Flipped classroom narrows the performance gap between low- and high-performing dental students in physiology

Abstract

The flipped classroom has been shown to have positive outcomes in learning. However, relatively little has been reported on the implementation of it in dental education. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of the flipped classroom on predoctoral dental students’ learning. Two consecutive classes of dental students learned the physiology of the autonomic nervous system through the nonflipped (traditional lecture) or the flipped approach. Students’ learning was assessed with an identical quiz at the end of the module. The mean score in the flipped approach was higher than that in the nonflipped approach ( P < 0.01). Mean score on the content-based quiz questions in the flipped approach was higher than that in the nonflipped approach ( P < 0.05). Performance on case-based questions did not show a significant difference ( P = 0.12). Mean quiz performance of the lower 27% scorers in the flipped approach was higher than that in the nonflipped approach ( P < 0.05). Mean quiz performance of the upper 27% scorers showed an increase in the flipped approach as well ( P < 0.05), but to a less extent than that of the lower 27% scorers ( P < 0.01). The flipped approach also increased peer collaboration ( P < 0.01). In summary, the flipped classroom improved dental students’ performance on content-based questions in physiology. The flipped classroom narrowed the performance gap between the low- and high-performing dental students.

Effectiveness and Perceptions of Flipped Learning Model in Dental Education: A Systematic Review

“…The full texts were assessed using the eligibility criteria in phase 2, resulting in seven studies deemed suitable for further analysis. [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] Articles excluded in this phase and the reasons for exclusion are shown in Table 3. Therefore, a total of eight studies were included in the analysis ( Table 2).…”

“…All eight included studies were in English, and ive were from the U.S., 20,[22][23][24]26 one from Japan, 25 one 21 and one from Greece. 19 One study compared students' flipped learning posttest scores with scores of eight dentists who took the same test.…”

“…19 One study compared students' flipped learning posttest scores with scores of eight dentists who took the same test. 25 The efectiveness of lipped learning and conventional lectures was compared in ive studies; 19,21,22,25,26 three studies compared students' perceptions on lipped learning compared to conventional lectures; 19,21,22 and four studies assessed students' perceptions about lipped learning without comparison to another methodology. 20,[23][24][25] The MINORS tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies ( Table 4).…”

“…20,[23][24][25] The MINORS tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies ( Table 4). The results showed that six studies had low RoB 19,[21][22][23][24]26 and two had moderate RoB. 20,25 Five comparative case-control studies were evaluated with 12 questions, 19,21,22,25,26 and three observational cohort studies used eight questions.…”

“…20,23,24 We appraised the studies' quality of evidence with GRADE. We grouped them into two categories: efectiveness 19,21,22,25,26 and students' perceptions. [19][20][21][22][23][24][25] The certainty of the evidence for both outcomesefectiveness and students' perceptions-received a low score ( Table 5).…”