Laura Covill1, Jason Cook. 1. Dep. of Physical Therapy, Des Moines University, 3200 Grand Ave., Des Moines, IA 50312, USA. Tel 515-271-1552, fax 515-271-1614. Laura.Covill@dmu.edu.
Abstract
The flipped classroom method allows students to learn formative material before class while acquiring higher-order learning in-class. The purpose of this study was to compare learning outcomes between traditional lecture and the flipped classroom model in a Doctor of Physical Therapy program and to assess student satisfaction with the flipped classroom method. METHODS: Three cohorts of first-year students, Classes 2015, 2016, and 2017 (Class A, B, C respectively) from a 3-year physical therapy education program. Classes were taught by traditional lectures for 1 year (Class A) and with the flipped model the next 2 years (Class B and C). Correlation analysis of examination questions between the cohorts was performed, with a = 0.05. A post-course survey evaluated the experience. RESULTS: Correlation analysis of examination questions revealed high correlation with similar performance in all classes: Class A and B, r = 0.62; Class A and C, r = 0.57; Class B and C, r = 0.74. Students in both Class B and C felt the flipped experience met the learning objectives. CONCLUSIONS: Learning outcomes of traditional lecture and flipped method classes were similar in our study. Student satisfaction with the flipped method may be related to student intrinsic motivation to complete the pre-class work.
The flipped classroom method allows students to learn formative material before class while acquiring higher-order learning in-class. The purpose of this study was to compare learning outcomes between traditional lecture and the flipped classroom model in a Doctor of Physical Therapy program and to assess student satisfaction with the flipped classroom method. METHODS: Three cohorts of first-year students, Classes 2015, 2016, and 2017 (Class A, B, C respectively) from a 3-year physical therapy education program. Classes were taught by traditional lectures for 1 year (Class A) and with the flipped model the next 2 years (Class B and C). Correlation analysis of examination questions between the cohorts was performed, with a = 0.05. A post-course survey evaluated the experience. RESULTS: Correlation analysis of examination questions revealed high correlation with similar performance in all classes: Class A and B, r = 0.62; Class A and C, r = 0.57; Class B and C, r = 0.74. Students in both Class B and C felt the flipped experience met the learning objectives. CONCLUSIONS: Learning outcomes of traditional lecture and flipped method classes were similar in our study. Student satisfaction with the flipped method may be related to student intrinsic motivation to complete the pre-class work.