A comparison of student evaluations of teaching and learning in the inverted classroom model versus traditional lectures in dental education

Abstract

Introduction The inverted classroom model (ICM) is a learner-centred approach that aims to promote engagement, independence and deeper understanding by shifting knowledge acquisition to self-directed learning before class and using class time for interactive exercises. Despite its growing popularity, there are differing views on how dental students experience and evaluate this model compared to the traditional lecture-based teaching method (FT). This study examines students’ subjective perceptions of teaching and learning within the ICM framework and investigates how a series of lectures delivered in this format influences their learning strategies and their interest in the subject area.

Methods First-year students were recruited and divided into FT and ICM groups. From April 2023 to February 2024, dental students (n = 138) were included in this study. The control group received classes based on the traditional (FT) concept, while the ICM group was defined as the intervention group. Data were collected at the beginning and end of the year using standardised questionnaires to evaluate the teaching concept (FLIPPY), study interest (FSI), and learning strategy (LIST-K). Wilcoxon and Mann–Whitney U tests were employed to evaluate these data, with a significance level of p < 0.05.

Results ICM was associated with significantly higher student ratings across most domains of the teaching concept, particularly with regard to preparation (p < 0.001), flexibility (p = 0.014), collaborative learning (p = 0.002), interaction with teachers (p < 0.001), active participation and motivation (p = 0.004). No significant changes in study interest or learning strategies could be observed. However, ICM students demonstrated a greater openness to innovative and digital teaching methods.

Conclusion The ICM was associated with increased student engagement and interaction. However, it was not associated with changes in study interest, learning strategies, or short-term perceived learning outcomes. The results suggest the ICM’s complementary role in blended learning but should be interpreted as associative due to the quasi-experimental design. Limitations include subjective measures, the short duration of the study, and limited generalizability.