Tue, Apr 29, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 15, Issue 48 (2023)
JMED 2023, 15(48): 62-77 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.MUMS.DENTISTRY.REC.1400.067
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ebrahimi M, Sarraf Shirazi A, Movahhed T, Ghanbari F. Perception of undergraduate dental students from digital learning vs conventional learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JMED 2023; 15 (48) :62-77
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-1671-en.html
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-1671-en.html
1- Associate professor of pediatric dentistry, Dental school, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences
2- professor of pediatric dentistry, Dental school, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences
3- resident of pediatric dentistry, Dental school, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences ,ghanbarif981@mums.ac.ir
2- professor of pediatric dentistry, Dental school, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences
3- resident of pediatric dentistry, Dental school, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences ,
Abstract: (1924 Views)
Background & objective: This study aimed to compare the perception of undergraduate dental students from digital, blended, and conventional learning experiences.
Methods: A search of the literature was performed in PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases for relevant articles, yielding 3541 articles. After removing the duplicates, and assessing the abstract and full text of the articles, 23 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were systematically reviewed. The quality of articles was analyzed by ROB2. 15 articles underwent meta-analysis. Using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software and random-effect model, 4 main outcomes of self-reported acquired knowledge, self-reported acquired competence, satisfaction level, and usefulness of learning were compared among the E-learning, blended, and conventional groups. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated. The GRADE approach was used to analyze the certainty of evidence.
Results: Twenty-three articles were systematically reviewed, and 15 articles underwent meta-analysis. In quantitative analysis, 13 studies had a high risk of bias and 2 had some concern risk of bias. No significant difference was found among the E-learning, blended and conventional learning in self-reported acquired knowledge (SMD=0.19, 95% CI: -0.20-0.58, P=0.34), self-reported competence (SMD=-0.07, 95% CI: -0.57-0.43, P=0.77), satisfaction level (SMD=0.05, 95% CI: -0.42-0.31, P=0.77) or usefulness of learning (SMD=0.28, 95% CI: -0.72-0.15, P=0.2).
Conclusion: No significant difference was noted among the E-learning, blended and conventional groups in self-reported acquired knowledge and competence, satisfaction level and usefulness of learning according to the opinion of undergraduate dental students. However, considering the low level of evidence, the results should be interpreted with caution.
Methods: A search of the literature was performed in PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases for relevant articles, yielding 3541 articles. After removing the duplicates, and assessing the abstract and full text of the articles, 23 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were systematically reviewed. The quality of articles was analyzed by ROB2. 15 articles underwent meta-analysis. Using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software and random-effect model, 4 main outcomes of self-reported acquired knowledge, self-reported acquired competence, satisfaction level, and usefulness of learning were compared among the E-learning, blended, and conventional groups. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated. The GRADE approach was used to analyze the certainty of evidence.
Results: Twenty-three articles were systematically reviewed, and 15 articles underwent meta-analysis. In quantitative analysis, 13 studies had a high risk of bias and 2 had some concern risk of bias. No significant difference was found among the E-learning, blended and conventional learning in self-reported acquired knowledge (SMD=0.19, 95% CI: -0.20-0.58, P=0.34), self-reported competence (SMD=-0.07, 95% CI: -0.57-0.43, P=0.77), satisfaction level (SMD=0.05, 95% CI: -0.42-0.31, P=0.77) or usefulness of learning (SMD=0.28, 95% CI: -0.72-0.15, P=0.2).
Conclusion: No significant difference was noted among the E-learning, blended and conventional groups in self-reported acquired knowledge and competence, satisfaction level and usefulness of learning according to the opinion of undergraduate dental students. However, considering the low level of evidence, the results should be interpreted with caution.
Article Type : Review |
Subject:
Medical Education
Received: 2022/08/2 | Accepted: 2023/01/5 | Published: 2023/02/28
Received: 2022/08/2 | Accepted: 2023/01/5 | Published: 2023/02/28
References
1. Khanifar H, Ghofrani A. The Digital Transformation in Teaching-Learning Process: The Student-teachers Digital Competence Assessment. Educational and Scholastic studies. 2020; 9(3): 23-47. [Article]
2. Shahbeigi F, Nazari S. Virtual education: Benefits and limitations. The Journal of Medical Education and Development. 2012; 6(1): 47-54. [DOI]
3. Yang J, Schneller C, Roche S. The Role of Higher Education in Promoting Lifelong Learning. UIL Publication Series on Lifelong Learning Policies and Strategies: No. 3. UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, 2015. [Article]
4. Aghakasiri Z, Fazelian P. Evaluation of virtual education programs of Tehran universities from the perspective teachers and students. 2006, Master Thesis. Tehran: Tarbiat Moalem University.
5. Toquero CM, Challenges and opportunities for higher education amid the COVID-19 pandemic: The Philippine context. Pedagogical Research. 2020; 5(4). [DOI]
6. Ghazanfari N, Badeleh A. Assessment of the contents of electronic educational courses of the universities under SCORM standard. Technology of Education Journal (TEJ). 2018; 13(1):87-97. [DOI]
7. Yoon J, Kwon S, Shim JE. Present status and issues of school nutrition programs in Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2012. 21(1): p. 128-33. [DOI]
8. Lin MH, Chen H.g. A study of the effects of digital learning on learning motivation and learning outcome. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 2017; 13(7): 3553-3564. [DOI]
9. Kakaee F, Hakimzadeh R. Evaluating the Quality of E-Learning Program in Master of Information Technology Engineering at Shiraz University. Information and Communication Technology in Educational Sciences. 2016;6(23):85-110. [DOI]
10. Ellis RA, Ginns P, Piggott L. E‐learning in higher education: some key aspects and their relationship to approaches to study. Higher Education Research & Development. 2009; 28(3): 303-318. DOI: [DOI]
11. Esmaeeli H, et al. Evaluation of E-Learning of the virtual learning program from the student's point of view. Public Management Research. 2016; 9(34):203-222. [DOI]
12. Rocha B.C, et al. Evaluation of different teaching methods in the radiographic diagnosis of proximal carious lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2021; 50(4):20200295. [DOI]
13. Berry M.C.C, et al. Effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning to improve periodontics educational outcomes: A systematic review. Journal of Dental Education. 2020; 84(7): 830-839. [DOI]
14. Morales-Perez M.A, et al. Assessing the effectiveness of an online dental pharmacology course. Journal of Dental Education. 2020; 84(8):902-907. [DOI]
15. Jeganathan S, Fleming P.S. Blended learning as an adjunct to tutor-led seminars in undergraduate orthodontics: a randomised controlled trial. British Dental Journal. 2020; 228(5):371-375. [DOI]
16. Al-Taweel, F.B, et al. Evaluation of technology-based learning by dental students during the pandemic outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019. European Journal of Dental Education. 2020; [DOI]
17. Botelho J, et al. Cloud-based collaboration and productivity tools to enhance self-perception and self-evaluation in senior dental students: A pilot study. European Journal of Dental Education. 2019; 23(1):e53-e58. [DOI]
18. Hashemikamangar SS, et al. Efficacy of E-Learning via the Website of Tehran University of Medical Sciences for Diagnosing Tooth Discolorations and Treatment Planning by Senior Dental Students. Acta Medica Iranica. 2016;54(8):536-541. [DOI]
19. Ariana A, et al. Integration of Traditional and E-Learning Methods to Improve Learning Outcomes for Dental Students in Histopathology. Journal of Dental Education. 2016; 80(9):1140-8. [DOI]
20. Amir L.R, et al. Student perspective of classroom and distance learning during COVID-19 pandemic in the undergraduate dental study program Universitas Indonesia. BMC Medical Education. 2020; 20(1):392. [DOI]
21. Asiry MA. Dental students' perceptions of an online learning. Saudi Dental Journal. 2017; 29(4):167-170. [DOI]
22. Slaven CM, et al. Effectiveness of and Dental Student Satisfaction with Three Teaching Methods for Behavior Guidance Techniques in Pediatric Dentistry. Journal of Dental Education. 2019; 83(8): p. 966-972. [DOI]
23. Bains M, et al. Effectiveness and acceptability of face-to-face, blended and e-learning: a randomised trial of orthodontic undergraduates. European Journal of Dental Education. 2011; 15(2): 110-7. [DOI]
24. Page MJ, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: 71. [DOI]
25. Schünemann HJ, et al. Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2019:375-402. [DOI]
26. Mai H.Y, et al. Impact of the Application of Computer-Based 3D Simulation on Acquisition of Knowledge of Guidance of Mandibular Movement. Applied Sciences. 2020; 11(1):60. [DOI]
27. Bock A, et al. An innovative PantoDict program for reporting panoramic radiographs using automatic speech recognition in dental education: a randomized observer-blinded study. Oral Surgery Oral Medicin Oral Pathology Oral Radiology.2021; 132(1):104-111. [DOI]
28. Atik E, Gorucu-Coskuner H, Taner T. The Effect of Live-Video Demonstration on Dental Students' Orthodontic Bending Performance. Journal of Dental Education. 2020; 84(3):377-384. [DOI]
29. Alharbi F, et al. Phone-based audience response system as an adjunct in orthodontic teaching of undergraduate dental students: a cross-over randomised controlled trial. BMC Medical Education. 2020; 20(1):435. [DOI]
30. Thilakumara IP, et al. Effectiveness of Procedural Video Versus Live Demonstrations in Teaching Laboratory Techniques to Dental Students. Journal of Dental Education. 2018; 82(8):898-904. [DOI]
31. Kenny K.P, Alkazme A.M, Day P.F. The effect of viewing video clips of paediatric local anaesthetic administration on the confidence of undergraduate dental students. European Journal of Dental Education. 2018. 22(1):e57-e62. [DOI]
32. Mahrous A, et al. Enhancing Student Learning in Removable Partial Denture Design by Using Virtual Three-Dimensional Models Versus Traditional Two-Dimensional Drawings: A Comparative Study. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2019; 28(8):927-933. [DOI]
33. Schonwetter DJ, et al. Assessing the Impact of Voice-Over Screen-Captured Presentations Delivered Online on Dental Students' Learning. Journal of Dental Education. 2016; 80(2): 141-8. [DOI]
34. Packer M.E, et al. A preliminary study to investigate the potential of plasma screen technology in small group teaching for dental undergraduates. European Journal of Dental Education. 2003; 7(3): 136-42. [DOI]
35. Peroz I, Beuche A, Peroz N. Randomized controlled trial comparing lecture versus self studying by an online tool. Medical Teacher. 2009; 31(6):508-12. [DOI]
36. Eitner S, et al. Comparative study on interactive computer-aided-learning and computer-aided-testing in patient-based dental training in maxillofacial surgery. European Journal of Dental Education. 2008; 12(1): 35-40. [DOI]
37. Aly M, Elen J, Willems G. Instructional multimedia program versus standard lecture: a comparison of two methods for teaching the undergraduate orthodontic curriculum. European Journal of Dental Education. 2004; 8(1):43-6. [DOI]
38. Hobson R, et al. A study into the effectiveness of a text‐based computer‐assisted learning program in comparison with seminar teaching of orthodontics. European Journal of Dental Education. 1998; 2(4):154-159. [DOI]
39. Nance ET, Lanning S.K, Gunsolley J.C. Dental anatomy carving computer-assisted instruction program: an assessment of student performance and perceptions. Journal of Dental Education. 2009; 73(8):972-9. [DOI]
40. Nikzad S, et al. Effect of a procedural video CD and study guide on the practical fixed prosthodontic performance of Iranian dental students. Journal of Dental Education, 2012; 76(3):354-9. [DOI]
41. Shapiro M.C, Anderson O.R, Lal S. Assessment of a novel module for training dental students in child abuse recognition and reporting. Journal of Dental Education. 2014; 78(8): p. 1167-75. [DOI]
42. Kavadella A, et al. Evaluation of a blended learning course for teaching oral radiology to undergraduate dental students. European Journal of Dental Education. 2012; 16(1): e88-95. [DOI]
43. Mattheos N, Nattestad A, Attstrom R. Feasibility of and satisfaction with the use of low-bandwidth videoconferencing for examination of undergraduate students. Journal of Telemedicin and Telecare. 2003; 9(5):278-81. [DOI]
44. Al-Fraihat D, et al. Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior. 2020; 102: 67-86. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
