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

Abstract

When educators adopt flipped learning in their courses, online sources are assigned for students to study prior to class, and then the class period is devoted to face-to-face (F2F) interactions. The aims of this systematic review were to evaluate published research on the effectiveness of flipped learning for dental students' learning and on dental students' perceptions of the model and to report the results based on the first two phases of Kirkpatrick's model: reaction and learning. A systematic review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) was performed. Articles in which the objective was to determine the effectiveness of students' learning or students' perceptions of flipped learning in both dental and advanced dental education were collected. The Risk of Bias of the included studies was assessed using the MINORS Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Summary of Findings table. The authors screened the title and abstract of 650 studies; after application of inclusion criteria, eight articles remained for analysis. In those studies, a total of 572 dental students were participants. The effectiveness of flipped learning and conventional lectures was compared in five of the eight studies; three of the studies compared students' perceptions of flipped learning and the conventional format; and four of the studies assessed students' perceptions of flipped learning without comparison to another methodology. The findings suggest that flipped learning was an effective way to deliver knowledge in these eight studies. Time flexibility was a particular asset found in this review since flipped learning allowed each student to assimilate the educational material at her or his own pace.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 68 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.