ArticleBMC medical education2026
A comparison of student evaluations of teaching and learning in the inverted classroom model versus traditional lectures in dental education.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe 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.
methodsFirst-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.
resultsICM 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.
conclusionThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.