Innovative didactic learning formats: have they improved dental education? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: New learning methods require higher professor-to-student ratios, increased faculty preparation time, continuous professional development for educators, and expanded physical spaces within university settings.

Objectives: This systematic review aimed to answer the following PICO question: In dental students (P), what is the effectiveness of innovative formats of learning (I) in comparison with traditional formats (C) in terms of educational outcomes and satisfaction (O)?

Methods: After PROSPERO protocol registration, a literature search was conducted using Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Selection of studies was performed in a three-step process: identification, screening and eligibility. Data was extracted and analysed qualitatively and quantitatively. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to provide an estimate of the effect of innovative teaching formats in dental education. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed to investigate potential differences in effectiveness based on the type of innovative teaching intervention.

Results: One hundred and nineteen studies matched the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. A meta-analysis of 23 studies (1074 students in the control and 1021 in the experimental group) revealed significant differences in favour of innovative teaching methods (p < 0.00001) with considerable heterogeneity (χ2 = 297.46, p < 0.00001; I2 = 93%). Subgroup analysis also revealed significantly different results depending on the innovative teaching approach (p = 0.02). Both asynchronous independent learning and synchronous learning, either in a large group with the whole class of students using blended learning or in small groups, resulted in a significantly better outcome than traditional learning (overall effect: Z = 5.85; p < 0.00001); however, synchronous blended learning showed a significantly better outcome than the rest of the subgroups (mean difference = 16.59; 95% CI = 9.03-24.15). The quality of the studies varied, with some facing methodological challenges such as inconsistent outcome measurement, which can impact the generalisability of the findings.

Conclusions: Innovative strategies lead to superior knowledge acquisition in comparison with traditional methods. Subgroup analyses favoured synchronous blended learning, but both asynchronous independent learning and synchronous learning formats, whether implemented in large-group settings via blended approaches or in small-group environments, are more effective than traditional instruction.