| Literature DB >> 35400033 |
Yi-Ying Wu1, Sha Liu1, Qiong Man1, Feng-Lin Luo1, Ya-Xin Zheng1, Sheng Yang1, Xin Ming1, Fang-Yan Zhang1.
Abstract
With the continuous development of information technology, new teaching resources "micro-video class" and teaching model "flipped classroom" have gradually attracted the attention of teachers. Whether and how they can be applied in pharmacology teaching has already become the focus of medical education research in recent years. This paper explores the application and evaluation of the flipped classroom based on micro-video class in pharmacology teaching in our college. Students in Class 1 and Class 2 majoring in clinical medicine of 2018 in Chengdu Medical College were randomly divided into experimental group and control group. The teaching model of flipped classroom based on micro-video class was used in the experimental group, while the traditional teaching model was used in the control group. Theory tests and questionnaires were carried out at the end of the course. The average scores of theoretical knowledge in experimental group were significantly higher than those in control group (P < 0.05). In addition, the results of the feedback questionnaire showed that the overall satisfaction of students participating in flipped classroom based on micro-video class was higher (P < 0.05), and students thought that their learning enthusiasm, learning efficiency, and abilities of autonomous learning and problem-solving were greatly improved compared with those of students taught applying the traditional teaching model. Flipped classroom based on micro-video class model successfully improved the outcome of pharmacology teaching. It is supposed to provide reference for the reform of pharmacology teaching in medical college.Entities:
Keywords: feedback questionnaire; flipped classroom; medical education; micro-video class; pharmacology
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35400033 PMCID: PMC8987196 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.838900
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Teaching contents and micro class videos.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Diuretics | High efficacy diuretics | 10 min |
| Moderate efficacy diuretics | 9 min | ||
| Low efficacy diuretics | 5 min | ||
| 2 | Antihypertensive drug | Hypertension overview and drug classification | 11 min |
| First-line antihypertensive drugs | 10 min | ||
| 3 | Antianginal drug | Pathophysiology of angina pectoris | 4 min |
| Nitroglycerin | 8 min | ||
| Other antianginal drug | 6 min | ||
| 4 | Antiarrhythmic drug | Overview of antiarrhythmic drugs | 12 min |
| Commonly used antiarrhythmic drugs | 11 min | ||
| 5 | Drugs for heart failure | Pathophysiology of heart failure | 9 minutes |
| Cardiac glycosides | 10 min | ||
| Other drugs for heart failure | 10 min |
The average score of theory examination.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental group | 73 | 88.62 ± 2.65 | 89.59 ± 2.08 |
| Control group | 85 | 81.29 ± 2.79 | 86.35 ± 2.44 |
p < 0.05 vs. Control group.
Responses to questionnaire from students regarding the teaching and learning effects.
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Q1 | You satisfied with the current teaching and learning model. | 84.06 | 10.14 | 5.80 | 67.07 | 19.51 | 13.41 |
| Q2 | The current teaching and learning methods stimulate your learning interest in pharmacology. | 79.71 | 13.04 | 7.25 | 47.56 | 30.49 | 21.85 |
| Q3 | The current teaching and learning methods improve the learning efficiency and enable you to understand rather than simply memorize the teaching content. | 89.86 | 7.25 | 2.90 | 70.73 | 24.39 | 4.88 |
| Q4 | The current teaching and learning methods enhance your autonomous learning ability. | 85.51 | 8.70 | 5.80 | 56.10 | 26.83 | 17.07 |
| Q5 | The current teaching and learning methods develop your ability to analyze and solve problems. | 76.81 | 14.49 | 8.70 | 51.22 | 20.73 | 28.05 |
Values are percentage of students.
SA, Strongly agree; A, Agree; U, uncertainty; D, Disagree; SD, Strongly disagree.
Comparison of course evaluation scores between flipped classroom based on micro-video class and traditional model.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | n (missing) | 73 (4) | 85(3) | −2.639 | 0.008 |
| Mean ± SD | 4.12 | 3.73 | |||
| M (IQR) | 4.00 (4.00, 5.00) | 4.00 (3.00, 4.00) | |||
| Q2 | n (missing) | 73 (4) | 85 (3) | −4.052 | 0.000 |
| Mean ± SD | 4.07 ± | 3.41 ± 1.01 | |||
| M (IQR) | 4.00 (4.00, 5.00) | 3.00 (3.00, 4.00) | |||
| Q3 | n (missing) | 73 (4) | 85 (3) | −3.198 | 0.001 |
| Mean ± SD | 4.41 ± | 3.98 ± | |||
| M (IQR) | 5.00 (4.00, 5.00) | 4.00 (3.00, 5.00) | |||
| Q4 | n (missing) | 73 (4) | 85 (3) | −4.190 | 0.000 |
| Mean ± SD | 4.26 ± | 3.57 ± 1.05 | |||
| M (IQR) | 4.00 (4.00, 5.00) | 4.00 (3.00, 4.00) | |||
| Q5 | n (missing) | 73 (4) | 85 (3) | −3.296 | 0.001 |
| Mean ± SD | 3.99 ± 0.99 | 3.33 ± 1.26 | |||
| M (IQR) | 4.00 (4.00, 5.00) | 4.00 (2.00, 4.00) |
Based on Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P < 0.05 was considered significant.