
23.5∗
85.8
14.2
81 81
19 19
F : Percentage of dental students’ preferences regarding
lecture timing (∗𝑃< 0.05).
school and between males and females in general. e chi-
square test was used to measure the signicance level (𝑃=
0.05).
3. Results
A total of  students participated in the study;  (.%)
were from KSU and  (%) were from RCsDP. ere were
 (%) males and  (%) females.
Approximately % of all dental students agreed that
the preferable lecture length should not exceed  minutes,
and there were no signicant dierences between males and
females or between the dental colleges (Figure ).
Many students (%) preferred morning lectures; how-
ever, more male students preferred aernoon classes (.%)
compared to females (.%), which was statistically signi-
cant (𝑃 < 0.05) (Figure ).
PowerPoint lectures were selected as the preferable
method of lecturing (.%). However, more RCsDP students

Education Research International 
Male Female KSU RCsDP
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
75.3
9
5.1
10.7
84
84.3
3.7
72.6
12.1 10.2
5.1
85.5∗
5
4.5
5
Transparencies
Online courses
PowerPoint
Chalkboard
F : Percentage of dental students’ preferences regarding
lecturing method (∗𝑃< 0.05).
Male
Female
KSU
RCsDP
Male
Female
KSU
RCsDP
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Agree
Disagree
Neutral
Schedule announcement in advance
84.4
5.6
10.1
81.6
1.3
17.1
89.2
5.1
1.1 1.1
80.1
18.8∗
81.1
7.8
11.1
90.6
3.1
6.3
87.4
6.9∗
5.7
84.7
4
11.3
Attendance
F : Percentage of dental students’ preferences regarding
schedule announcements and attendance (∗𝑃< 0.05).
preferred this method than KSU students, which was statisti-
cally signicant (𝑃 < 0.05) (Figure ).
e majority of students (%) preferred having the lec-
ture schedule announced in advance. RCsDP students were
more neutral about the timing of schedule announcement
(Figure ).
It was found that % of all students thought that
attending lectures should be compulsory. On the other hand
%thoughtthatitshouldnotbe;%ofthemwerefrom
KSU compared to .% from RCsDP, which was statistically
signicant (𝑃 < 0.05) (Figure ).
Sixty-seven percent of the students preferred to be given
material to study before the session and to have an interactive
session. No signicant dierences were detected between the
groups (Figure ).
Approximately % of all students preferred to have
lecture handouts; however, more female students preferred
handouts (.%) compared to males (.%). Although the
male students were more neutral in their opinions about the
handouts (.%) than the females (.%), this dierence was
statistically signicant (𝑃 < 0.05) (Figure ).
Male
Female
KSU
RCsDP
Male
Female
KSU
RCsDP
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Agree
Disagree
Neutral
66.3
14
9.4
68.1
9.4
15.5
67.7
15.5
8.4
67
24.6
8.4
65
6.8
28.2
71.3
6.3
22.5
70.1
5.8
24
66.6
6.7
26.8
Provision of material before the session Interactive session
F : Percentage of dental students’ preferences regarding
having access to materials before the session and interac tives essions.
Male
Female
KSU
RCsDP
Male
Female
KSU
RCsDP
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Handouts Demonstration aer lecture
81.1
7.8
11.1∗
3.1
6.3
87.4
6.9
5.7
84.7
4
11.3
76.7
12.8
10.6
89.4∗
1.9
8.7
83.6
11.3
5
82.6
4.5
90.6∗
12.9∗
Agree
Disagree
Neutral
F : Percentage of dental students’ preferences regarding
handouts and demonstration aer the lecture (∗𝑃< 0.05).
Moreover, % of the students, most of whom were
females (% compared to % males), agreed to have a
practical demonstration conducted aer the lecture, while
RCsDP students were more neutral (%) than KSU students
(%) on this topic. is nding was statistically signicant
(𝑃 < 0.05) (Figure ).
4. Discussion
As the learning preference of dental students has drastically
changedoverthelastseveralyearsasaresultofthediversity
of the student’s cultures, experience, and personality, this
study was conducted to help educators improve the learning
environment and increase the level of student satisfaction.
e study was conducted in two major dental colleges in
Riyadh area, Saudi Arabia. e selection of these two colleges
was based on the fact that the College of Dentistry, KSU
(), is the rst public college in the Gulf Area, and Riyadh
Colleges of Dentistry and Pharmacy () is the rst private
dental school in the Kingdom.
e dental education system is nearly identical in both
schools; both are comprised of one preparatory year followed

Education Research International
by ve years of dental specialty, but KSU operates on an
annual system, while RCsDP adopts a semester system.
A stratied random sample was used in this study. is
method provides greater precision and is more representative
than a simple random sample of the same size. In addition, it
reduces the sample selection bias and helps ensure that the
sample accurately reects the population being studied.
A -point Likert scale was used in this study. Many
researchers have found that ratings using scales of , ,
, and  points are equivalently reliable [–]. In this
study, our interest was to learn the direction of students’
opinions rather than the intensity of their beliefs, which is
best accomplished with either a - or a -point Likert scale.
In addition, a questionnaire using a -point Likert scale can
be completed faster than scales with more options, helps
prevent responders from making random choices, avoids
contradictory opinions, and is scored easily.
4.1. Lecture Length and Timing. e lecture is possibly the
most iconic and frequently criticized element of university
education []. In the present study, lecture length in both
dental schools is  minutes and the lecture timing is the
same. Lectures are given in the morning (–: a.m.)
and in the aernoon (–: p.m.). Some of the courses at
RCsDP provide lectures as a block of – hours. e highest
percentage of dental students in this study (%) agreed that
theoptimallecturelengthshouldnotexceedminutes.
isisinagreementwithmanypreviousstudies.Paroliaet
al. [] found that the majority of students preferred that
the lecture length should be thirty to forty minutes. e
students’ recommendation of lecture time not exceeding 
minutesissupportedbymanypreviousresearchstudies.
Arredondo et al. [] recommended that the lecture time
should be no longer than forty-ve minutes. Bryner Jr. []
indicated that a -minute lecture was equal to the classic
-minute lecture in terms of the amount of information
that the audience retained. Studies have suggested that a
student’s attention will decrease no matter what you do or
what you talk about and that the rate of this decrease depends
on several variables, including the diculty of the subject.
Middendorf and Kalish [] broke up a one-hour lecture into
minutes and marked when a university student’s attention
decreased. ey found that, aer an initial – minutes of
settling,thestudentsareoptimallyfocusedonthesubjectfor
– minutes. Aer this optimal period of attention, there
is a lapse that occurs no matter how good the lecturer or
how compelling the material is. Eventually, attention returns,
but it decreases in the --minute rush towards the end
of the lecture. Burns [] found a similar time frame of
optimal focus; he tested students on their recall in a -
minute presentation and found that students remembered
the most from the beginning of the lecture. By the -
minutemark,theywerealmostcompletely“zonedout.”Itwas
recommended that teachers insert “change-ups” at various
points in their lectures to regrab the attention of the students.
In the current study, a high percentage of students (%)
preferred morning lectures. is result is not in agreement
with a previous study by Barron et al. [], who reported
that the mastery skills of the below-grade-level students are
aectedbythetimeofdaytheyreceivethelecture.eyfound
an overall increase in the mean scores for below-grade-level
students who received instruction in the aernoon compared
with those in a similar group who received instruction
in the morning. In another study, Ammons et al. []
investigated the eect of the time of day on the academic
achievement of a general population of students. Although
the researchers found that time of day plays a signicant
part in student achievement, not all students performed best
at a single time of day. Instead, when students were taught
at times that matched their learning style preferences, they
scored signicantly higher on lecture-related quizzes. is
correlation was particularly strong in the case of students
whose preferred learning time was the aernoon. In another
study by Holloway [], who studied dental students who
were lectured alternately at the beginning and end of the
day throughout a lecture series for which summary hand-
outs were available, there was no reliable evidence that the
students’ performance was better aer attending lecture in
the morning compared to in the aernoon. As a group, they
showed no preference for the late rather than early lectures,
although some students favored the former while others
favored the latter. Additionally, in a recent study by Rokade
and Bahetee [], % of the students were totally inattentive
tothemorninglectureincontrastto%ofthestudents
during the aernoon lecture. ey also found that memory
for morning lectures can be improved –. times by adding
visual aids, while memory for aernoon lectures would
require the addition of kinesthetic aids to improve; since
most dental lectures contain visual aids (clinical pictures
or laboratory steps) rather than kinesthetic aids, this could
explain the high percentage of students who prefer morning
lectures.
It was also reported in the current study that there is
a statistically signicant dierence within gender groups, as
more male students than female students preferred aernoon
classes. is could be explained by the dierent aer-school
responsibilities of the female students compared to male
students, whereby the females prefer to start early and nish
early.
Based on the aforementioned results and to determine the
best time of the day to deliver a lecture, we need to consider
both the lecturer’s eciency and student’s receptiveness as
some lecturers like to deliver their lectures as early as possible
( a.m.), whereas others prefer that lectures start aer  a.m.
e same applies to students. Morning birds like lectures as
early as possible; night owls are only fully awake at  a.m.
With this in mind, some changes can be applied to the time
of lecture delivery when constructing the curriculum.
4.2. Method of Lecturing. Students tend to prefer the use of
PowerPoint slides because they believe that the slides make
their learning more ecient and help organize and structure
their note taking. A number of studies showed that lectures
with PowerPoint presentations improved students’ perfor-
mance [–]. However, these ndings are in conict with
Susskind [], who indicated that although the PowerPoint
lectures were perceived as more organized and easier to
understand, they did not enhance the students’ performance

Education Research International 
on exams or the “students’ studying behavior.” In the present
study, almost all of the lectures in both dental schools are
delivered using PowerPoint format, which was selected as the
preferable method of lecturing (.% preferred this style).
isisinagreementwithastudybyParoliaetal.[],who
found that the majority of the students in the study (%)
preferred the PowerPoint lecture format over the chalkboard,
which could have occurred because pictures of clinical and
laboratory cases are an integral part of most topics in the
dental college and can only be presented in PowerPoint form.
When the RCsDP students were asked why they preferred
the PowerPoint lecture format, it was found that they actually
studied from those slides and that almost % of exam
questions come from the slides. However, at KSU the faculty
members use PowerPoint presentations only as a guide, with
exam questions coming from textbooks. Moreover, KSU
students spend their preparatory year on another campus
and receive most of the lectures using transparencies and
chalkboards, which may have made them more accepting of
these media.
4.3. Schedule Announcement in Advance. It was reported that
knowing the topic of the lecture in advance helps students
prepare for class and provides clues about the readings
[]. In the present study, although the majority of students
preferred having the lecture schedule announced in advance,
students at RCsDP were neutral about it, which could be
explained by the style to which students became accustomed
intheirpreviouseducation;asatKSU,allcourseshave
outlines prepared listing all assigned lectures and lecturers
ahead of time. ese outlines are given to each student at
the beginning of the academic year to help them prepare for
lectures, which could explain their tendency to prefer this
style. However at RCsDP, outlines are received later on in the
academic year, which might have made some of them more
neutral about the practice.
Another dierence between the schools is the cumulative
admission grade; KSU accepts students with a minimum
high school grade of % compared to % at RCsDP, thus
distinguishing the students in terms of their average prior
educational achievement.
4.4. Attendance. Many researchers have examined the rela-
tionship between students’ attendance and academic per-
formance and have generally found that attendance matters
for academic achievement [–]. Brauer [] considered
that absenteeism implies a direct negative eect on the
learner. Additionally, for the rest of the class, absenteeism can
increase the costs to the lecturer outside of the class time. In
addition, Holloway [] found that students had signicantly
more correct answers to questions based on the lectures
that they had attended compared to questions on lectures
that they had missed. A more recent study by Stanca []
concluded that academicians are doing something useful for
the students by giving lectures and that missing one lecture
was associated with approximately a half-percentage point
drop in the test score. is type of evidence has led some
authors to call for measures to increase student attendance
and to consider making attendance mandatory in some
undergraduate courses.
In the present study, approximately % of dental stu-
dents thought that attending the lectures should be compul-
sory,w hich is less than the result of a previous study by Parolia
et al. [], where % of dental students thought that attend-
ing lectures should be mandatory. Research studies have not
shown that mandatory attendance ensures higher success
rates for students. St Clair [] examined and evaluated the
research literature on the relationship between attendance
and academic achievement. She found that attendance is
linked to motivation and that required attendance does not
guarantee high achievement. Moreover, an attendance policy
will not guarantee attendance. “Classroom environments
that engage students, emphasize the importance of students’
contributions,andhavecontentdirectlyrelatedtoknowledge
assessed will undoubtedly provide encouragement to stu-
dents to attend regularly.” However, St Clair’s work dates back
to , and it could be argued that much has changed in the
classroom and institutions of higher education over the past
een years. Although more recent studies on attendance
have been conducted, these have focused on attendance for
online courses and other issues.
Although the rules and regulations of both KSU and
RCsDP state that lecture attendance is compulsory and
absenteeism exceeding % entitles the student to be
deprived of taking the nal exam, a signicant dierence was
detected within both colleges. Forty percent of KSU dental
students compared to % of RCsDP students considered
that the attendance should not be compulsory. is could be
explained by the study cost between the colleges. RCsDP is a
private college where students pay a high tuition; therefore,
they want to take more advantage of these lectures, whereas
students in KSU receive lectures for free.
Another explanation is that the RCsDP students take
some of their lectures in comprehensive blocks of – hours,
rather than one individual lecture per week, which might
make them feel that attending a block is important and that
thechoiceofattendanceshouldnotbeletothestudent.
Although the opinions about class attendance are at
odds, research supports a strong link between classroom
attendance and grades. Research indicates that attendance
signicantly explains the class grade and overall student
performance. A student who frequently misses class will
decrease their chances of receiving a high grade in a given
course []. Research supports the idea that faculty should
strongly encourage attendance by oering quality teaching
and emphasizing the empiric relationship between grades
andattendance[].
4.5. Providing Materials before the Session to Encourage
an Interactive Session. Newble and Cannon [] described
active learning as a process that encourages students to inter-
act with the material being presented. Interactive learning
may also have the added benet of creating an internal locus
of causality within learners, which is an important constituent
of intrinsic motivation. It was also found that downloading
lecture slides before class improves students’ examination
performance by .% [], suggesting that instructors could

Education Research International
help students improve their academic performance by sup-
plying PowerPoint slides. In the present study neither RCsDP
nor KSU lecturers provide students with lecture material in
advance; therefore it was not surprising that the majority of
students in this study preferred to receive material to study
before the session so they could engage in an interactive
session.
4.6. Handouts. Researchers have dierent views about the
distribution of handouts or lecture summaries. Early studies
found that the distribution of handouts allows students to
concentrate during the lecture instead of working on taking
notes, thus making the class more interactive and producing
a positive eect on students’ academic performance [–].
Conversely, Brazeau [] mentioned that students too
oen rely entirely on the handouts instead of learning from
the assigned readings or they become passive listeners. is
aects their opportunity to develop their own strategies for
organizing information according to their own perspective,
which is an important element in facilitating learning. Finally,
the availability of complete notes may reduce the incentive
for students to attend class because all of the information is
presumably available in the handout.
In the present study, the majority of students preferred
to have handouts and more female students preferred them
compared to males. It was shown in a previous study that
females are unimodal learners, preferring a single learning
style, whereas males are multimodal learners, preferring
dierent varieties of learning styles. In addition, learning by
reading was preferred by a higher percentage of females com-
pared to males, which might explain the female preference to
have handouts compared to males [].
4.7. Demonstration aer Lecture. In the present study, the
majority of the students agreed to have a practical demon-
stration that was conducted aer the lecture, which is in
agreement with the survey done by Parolia et al. []. An
explanation for this could be that students can correlate the
procedure with the lecture, resulting in a better application
of the theoretical knowledge. In this study, female students
agreed more than males that the demonstration should
be performed aer the lecture. is could be due to the
dierences in the learning styles and personalities between
males and females; females like to be prepared ahead of time
to avoid embarrassment. It was reported that males have no
problem with being immediately corrected in front of others
but that females mostly prefer to be corrected in private at a
later time [].
RCsDP students were more neutral than KSU students
about the timing. Students in KSU dental college are used
to having a demonstration aer the lecture because that is
the usual system that has been followed by the school in all
practical courses.
5. Limitations
Limitations of this study include but are not restricted to
() the focus on only one aspect of the dental teaching
process, the lecture; further research on clinical and
laboratory elements of dental education should be
conducted;
() the dierent cultural backgrounds of the students;
() the dierent learning backgrounds and expectations
of the students, since they graduated from dierent
high schools;
() dierences in students’ learning styles, which are a
composite of cognitive, aective, and physiological
characters that determine how a learner perceives,
interacts with, and responds to the learning environ-
ment [].
6. Conclusions
Despite several limitations, this study illustrated the follow-
ing:
() Dental educators will need to reevaluate the lecture
length to improve the eciency of teaching.
() Lectures should be performed in ten-to-een-
minute blocks, which could involve changing the pace
every een minutes or so to relieve monotony and
recapture students’ interest.
() During lecture delivery, lecturers should expect brief
lapses in attention from their students and plan
accordingly by oering minilectures with discussions
or other activities.
() Teachers should consider the time of day when they
plan and implement lectures as ongoing research
indicates that the time of day plays a signicant role
in students’ learning.
() Providing students with PowerPoint presentation
slides ahead of time could help improve their aca-
demic performance.
() Teachers should arrange to perform a practical
demonstration immediately aer the lecture because
this format has a very strong positive impact on
information retention.
7. Recommendation
More research should be performed in this area to enable
teachers, administrators, and policy-makers to make
informed decisions about how to modify school schedules
and classroom routines that maximize student learning.
Competing Interests
e authors declare that they have no conict of interests
regarding the publication of this paper.
Acknowledgments
e authors would like to express their deepest appreciation
to Professor Nahid Y. Ashri, Department of Periodontics
andCommunityDentistry,CollegeofDentistry,KingSaud
University, for her help and advice in writing the paper.

Education Research International 
References
[] A. L. Fang, “Utilization of learning styles in dental curriculum
development,” e New York State Dental Journal,vol.,no.,
pp.–,.
[] H. L. Lujan and S. E. Dicarlo, “First-year medical students prefer
multiple learning styles,” Advances in Physiology Education,vol.
,no.,pp.–,.
[] R.J.Murphy,S.A.Gray,S.R.Straja,andM.C.Bogert,“Student
learning preferences and teaching implications,” Journal of
dental education, vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[]L.Jahangiri,T.W.Mucciolo,M.Choi,andA.I.Spielman,
“Assessment of teaching eectiveness in U.S. dental schools and
the value of triangulation,” JournalofDentalEducation,vol.,
no. , pp. –, .
[] M. Endorf and M. McNe, “e adult learner: ve types,” Adult
Learning,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[]D.A.DaRosa,P.Kolm,H.C.Follmer,L.B.Pemberton,W.
H. Pearce, and S. Leapman, “Evaluating the eectiveness of
the lecture versus independent study,” Evaluation and Program
Planning,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] J. C. Novak, “Active learning in continuing professional educa-
tion: the challenge of leadership,” New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] D. A. Lake, “Student performance and perceptions of a lecture-
based course compared with the same course utilizing group
discussion,” Physical erapy,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] R. Perrin and G. Laing, “e lecture: a teaching strategy
through the looking glass,” e E-Journal of Business Education
&ScholarshipofTeaching,vol.,no.,p.,.
[] L. Suskie, “What are learning styles? Can we identify them?
What is their place in an assessment program?” , http://
www.sc.edu/fye/resources/assessment/essays/Suskie-..
.html.
[] D. Robotham, “e application of learning style theory in
higher education teaching,” , http://www.glos.ac.uk/gdn/
discuss/kolb.htm.
[]N.W.Berk,J.M.Close,andR.J.Weyant,“Dostudent
perceptions of their dental curriculum change over time?”
JournalofDentalEducation,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] D. Henzi, E. Davis, R. Jasinevicius, W. Hendricson, L. Cintron,
and M. Isaacs, “Appraisal of the dental school learning environ-
ment: the students’ view,” JournalofDentalEducation,vol.,
no. , pp. –, .
[] D. M. Clark, O. J. Oyen, and P. Feil, “e use of specic dental
school-taught restorative techniques by practicing clinicians,”
JournalofDentalEducation,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] P. Farge, J. Virieux, and J. Doury, “Student satisfaction with
curriculum modications in a French dental school,” European
JournalofDentalEducation,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] H. A. Ryding and H. J. Murphy, “Assessing outcomes of
curricular change: a view from program graduates,” Journal of
Dental Education,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] E. Barber´
ıa, C. Fern´
andez-Fr´
ıas, C. Su´
arez-Cl´
ua, and D. Saave-
dra, “Analysis of anxiety variables in dental students,” Interna-
tional Dental Journal,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] A. K. H. Pau and R. Croucher, “Emotional intelligence and
perceived stress in dental undergraduates,” Journal of Dental
Education,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] D. J. Sch¨
onwetter, S. Lavigne, R. Mazurat, and O. Nazarko,
“Students’ perceptions of eective classroom and clinical teach-
ing in dental and dental hygiene education,” Journal of Dental
Education,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] S. Singh and S. Gautam, “Teaching styles and approaches:
medical student’s perceptions of animation-based lectures as a
pedagogical innovation,” PakistanJournalofPhysiology,vol.,
no. , pp. –, .
[] W. McKeachie, Teaching Tips: A Guidebook for the Beginning
College Teacher, D.C. Health & Company, Washington, DC,
USA, th edition, .
[] A. W. Bendig, “Reliability and the number of rating-scale
categories,” Journal of Applied Psychology,vol.,no.,pp.–
, .
[] S. Komorita and W. Graham, “Number ID scale points and the
reliability scales,” Educational and Psychological Measurements,
vol. , pp. –, .
[] E. R. Masters, “e relationship between number of response
categories and reliability of Likert-Type questionnaires,” Journal
of Educational Measurement, vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[] M. Hitchens and R. Lister, “A focus group study of student
attitudes to lectures,” in Proceedings of the 11th Australasian
Computing Education Conference (ACE ’09),vol.,pp.–,
Januar y .
[] A. Parolia, M. Mohan, M. Kundabala, and R. Shenoy, “Indian
dental students’ preferences regarding lecture courses,” Journal
of Dental Education,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] M. A. Arredondo, E. Busch, H. O. Douglass, and N. J. Petrelli,
“e use of videotaped lectures in surgical oncology fellowship
education,” Journal of Cancer Education,vol.,no.,pp.–,
.
[] C. L. Bryner Jr., “Learning as a function of lecture length,”
Family Medicine,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] J. Middendorf and A. Kalish, “e ‘change-up’ in lectures,” e
National Teaching and Learning Forum,vol.,no.,pp.–,
.
[] R. Burns, “Information impact and factors aecting recall,” in
Proceedings of the in the Annual National Conference on Teaching
Excellence and Conference of Administration, Austin, Tex, USA,
.
[] B. Barron, M. Henderson, and R. Spurgeon, “Eects of time of
day instruction on reading achievement ofbelow grade readers,”
Reading Improvement,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] T. Ammons, J. Booker, and C. Killmon, “e eects of time of
day on student attention and achievement,” ERIC Document
Reproduction Service ED, .
[] P. J. Holloway, “e eect of lecture time on learning,” British
Journal of Educational Psychology,vol.,no.,pp.–,
.
[] S. Rokade and B. Bahetee, “Morning lectures are better retained
than aernoon ones: a pilot evaluation report of st MBBS
anatomy students,” Scholars Journal of Applied Medical Sciences,
vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[] R. B. Lowry, “Electronic presentation of lectures: eect upon
student performance,” University Chemistry Education,vol.,
no. , pp. –, .
[] A. Szabo and N. Hastings, “Using IT in the undergraduate
classroom: should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint?”
Computers and Education,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] S. Kask, “e impact of using computer presentations (CAP)
on student learning in the microeconomics principles course,”

Education Research International
in Proceedings of the American Economic Association,Boston,
Mass, USA, .
[] J. E. Susskind, “PowerPoint’s power in the classroom: enhancing
students’ self-ecacy and attitudes,” Computers and Education,
vol. , no. , pp. –, .
[] J. Chen and T.-F. Lin, “Does downloading powerpoint slides
before the lecture lead to better student achievement?” Inter-
national Review of Economics Education,vol.,no.,pp.–,
.
[] G. Durden and L. Ellis, “e eects of attendance on student
learning in principles of economics,” e American Economic
Review,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] S. Devadoss and J. Foltz, “Evaluation of factors inuencing
student class attendance and performance,” American Journal
of Agricultural Economics,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] D. R. Marburger, “Absenteeism and undergraduate exam per-
formance,” e Journal of Economic Education,vol.,no.,pp.
–, .
[] P. Dolton, O. D. Marcenaro, and L. Navarro, “e eective use
of student time: a stochastic frontier production function case
study,” Economics of Education Review,vol.,no.,pp.–
, .
[] J. Brauer, “Correspondence: should class attendance be manda-
tory?” Journal of Economic Perspectives,vol.,no.,pp.–,
.
[] L. Stanca, “e eects of attendance on academic performance:
panel data evidence for introductory microeconomics,” e
Journal of Economic Education,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] K. L. St Clair, “A case against compulsory class attendance
policies in higher education,” Innovative Higher Education,vol.
,no.,pp.–,.
[] J. Brocato, “How much does coming to class matter? Some evi-
dence of class attendance and grade performance,” Educational
Research Quarterly,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] T.-F. Lin and J. Chen, “Cumulative class attendance and exam
performance,” Applied Economics Letters,vol.,no.,pp.–
, .
[] D. Newble and R. Cannon, Handbook f or Teacher s in Universities
and Colleges. A Guide to Improving Teaching Methods,Rout-
ledgeFalmer, Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK, th edition,
.
[] J. Hartley, “Lecture handouts and student note−taking,” Pro-
grammed Learning and Educational Technology,vol.,no.,
pp. –, .
[] W. R. Klemm, “Eciency of handout ‘skeleton’ notes in student
learning,” Improving College and University Teaching,vol.,no.
, pp. –, .
[] K. A. Kiewra, “Students’ note-taking behaviors and the ecacy
of providing the instructor’s notes for review,” Contemporary
Educational Psychology,vol.,no.,pp.–,.
[] G. A. Brazeau, “Handouts in the classroom: is note taking a lost
skill?” e American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,vol.
, no. , article , .
[] E. A. Wehrwein, H. L. Lujan, and S. E. DiCarlo, “Gender
dierences in learning style preferences among undergraduate
physiology students,” Advances in Physiology Education,vol.,
no. , pp. –, .
[] A. Ebrahimpourtaher, “Methodological preferences of engi-
neering students in relation to EFL: Focus on gender,” Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. , pp. –, .
[] J. W. Keefe, Learning Style eory and Practice, National
Association of Secondary School Principals, Reston, VA, USA,
.