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