Abstract
OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 pandemic-related safety measures have necessitated the need for innovative teaching and learning methods in order to keep faculty members and students safe. Consequently, distance learning has become the alternative teaching method in almost all educational institutes. Remote teaching and learning have become an essential tool in many residency programs. The aim of this pilot study was to determine the efficacy and preference of different learning and teaching methods among oral and maxillofacial radiology residents and faculty for different radiology topics. STUDY DESIGN: A Google survey form, created with the option of anonymized feedback, was sent to former and present oral and maxillofacial radiology residents and faculty at the University of Florida College of Dentistry. Participants were asked about their preferred method of learning for ten didactic and clinical radiology topics, with their feedback and reasoning for their preferred choices. The topics included radiation physics, radiation biology, basic and advanced interpretation, clinical radiology conference (CRC), literature review, tumor boards, neuroradiology rotation, nuclear medicine rotation, and ultrasound rotation. RESULTS: Four faculty and 9 residents responded to the survey, for a response rate of 100%. 92% of the respondents favored remote learning for literature review and tumor boards. Distance learning was also the preferred method for CRC (85%), radiation biology (69%), advanced radiographic interpretation (61%), basic radiographic interpretation (53%), and nuclear medicine rotation (53%). In-person learning was the preferred modality for radiation physics (92%), ultrasound rotation (77%), and neuroradiology rotation (61%). CONCLUSION: Study participants feedback emphasized that distance learning can be an effective tool for teaching several radiology topics. However, conventional classroom teaching and seminars are the preferred modality for certain topics and rotations. Statement of Ethical Review Ethical Review or exemption was not warranted for this study