Effectiveness and acceptability of face-to-face, blended and e-learning: a randomised trial of orthodontic undergraduates.

AIM: This study compared e-learning (EL), face-to-face learning (F2FL) and blended learning (BL) with respect to their effectiveness and student attitudes towards them. It also evaluated the effect of the order in which the components (EL and F2FL) of blended learning are delivered.
DESIGN: This was a prospective cluster randomised trial comparing four parallel groups.
METHOD: Eight groups of fourth year dental undergraduate students were randomly allocated to one of four intervention groups: EL, F2FL, BL1 or BL2. These four groups were assessed for their baseline comparability of knowledge and skills. Each then received the same cephalometric tutorial but delivered by the allocated mode of learning. Effectiveness was immediately assessed with a MCQ which measured short-term recall of knowledge. Student attitudes were evaluated with a questionnaire followed by a focus group discussion.
RESULTS: Ninety (57%) students completed the study. Pearson's chi-square test found no statistically significant difference between F2FL and BL; EL alone was less effective (P<0.05) for four MCQ questions but with no difference for the remaining six questions. Overall students were positive towards each learning modality, but a one-way analysis of variance found BL was the most and F2FL was the least accepted (P=0.002). EL was significantly (P=0.028) less preferred. The order of the components in BL had no significant effects.
CONCLUSION: These results suggest that BL is more likely than either F2FL or EL alone, to be both effective and accepted when delivering cephalometric education to undergraduates.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes