Effect of flipped classroom approach in the teaching of a hematology course.

The flipped classroom is a teaching strategy used to enhance the engagement of students in the learning process. Replacing didactic lectures with active learning strategies through flipped classroom sessions fosters independence and the opportunity for students to engage in different passive learning styles. Although many studies of the flipped classroom approach have been conducted with medical students, few have focused on the effect of flipped classroom sessions on students in other medical professional fields. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the flipped classroom approach on the performance of medical laboratory science students in a hematology course and their perception of the flipped classroom as an active learning strategy. In addition, students' perceptions regarding the flipped classroom as an active learning strategy were assessed. Of two cohorts in hematology courses, cohort 2 attended flipped classroom sessions, whereas cohort 1 underwent traditional class sessions. Students' learning outcomes, achievements and performance on examinations in hematology courses were assessed. In addition, a satisfaction survey was distributed to the students to evaluate their perception of the flipped classroom as a student-centred learning strategy. Students in cohort 2 performed significantly better in the knowledge and cognitive domains than did those in cohort 1 (p < 0.001). Cohort 2 students completed the course successfully with an average grade of 81%, and few students received low grades; in comparison, cohort 1 students completed the course with an average grade of 73%, and 7 students received a grade of F. Of students in cohort 2, 83% believed that the flipped classroom provided a better understanding of the subject matter and appropriate knowledge and skills. The results indicate the effectiveness of flipped classrooms as an active learning style in enabling students to obtain desirable knowledge and improve their academic performance. Moreover, students zrecognized that the flipped classroom as an active learning style was more beneficial than the traditional teaching approach.

Introduction

In recent decades, new teaching strategies in higher education have been implemented. Many medical colleges have switched from traditional didactic methods to student-centred learning [1,2], in which students are encouraged to participate, engage and identify the appropriate resources and needs to fulfil the required objectives [2]. This kind of learning strategy motivates and enables students to be life-long learners, fosters self-growth and enables retention of up-to-date information about new advances and approaches in various medical fields [3]. Nowadays, national and international accreditation agencies must incorporate active learning strategies in medical programs to provide students the skills and characteristics of life-long learners [4].

An active learning style has shown a positive effect in comparison with traditional teaching [1]. The flipped classroom approach, case-based learning, problem-based learning and blended learning styles are new teaching strategies involving student-centred learning that enable students to cultivate interpersonal skills, obtain medical knowledge and improve cognition [5]. In the flipped classroom approach, students have the study materials and prepare for class before the class itself, and in the class, they share basic knowledge and build upon the concepts taught according to the set objectives [6]. Several studies have confirmed that student-centred learning as an active learning strategy is associated with improved student performance, reduced failure rate and better learning achievements [1,7-9]. A study conducted with students taking an anatomy course revealed that the achievement of course objectives was significantly improved when the course was delivered through an active teaching method than when delivered in the traditional method [10]. Moreover, the students in the study stated that that the active teaching method helped them gain knowledge, skills and confidence on examinations [10]. Another study with students in a microbiology course demonstrated that problem-based learning, a student-centred learning strategy, helped students retain information and improve cognitive skills [11].

Many other studies have shown that the flipped classroom has a positive effect on student achievement and performance [3,6]. In an obstetrics and gynaecology course, for example, students taught with the flipped classroom approach had better performance and test scores than did those who were taught in a traditional method [12]. Arya et al., in addition, demonstrated that students in the flipped classroom showed better academic performance in complete medical courses than did students in traditional teaching classrooms [13]

On the other hand, some studies have shown no significant difference in examination scores between students in the flipped classroom and those receiving didactic teaching, although the students’ perception about the flipped classroom and blended learning was positive [14]. The reasons for the findings in those studies may include course materials, type of assessment, course level and study design [15].

Although the flipped classroom strategy in medical programs has been evaluated extensively, few studies have focused on this approach in undergraduate medical laboratory sciences or during the internship year [16]. Thus, this study focused on this strategy in an undergraduate hematology course in a medical laboratory sciences program. The course integrated physiology, pathophysiology and clinical manifestations into the teaching of expected laboratory diagnoses. Learners were encouraged to focus on a topic with the required objectives and learning outcomes that included knowledge and reasoning in clinical laboratories. The flipped classroom was modified by the introduction of a case study discussion session after the educational contents and objectives were taught to students. The aim of this study was to compare the traditional teaching strategy with student-centred learning strategies implemented through the flipped classroom.

Materials and methods

Two cohorts of third-year students of medical laboratory science participated in the study. The study was designed to suit the roles and regulations applied in Fakeeh College for Medical Sciences (FCMS) and was approved by medical education departments at FCMS., Cohort 1 included 30 students (27 students were female and 3 students were males) enrolled in the hematology course during the academic year 2018–2019, which was taught according to the traditional teaching strategy, in which a 50-minute lecture was presented, and the students gave full attention to the instructor. Cohort 2 included 24 students (20 students were female and 4 students were males) enrolled in the course during the academic year 2019–2020, part of which was taught according to the flipped classroom strategy.

In the course for cohort 2, the flipped classroom was the teaching method for the theoretical part of the course, which is considered half of the course topics. In contrast, the other half, the practical sessions, were conducted in dedicated teaching, demonstration and performing experiments. The flipped classroom strategy was introduced to students in cooperation at the beginning of the semester. The sessions were conducted as published timetable and piloted in three phases: pre-class, in-class and after-class activities. The pre-class phase involved uploading the study materials, learning objectives and other supporting materials that helped the students prepare for the in-class sessions. The in-class part of the flipped classroom was divided into four parts: answering students’ questions and clarifications, free discussion with colleagues, post-examination discussion and a brief lecture focusing on the main objectives and giving feedback to students. For in-class activities, the course instructor, with other course facilitators, divided the students into five groups and presented a unified case study that covered the intended learning outcomes. Each group was given 5 minutes to clarify the given case study and to ask the instructor questions. Thereafter, the students in each group discussed the case study to obtain information that corresponded to the intended learning outcomes. This discussion lasted for approximately 45 minutes. During the discussion time, the instructors supported the students in the discussion and guided the groups to follow the topic objectives and achieve intended learning outcomes.

In the post-class phase, students in cohort 2 were administered a formative assessment that was a mixture of multiple-choice (MCQs) and true-or-false questions. The formative was conducted on an electronic platform (Blackboard) and graded automatically after submitting the answer; thereafter, the instructor presented a review lecture on the corresponding topic with the feedback about points raised during the in-class discussion and formative questions.

At the end of the course, both cohorts took a final theoretical examination composed of 40 MCQs and matching questions based on the objectives presented at the beginning of the relative academic year. The achievement in intended learning outcomes was analyzed by calculating the difficulty index for each question by dividing the total scored mark of the correct answer in each question by the highest possible mark of the question multiplied by the total number of students. To assess the effectiveness of the flipped classroom on students’ performance, the mean score on the final examinations for the flipped classroom in the course was compared with the mean score for cohort 1. In addition, the mean grade-point averages of the two cohorts were compared to evaluate the variation in academic performance. A descriptive statistical analysis, including overall grade, mean of knowledge achievement score and mean of cognitive achievement score, was used to assess statistical significance through unpaired T-test. A p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant using SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).

To assess the students’ perceptions about the flipped classroom, a survey was distributed to the students at the end of academic year 2019–2020. The questions on the survey concerned the effectiveness of the flipped classroom in helping students gain knowledge and improve cognitive thinking [17]. The survey was distributed to students electronically, and their answers were on a 5-point Likert-type scale (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral, 2 = disagree and 1 = strongly disagree). The ethical approval was obtained according to applied policy and procedures. The participants were informed about the process and considered their contribution to the survey as informed consent. All the participants were ensured of the anonymity of their responses and given feedback. Moreover, the input and their perception about the flipped class sessions were conducted after the course completion to ensure their marks would not be affected by their decision

Results

Women made up 90% of cohort 1 and 83% of cohort 2 (Table 1). The mean grade in cohort 1 was significantly lower than that in cohort 2 (p = 0.0193) (Table 2). Of the students in cohort 1, 80% passed the course; of those in cohort 2, 100% passed (Fig 1A). Of the students in cohort 1, six received a grade of A, seven received a B, three received a C, eight received a D and six received an F. Of those in cohort 2, on the other hand, six students received an A, 10 received a B, seven received a C and one received a D, but none failed. Overall, however, the grade-point averages (GPA) for cohort 1 (3.92) and cohort 2 (3.94) did not differ significantly (p = 0.459).

Table 1

Distribution of Students based on gender.

Gender	Cohort 1 (n = 30)	Cohort 2 (n = 24)
Female	90% (27)	83.33%(20)
Male	10% (3)	16.67%(4)
Total	100% (30)	100%(24)

Table 2

Course grade and leaning outcomes achievements among two cohorts.

Group	Grade Achievement [mean (SD)]	Knowledge Achievement [mean (SD)]	Cognitive Achievement [mean (SD)]	Overall GPA in the Program
Cohort 1	72.93 (15.15)	52.26 (11.7)	50.00 (5.28)	3.92
Cohort 1	80.71 (7.93)	82.55 (10.6)	82.45 (6.47)	3.94
p value	< 0.0193	< 0.0001	< 0.0001	0.459

Fig 1

The analysis of students’ achievement in the hematology course.

(a) The range of final grades in the course in cohorts 1 and 2. (b) The performance of students during the final examination in comparison with their achievement in the knowledge domain. (c) The performance of students during the final examination in comparison with their achievement in the cognitive domain. IQR, interquartile range.

In Table 2, the course learning outcomes, which were divided into two domains—main knowledge and cognitive—cohort 2 showed a statistically significant improvement over cohort 1 in both domains (p < 0.0001; Fig 1B and 1C).

With regard to the survey about perception of the flipped classroom as a teaching strategy in the hematology course, 100% of students in cohort 2 responded. For consistency and reliability of items in the survey, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.991 (Table 3). Approximately 80% of students agreed that they had a better understanding of the material and better learning skills and that they achieved the required knowledge and skills in the field. However, 8% of students preferred the traditional approach over the flipped classroom approach, and almost 41% of students believed that the practical sessions should be conducted in flipped classroom sessions (Table 4). The main concern raised by students was the time necessary to prepare and study for this type of teaching. Nearly 83% of students agreed that such sessions required more time to prepare for the class and for the instructor to teach. Finally, most of the students agreed that the flipped classroom sessions improved their logical thinking and provided more information in the field that helped them improve their performance throughout the semester.

Table 3

Cronbach’s alpha analysis of survey items concerning students’ perceptions about the flipped classroom teaching strategy.

Cronbach’s alpha	Cronbach’s alpha based on standardized items	Number of items
0.989	0.991	15

Table 4

Survey about students’ perceptions of the flipped classroom as a teaching strategy (n = 24).

Statement	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree
Flipped classroom session provides better understanding of subject and learning skills	29.17% (7)	54.17%(13)	16.67% (4)	0.00% (0)
Flipped classroom session enhance students intellectual curiosity	20.83% (5)	45.83%(11)	33.33% (8)	0.00% (0)
Flipped classroom session give knowledge and skills that are helpful in field practice	37.50% (9)	45.83%(11)	16.67% (4)	0.00% (0)
Flipped classroom session help in better retaining of the subject	33.33% (8)	45.83%(11)	20.83%(5)	0.00%(0)
Flipped classroom session is preferred over traditional teaching	20.83% (5)	29.17%(7)	41.67%(10)	8.33%(2)
Flipped classroom session should include laboratory exercises	41.67% (10)	29.17%(7)	25.00%(6)	4.17%(1)
Flipped classroom session should have allotted more time for each topic	41.67% (10)	41.67%(10)	16.67%(4)	0.0%(0)
Flipped classroom session topics related to same semester is preferred	45.83% (11)	12.50%(3)	37.50%(9)	4.17%(1)
Flipped classroom session should be in the form of case discussions	45.83% (11)	33.33%(8)	20.83%(5)	0.00%(0)
Flipped classroom session reduces the amount of time needed for study when compared to lectures	33.33% (8)	25.00%(6)	33.33%(8)	4.17%(1)
Flipped classroom session improves the application of knowledge	45.83% (11)	25.00%(6)	29.17%(7)	0.00%(0)
Flipped classroom session develops logical thinking	45.83% (11)	20.83%(5)	20.83%(5)	8.33%(2)
Flipped classroom session provides extra information	41.67% (10)	29.17%(7)	16.67%(4)	12.50%(3)
Flipped classroom session requires a long time for preparation and conduction	45.83% (11)	20.83%(5)	33.33%(8)	0.00%(0)

Discussion

The National Centre for Academic Accreditation and Evaluation of the Education & Training Evaluation Commission in Saudi Arabia recommended using e-learning and blended teaching strategies. Studies of student-centred teaching methods in medical laboratory undergraduate courses are rare [18]. The main purpose of this study was to assess the difference between the flipped classroom—a student-centred learning method—and a didactic teaching strategy in an undergraduate hematology course in a medical laboratory sciences program by evaluating students’ academic performance and their satisfaction with the flipped classroom method. The results suggested that the flipped classroom method had a positive influence on learning outcomes achievement and on learning experience in comparison with the traditional teaching method.

The examination scores for cohort 2 (the students who experienced the flipped classroom) were better than those for cohort 1. The grade-point averages for cohorts 1 and 2 were similar, which indicates that the academic performances of the two cohorts should not have affected the reliability of the results of this study. In addition, both cohorts were presented with the same course materials, test blueprints and assessment methods in the hematology course.

Although the flipped classroom strategy positively affected student achievement in most studies that focused on subjects in the medical field, few studies have focused on medical laboratory courses [16,18-20]. Huang et al. found that the achievement of research objectives was significantly better among interns who attended flipped classroom sessions than those who attended traditional classes [16]. Regarding hematology courses, however, two other studies were conducted in medical programs and showed mixed results [14,21]. Porcaro et al. showed that grades on the final examination improved in the flipped classroom and that the students recommended continually using this teaching strategy in the course [21], whereas Sajid et al. revealed no difference in the students’ grades but did find that students were strongly satisfied with the teaching strategy [14]. In an undergraduate speciality in medical laboratory sciences, this study showed that the flipped classroom and the use of student-centred methods resulted in significantly improved academic performance and a better learning experience. This finding is consistent with that of a study conducted in a pathophysiology course for medical students [22] in which some students attended flipped classroom sessions and others attended sessions in which the traditional teaching approach was used by the same course instructor [22]. The examination scores in flipped classroom sessions were significantly better than those in traditional sessions [22].

The students in this study who attended flipped classroom sessions participated with enthusiasm and energy in the in-class discussions. The low-performing students participated more actively than did low-performing students who attended traditional sessions. This finding indicates that active-learning methods are probably appropriate for all students, regardless of their academic performance. In addition, students were able to read and prepare for course topics at the appropriate times and to overcome difficulties with English, which was used in class and was a second language for most of the students. Herrero and Quiroga demonstrated an improvement in the grades of poor-performing students in the flipped classroom sessions, which suggested that this strategy helped those students both overcome obstacles in understanding the main objectives and prepare to discuss with a course instructor the areas that need to be clarified [22].

The students in this study responded positively to the implementation of the flipped classroom and agreed that it improved their performance. However, students stated that flipped classroom sessions required more time to search for and read about assigned topics and that this could affect their performance in other courses. In addition, half the students agreed that flipped classroom sessions should be continued; whereas 41.67% were neutral and 8.33% disagreed that it should be used as teaching strategy instead of the traditional teaching method (Table 2). In a similar study, students in medical school indicated that the flipped classroom sessions improved their understanding of course material and helped them accomplish the required objectives for the topics, in comparison with traditional teaching [14,16,23].

However, this study revealed some disadvantages of the flipped classroom. First, it was difficult to conduct each session in 50 minutes, especially in as much as the flipped classroom was divided into four parts. Moreover, directing and guiding student groups and assessing the performance of each student during the session were challenging for one instructor.

Limitations and future directions

In this study, the flipped classroom method did not cover all the course modules and activities. The study covered part of the theoretical material; the other theoretical and practical materials were taught through demonstration of the required skills and procedures, and at the end of the semester, the students were assessed through practical activities and written examinations. Thus the effectiveness of the flipped classroom method, integrated with discussion sessions and other student-centred learning methods, may be influenced by the practical material, but that was not studied. Furthermore, the number of students participating in the study was small; a larger number of participants is necessary to validate the results. Finally, MCQs were used on final examinations to assess students’ performance, but questions that require longer answers, such as essays, may better reflect cognitive improvement.

Conclusion

Implementing student-centred learning systems has become necessary in medical education to improve the quality of education. The flipped classroom is a beneficial and powerful teaching strategy in that it helps students gain desirable knowledge and improves life-long learning skills. Student-centred active learning can also improve retention of material, as demonstrated on standard examinations.

24 Feb 2022

9 Mar 2022

I. Editor's Comments:

I.1. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns:

a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study?

It was verbal informed consent as it was apart of the orientation given to the students about the delivery of flipped classrooms, In addition to that the confidentiality of information was kept as the questionnaires distrusted to students were anonymous.

b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure.

The ethical approval was obtained according to applied policy and procedures. The participants were informed about the process and considered their contribution to the survey as informed consent. All the participants were ensured of the anonymity of their responses and given feedback. Moreover, the input and their perception about the flipped class sessions were conducted after the course completion to ensure their marks would not be affected by their decision

I.2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

All were checked, and Ref number 4 was corrected "Simon FA, Aschenbrener CA. Undergraduate medical education accreditation as a driver of lifelong learning. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2005 Summer;25(3):157-61. doi: 10.1002/chp.23. PMID: 16173065."

I.3. Can you please upload an additional copy of your revised manuscript that does not contain any tracked changes or highlighting as your main article file. This will be used in the production process if your manuscript is accepted. Please amend the file type for the file showing your changes to Revised Manuscript w/tracked changes. Please follow this link for more information

It is attached and named as “revised manuscript without track Changes”

The tracked file is named as “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”

I.4. Please ensure that you refer to Table 4 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

Done

I.5. Thank you for including your ethics statement on the online submission form:

"The study has been approved by Medical Education board at Fakeeh College for Medical Sciences".

To help ensure that the wording of your manuscript is suitable for publication, would you please also add this statement at the beginning of the Methods section of your manuscript file.

It is added in the method in the second line of the fist paragraph.

II. Reviewer #1:

II.1. Description of study demographics and statistical methods should be described, in detail,

Cohort 1 included 30 students (27 students were female and 3 students were males) enrolled in the haematology course during the academic year 2018–2019, which was taught according to the traditional teaching strategy, in which a 50-minute lecture was presented, and the students gave full attention to the instructor. Cohort 2 included 24 students (20 students were female and 4 students were males) enrolled in the course during the academic year 2019–2020, part of which was taught according to the flipped classroom strategy.

Table 1 is added

II.2. in the Methods section. Saying "A p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant according to calculations using SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA)" is not sufficient.

A descriptive statistical analysis, including overall grade, mean of knowledge achievement score and mean of cognitive achievement score, was used to assess statistical significance through unpaired T-test.

One table is inserted to present the difference between the two cohort in students' mean score of knowledge and cognitive domain.

II.3. What method was used?

Done, as there were two different cohort, Independent sample T-test was utilized to show the significance of the study

II.4. What calculations> How can the reader understand what was done?

It is explained in lines 176 to 180. The statistical method was added

II.5. Shouldn't all the p values be in the Table?

One table is presented to show the significant if t-test

II.6. Authors says number of students is a limitation (certainly it was, the n value is extremely small), but that is also complicated by the extreme female sex-bias in the sample.

At the very least, another limitation is that it is unknown if a more sex-balanced, or male sex-biased, sample would yield similar results. Please clarify these issues.

From author point of view , sex- biased here is already comparable as there is small percentage of male students in both cohort (4 students in cohort 1 and 3 in another cohort and this make the two cohort in more homogenous and actually this bias is non controllable as it is related to the cohort and the number of male students in the batch.

III. Reviewer #2:

Methodology

III.1. Cohort 1 included 30 students enrolled in the hematology course during the 129 academic year 2018–2019, which was taught according to the traditional teaching strategy, in which a 50-minute lecture was presented, and the students gave full attention to the instructor. Cohort 2 included 24 students enrolled in the course during the academic year 2019–2020, part of which was taught according to the flipped classroom strategy.

In the course for cohort 2, the flipped classroom was the teaching strategy for half of the course topics; for the other half, the course was conducted according to traditional didactic

This is not clear how students were recruited for participation in lecture session and Flipped session 2nd, it is also not clear how many topics of hematology course were flipped , 1, 2 or 3 etc.

In the course for cohort 2, the flipped classroom was the teaching method for the theoretical part of the course, which is considered half of the course topics. In contrast, the other half, the practical sessions, were conducted in dedicated teaching, demonstration and performing experiments. The flipped classroom sessions were conducted as published timetable and piloted in three phases: pre-class, in-class and after-class activities.

III.2. Line 149 In the post-class phase, students were administered a quiz that was a mixture of multiple choice (MCQs) and true-or-false questions. It means, formative assessment was done immediately after the Flipped session. Was it done for lecture session, it is not clear

In the post-class phase, students in cohort 2 were administered a formative assessment that was a mixture of multiple-choice (MCQs) and true-or-false questions. The formative was conducted on an electronic platform (Blackboard) and graded automatically after submitting the answer; thereafter, the instructor presented a review lecture on the corresponding topic with the feedback about points raised during the in-class discussion and formative questions.

Acknowledgement

III.3. Line 296-9

The author thanks Dr Hani Elsayed, associate professor at Fakeeh College of Medical Sciences, 297 Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for supporting and analyzing the data, and Dr Amira Ismael, assistant professor in the Medical Education Department, Fakeeh College of Medical Sciences, for reviewing this article and providing valuable feedback.

Dr Hani Elsayed gave me the SAS software and showed me how I could use it to conduct the analysis. Dr Amira Ismael reviewed the article from the point of medical education view and expert in reviewing reports before sending them to a journal for submission to minimize the comments. The College requests this process.

IV. Reviewer #3:

This study presents findings from a comparison of flipped classroom versus lecture based teaching in an undergraduate hematology course. In one year a class session was delivered by lecture while for the cohort the following year it was delivered by flipped class with an active learning session. An improvement in performance in final exam was found in with the flipped class and students perceptions of the experience were generally positive.

Specific comments:

IV.1. This study is limited as it parallels what has already been presented in multiple existing studies. Additional detail would have to be provided to demonstrate why the subject material here differentiates this from similar studies and what novelty is added to the literature.

I agree that many studies are conducted to assess the effectiveness of flipped classrooms. However, few studies were focused on the medical laboratory field and hematology course as one of the main subjects in the area. In Saudi Arabia, these new strategies are introduced to MBBS programs, and few institutions started to introduce them to undergraduate nursing programs. Such studies in specific medical professions could encourage other colleagues and coordinators to integrate student-centered learning in their teaching strategy. So, the novelty in this study is related to the context and the course introduced, as to our knowledge this is the first study to apply flipped classes as method of teaching in MLS context

IV.2. A very small number of students is studied – 30 compared with 24. There is a dramatic difference with 6 students receiving an F in the lecture group and no students receiving an F in the flipped class group.

It is difficult to determine from the description provided how much of the course was converted to flipped class. It looks like it was only a single session, therefore it is hard to comprehend that this was responsible for the dramatic change. Repeating the study and increasing the number of participants would solidify this data.

I agree, and it is mentioned and suggested in the study limitation. In addition, the number of enrolled students to the program is limited to around 25.

IV.3. In relation to the comment above - the author needs to provide more detail on the study design – both a clear step by step comparison for the lecture vs flipped session plus assessments as well as how these sessions were incorporated into the whole course and how much of the final exam related to this session.

It is mentioned in the methods:

In the course for cohort 2, the flipped classroom was the teaching method for the theoretical part of the course, which is considered half of the course topics. In contrast, the other half, the practical sessions, were conducted in dedicated teaching, demonstration and performing experiments. The flipped classroom strategy was introduced to students in cooperation at the beginning of the semester. The sessions were conducted as published timetable and piloted in three phases: pre-class, in-class and after-class activities.

At the end of the course, both cohorts took a final theoretical examination composed of 40 MCQs and matching questions based on the objectives presented at the beginning of the relative academic year. The achievement in intended learning outcomes was analyzed by calculating the difficulty index for each question by dividing the total scored mark of the correct answer in each question by the highest possible mark of the question multiplied by the total number of students.

Submitted filename: rebuttal letter.docx

Click here for additional data file.

4 Apr 2022

Effect of flipped classroom approach in the teaching of a haematology course

PONE-D-21-37375R1

Dear Dr. Qutob,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Di Zou

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: It appears that my comments have been addressed; therefore, the paper can be accepted. I have no other comments.

Reviewer #2: authors have revised the manuscript and previously all the points / comments he/she has fulfilled

Reviewer #3: Comments were addressed.

There is a typo in Table 2 - both rows are labeled as Cohort 1 - the second should be Cohort 2?

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

13 Apr 2022

PONE-D-21-37375R1

Effect of Flipped Classroom Approach in The Teaching of A Hematology Course

Dear Dr. Qutob:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Di Zou

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE