| Literature DB >> 29860776 |
Han Jung1, Jungsuk An2, Kwi Hwa Park3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the satisfaction of medical students in flipped learning and analyzed academic achievement in comparison with lecture class.Entities:
Keywords: Medical schools; Medical students; Teaching
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29860776 PMCID: PMC5990896 DOI: 10.3946/kjme.2018.85
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Korean J Med Educ ISSN: 2005-727X
Factor Loadings for Flipped Learning Perception Items
| Item | Factor I[ | Factor II[ | Reliability (α) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | 0.862 | 0.349 | 0.954 |
| 11 | 0.854 | 0.331 | |
| 8 | 0.830 | 0.186 | |
| 10 | 0.829 | 0.454 | |
| 9 | 0.731 | 0.563 | |
| 6 | 0.728 | 0.575 | |
| 1 | 0.193 | 0.952 | 0.951 |
| 4 | 0.336 | 0.864 | |
| 2 | 0.444 | 0.811 | |
| 5 | 0.445 | 0.783 | |
| 3 | 0.576 | 0.708 | |
| Percent of variance accounted for | 74.594 | 10.266 |
Improving learning.
Interaction and collaboration in the classroom.
Use of Learning Resource in Pre-class for Flipped Learning
| Learning resource | Use for learning | Average learning time for pre-class learning (min) | Degree of help for learning | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||
| Lecture note | 25 (80.6) | 6 (19.4) | 35 | 3.61±0.88 |
| Text book | 3 (10.3) | 26 (89.7) | 26 | 3.00±0.96 |
| Lecture slides (ppt) | 23 (74.2) | 8 (25.8) | 40 | 3.84±0.93 |
| Videos[ | 5 (16.7) | 25 (83.3) | 36 | 3.08±1.04 |
Data are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation.
By the Korean Consortium for e-Learning in Medical Education.
Students’ Perception of the Effectiveness of Flipped Learning
| Variable | Mean±standard deviation |
|---|---|
| Factor: interaction and collaboration in the classroom | |
| 1. Collaboration among group members was done properly in the solution process of the task. | 4.03±0.97 |
| 2. It was helpful to collaborate with members in order to solve group tasks. | 3.82±0.90 |
| 3. The process of group discussion was helpful. | 3.74±0.95 |
| 4. Interaction and collaboration among members were appropriate. | 3.84±1.03 |
| 5. The interaction between the students and the lecturers were appropriate. | 4.13±0.84 |
| Total | 3.89±0.75 |
| Factor: improving learning | |
| 6. Flipping learning was helpful in classroom attention | 3.57±1.07 |
| 7. Flipping learning was helpful for self-directed learning. | 3.71±1.02 |
| 8. Flipping learning was helpful in motivation and interest. | 3.66±0.97 |
| 9. Flipping learning was helpful in academic achievement | 3.49±1.09 |
| 10. I am overall satisfied with the flipping learning class. | 3.74±0.95 |
| 11. Flipping learning should be applied to other classes. | 3.29±1.25 |
| Total | 3.62±0.95 |
Comparison of Formative Assessment Scores between Lecture and Flip Learning Class
| Teaching method | Mean±standard deviation | t-value | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lecture | 4.28±1.169 | -4.203 | 0.000 |
| Flipped learning | 5.56±2.100 |