Effectiveness of technology‐enhanced learning in Endodontic education: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of technology‐enhanced learning (TEL) in the field of Endodontics to improve educational outcomes compared to traditional learning methods. Randomized controlled studies published in English were identified from two electroni...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International endodontic journal Jg. 52; H. 2; S. 181 - 192
Hauptverfasser: Nagendrababu, V., Pulikkotil, S. J., Sultan, O. S., Jayaraman, J., Soh, J. A., Dummer, P. M. H.
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: England Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.02.2019
Schlagworte:
education
Endodontics
Learning
Meta-analysis
Performance evaluation
Reviews
Systematic review
Teaching methods
technology‐enhanced learning
meta-analysis
Endodontics
education
technology-enhanced learning
systematic review
ISSN:0143-2885, 1365-2591, 1365-2591
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of technology‐enhanced learning (TEL) in the field of Endodontics to improve educational outcomes compared to traditional learning methods. Randomized controlled studies published in English were identified from two electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) up to May 2018. Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and assessed the risk of bias (ROB). Any teaching method using TEL was considered as the intervention, and this was compared to traditional methods. The outcome measuring the effectiveness of learning activities was evaluated by Kirkpatrick's four‐level training evaluation model. The four levels of training outcomes are as follows: Reaction, Learning, Behaviour and Results. A meta‐analysis was performed to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD) by the random effects model. In total, 13 studies were included in the systematic review. Only three studies were assessed as ‘low’ ROB. A meta‐analysis could not be performed in the domains of Reaction and Behaviour. No significant difference was observed in knowledge gain (Learning domain) between TEL and traditional methods (SMD, 0.14 (95% CI −0.10 to 0.39) I2 = 62.7%). Similarly, no difference was observed in performance (Behaviour domain). A variable response was found in attitude (Reaction domain). From the available evidence, it can be concluded that TEL is equally as effective as traditional learning methods.
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Feature-3
ObjectType-Evidence Based Healthcare-1
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
ISSN:0143-2885
1365-2591
1365-2591
DOI:10.1111/iej.12995