| Literature DB >> 28384167 |
Ying Lin1, Yi Zhu1,2, Chuan Chen1,2, Wei Wang1, Tingting Chen1, Tao Li1, Yonghao Li1, Bingqian Liu1, Yu Lian1, Lin Lu1, Yuxian Zou1, Yizhi Liu1.
Abstract
Recent reform of medical education highlights the growing concerns about the capability of the current educational model to equip medical school students with essential skills for future career development. In the field of ophthalmology, although many attempts have been made to address the problem of the decreasing teaching time and the increasing load of course content, a growing body of literature indicates the need to reform the current ophthalmology teaching strategies. Flipped classroom is a new pedagogical model in which students develop a basic understanding of the course materials before class, and use in-class time for learner-centered activities, such as group discussion and presentation. However, few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of the flipped classroom in ophthalmology education. This study, for the first time, assesses the use of flipped classroom in ophthalmology, specifically glaucoma and ocular trauma clerkship teaching. A total number of 44 international medical school students from diverse background were enrolled in this study, and randomly divided into two groups. One group took the flipped glaucoma classroom and lecture-based ocular trauma classroom, while the other group took the flipped ocular trauma classroom and lecture-based glaucoma classroom. In the traditional lecture-based classroom, students attended the didactic lecture and did the homework after class. In the flipped classroom, students were asked to watch the prerecorded lectures before the class, and use the class time for homework discussion. Both the teachers and students were asked to complete feedback questionnaires after the classroom. We found that the two groups did not show differences in the final exam scores. However, the flipped classroom helped students to develop skills in problem solving, creative thinking and team working. Also, compared to the lecture-based classroom, both teachers and students were more satisfied with the flipped classroom. Interestingly, students had a more positive attitude towards the flipped ocular trauma classroom than the flipped glaucoma classroom regarding the teaching process, the course materials, and the value of the classroom. Therefore, the flipped classroom model in ophthalmology teaching showed promise as an effective approach to promote active learning.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28384167 PMCID: PMC5383227 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174829
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
The chronology of the lecture-based classroom and flipped classroom.
| Lecture-based classroom | Flipped classroom | |
|---|---|---|
| Before class | Pre-test | |
| • Provided learning objectives and lecture handouts | • Provided learning objectives and lecture handouts | |
| During class | • Listen to lecture and take notes (60 mins) | • Brief introduction of the case by the instructor (15 mins) |
| After class | • Review the chapter of glaucoma/ocular trauma | • Fill out feedback questionnaire |
| Final exam | ||
Demographic information of students participated in glaucoma flipped classroom and ocular trauma flipped classroom.
| Flipped glaucoma classroom | Flipped ocular trauma classroom | P Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of students | 22 | 22 | |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 9 (41%) | 10 (45%) | 0.761 |
| Female | 13 (59%) | 12 (55%) | |
| Place of residence | |||
| Rural | 10 (45%) | 9 (41%) | 0.761 |
| Urban | 12 (55%) | 13 (59%) | |
| Age (years) | 23.5±1.1 | 24.2±2.2 | 0.124 |
| Years in China | 5.0±0.2 | 5.0±0.7 | 0.574 |
| Years of leaning Chinese | 1.5±1.0 | 1.5±0.5 | 1.000 |
| Years of medical school | 5.2±0.5 | 5.0±0.5 | 0.143 |
a. Pearson Chi-Square test
b. Independent samples t test
Fig 1Comparison of students’ exam scores before and after the classroom.
Students were asked to answer 20 glaucoma and 20 ocular trauma multiple choice questions before (A) and after (B) taking the classroom. Each question had the same weight, and the total score was converted into a 0–100 scale. Independent samples t test was used to compare the differences between the two groups. All data were presented as mean± S.D. n = 22.
Comparison of students’ perspectives between flipped glaucoma classroom and flipped ocular trauma classroom.
| Flipped glaucoma classroom | Flipped ocular trauma classroom | P value | Effect size (r) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The course met my expectations. | 1.63 ± 0.83 | 1.57 ± 0.59 | 0.944 | 0.01 |
| It is an enjoyable way of learning. | 1.42 ± 0.60 | 1.39 ± 0.50 | 0.988 | 0.00 |
| Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of this course. | 1.42 ± 0.60 | 1.60 ± 0.66 | 0.324 | 0.15 |
| The climate of this class is conducive to learning. | 1.63 ± 0.83 | 1.65 ± 0.65 | 0.674 | 0.06 |
| The lecture greatly enhances my learning about this topic. | 1.53 ± 0.61 | 1.61 ± 0.58 | 0.608 | 0.08 |
| The course developed my problem-solving skills. | 1.63 ± 0.68 | 1.65 ± 0.49 | 0.719 | 0.06 |
| The course sharpened my analytic skills. | 1.84 ± 0.60 | 1.70 ± 0.56 | 0.434 | 0.12 |
| The course helped me to develop my ability to work as a team member. | 2.11 ± 0.88 | 1.57 ± 0.51 | 0.034 | 0.33 |
| As a result of my course, I feel confident about tackling unfamiliar problems. | 2.16 ± 0.96 | 1.61 ± 0.72 | 0.043 | 0.31 |
| The course improved my skills in written communication. | 2.32 ± 0.95 | 2.09 ± 0.85 | 0.544 | 0.09 |
| My course helped me to develop the ability to plan my own work. | 2.11 ± 0.66 | 1.78 ± 0.80 | 0.099 | 0.25 |
| You usually have a clear idea of where you’re going and what’s expected of you in this course. | 2.15 ± 0.83 | 1.52 ± 0.67 | 0.011 | 0.39 |
| It is always easy here to know the standard of work expected. | 1.95 ± 0.97 | 1.65 ± 0.57 | 0.434 | 0.12 |
| I was generally given enough time to understand the things we have to learn. | 2.42 ± 0.77 | 2.43 ± 1.34 | 0.671 | 0.07 |
| The work was too heavy. | 2.58 ± 1.07 | 1.82 ± 1.00 | 0.025 | 0.35 |
| The course is overly theoretical and abstract. | 2.63 ± 1.34 | 3.70 ± 1.22 | 0.013 | 0.38 |
| There was a lot of pressure on me to do well in this course. | 2.42 ± 1.17 | 2.52 ± 1.23 | 0.784 | 0.04 |
| The sheer volume of work to be got through in this course means you can’t comprehend it all thoroughly. | 2.89 ± 0.81 | 2.91 ± 0.79 | 0.989 | 0.00 |
| The staff on this course make it clear right from the start what they expect of students. | 2.21 ± 0.79 | 1.65 ± 0.51 | 0.015 | 0.37 |
| The teachers on this course motivated me to do my best work. | 1.63 ± 0.68 | 1.47 ± 0.51 | 0.539 | 0.09 |
| Teachers put a lot of time into commenting on student’s work. | 1.68 ± 0.82 | 1.52 ± 0.73 | 0.523 | 0.10 |
| Teaching staff on this course work hard to make their subjects interesting. | 1.21 ± 0.42 | 1.47 ± 0.67 | 0.174 | 0.21 |
| Teachers make a real effort to understand difficulties students may be having with their work. | 1.68 ± 1.00 | 1.95 ± 0.65 | 0.090 | 0.26 |
| Teachers normally give helpful feedback on how you’re doing. | 1.95 ± 0.85 | 1.47 ± 0.59 | 0.057 | 0.29 |
| Our lecturers are extremely good at explaining things to us. | 1.53 ± 0.90 | 1.48 ± 0.59 | 0.692 | 0.06 |
| Teachers seem more interested in testing what you’ve memorized than what you’ve understood. | 3.11 ± 1.37 | 2.87 ± 1.45 | 0.594 | 0.08 |
| Too many staff on this course ask us questions just about facts. | 2.74 ± 1.15 | 2.77 ± 1.23 | 0.849 | 0.03 |
| To do well in this course all you really need is a good memory. | 2.68 ± 1.29 | 2.04 ± 0.97 | 0.104 | 0.25 |
a. Two groups are compared by Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test.
*p<0.05 is considered significant.
b. Effect size is calculated by test statistic divided by the root of sample size (small effect: 0.1
Comparison of teachers’ perspectives between the lecture-based and the flipped glaucoma classroom.
| Glaucoma classroom | P value | Effect size (r) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lecture-based | Flipped | |||
| The lecture greatly enhances students’ understanding about this topic. | 1.60 ± 0.50 | 1.60 ± 0.95 | 0.841 | 0.10 |
| The course met my expectations. | 2.20 ± 0.58 | 1.40 ± 0.58 | 0.151 | 0.70 |
| It is an enjoyable way of teaching. | 1.80 ± 0.81 | 1.60 ± 0.95 | 0.690 | 0.20 |
| Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of this course. | 2.00 ± 0.50 | 1.40 ± 1.00 | 0.222 | 0.61 |
| The climate of this class is conducive to learning for students. | 2.00 ± 0.96 | 1.20 ± 0.50 | 0.222 | 0.64 |
a. Two groups are compared by Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test.
b. Effect size is calculated by test statistic divided by the root of sample size.
Comparison of teachers’ perspectives between the lecture-based and the flipped ocular trauma classroom.
| Ocular trauma classroom | P value | Effect size (r) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lecture-based | Flipped | |||
| The lecture greatly enhances students’ understanding about this topic. | 2.20 ± 0.45 | 1.60 ± 0.89 | 0.222 | 0.61 |
| The course met my expectations. | 2.60 ± 0.55 | 1.40 ± 0.55 | 0.032 | 1.04 |
| It is an enjoyable way of teaching. | 2.60 ± 0.89 | 1.00 ± 0.00 | 0.032 | 1.10 |
| Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of this course. | 3.20 ± 0.45 | 1.40 ± 0.89 | 0.032 | 1.08 |
| The climate of this class is conducive to learning for students. | 3.00 ± 0.71 | 1.20 ± 0.45 | 0.008 | 1.18 |
a. Two groups are compared by Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test.
*p<0.05 is considered significant.
b. Effect size is calculated by test statistic divided by the root of sample size.
Fig 2Teachers’ opinions about the topic and frequency of the flipped classroom model in ophthalmology teaching.
Teachers (n = 10) were asked to pick up 1 to 3 topics that they think are most suitable to apply the flipped teaching model (A). Teachers are also asked how many times they think flipped classroom could be hold during the clerkship teaching (B).
Fig 3Bloom's taxonomy of the cognitive domains in traditional lecture-based classroom and flipped classroom.
In the traditional non-flipped model, lower order levels of learning such as remembering and understanding are acquired in the class, and higher order levels of learning such as applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating are achieved after the class. In the flipped classroom model, lower order levels of learning are acquired before the class, and higher order levels of learning are achieved during the class.