{"title":"Effectiveness evaluation of flipped classroom in emergency medicine online teaching for medical undergraduates.","authors":"Fan Lu, Zhiquan Luo, Ting Huang, Xiuxiu Lv, Huadong Wang, Yiyang Wang, Haiyan Yin","doi":"10.1080/0142159X.2023.2273780","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Due to policy changes in the context of COVID-19 pandemic, online teaching has become the main form of class in many Chinese universities. Flipped classroom has been widely used in other disciplines, but there is a dearth of evidence available about the use in online teaching of emergency medicine. This study aimed to develop a flipped classroom for online emergency medicine teaching and evaluate its effectiveness by comparing it with traditional lecture-based online teaching.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 62 clinical medical undergraduates from Jinan University participated in this study from September to December in 2022. An online flipped classroom approach was developed (FC group, <i>n</i> = 31). Traditional lecture-based online teaching was applied as a contrast (LBT group, <i>n</i> = 31). The undergraduates completed examinations and questionnaires at the end of the course. A course experience questionnaire and course examination score were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the flipped classroom approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Regarding the five dimensions of the course experience questionnaire, the scores for good teaching (3.47 ± 0.50 vs. 2.34 ± 0.48, <i>p</i> < .001), appropriate assessment (3.31 ± 0.68 vs. 2.95 ± 0.71, <i>p</i> = .043) and generic skills (3.16 ± 0.60 vs. 2.72 ± 0.39, <i>p</i> < .001) were higher for the FC group than for the LBT group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in clear goals and standards, and appropriate workload. The undergraduates in the FC group showed significantly higher overall satisfaction than those in the LBT group (3.52 ± 0.1.03 vs. 2.87 ± 0.92, <i>p</i> = .012). The examination scores (77.936 ± 11.573 vs. 70.484 ± 7.434, <i>p</i> < .001), especially the scores for questions related to case analysis (33.032 ± 5.363 vs. 26.968 ± 7.657, <i>p</i> < .001), were significantly higher in the FC group than in the LBT group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The flipped classroom for online teaching was efficient in improving undergraduates' emergency medical academic performance and promoting the development of clinical case analysis ability. These findings provide an alternative flipped classroom approach for online teaching of emergency medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":18643,"journal":{"name":"Medical Teacher","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Teacher","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2023.2273780","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Due to policy changes in the context of COVID-19 pandemic, online teaching has become the main form of class in many Chinese universities. Flipped classroom has been widely used in other disciplines, but there is a dearth of evidence available about the use in online teaching of emergency medicine. This study aimed to develop a flipped classroom for online emergency medicine teaching and evaluate its effectiveness by comparing it with traditional lecture-based online teaching.
Methods: A total of 62 clinical medical undergraduates from Jinan University participated in this study from September to December in 2022. An online flipped classroom approach was developed (FC group, n = 31). Traditional lecture-based online teaching was applied as a contrast (LBT group, n = 31). The undergraduates completed examinations and questionnaires at the end of the course. A course experience questionnaire and course examination score were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the flipped classroom approach.
Results: Regarding the five dimensions of the course experience questionnaire, the scores for good teaching (3.47 ± 0.50 vs. 2.34 ± 0.48, p < .001), appropriate assessment (3.31 ± 0.68 vs. 2.95 ± 0.71, p = .043) and generic skills (3.16 ± 0.60 vs. 2.72 ± 0.39, p < .001) were higher for the FC group than for the LBT group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in clear goals and standards, and appropriate workload. The undergraduates in the FC group showed significantly higher overall satisfaction than those in the LBT group (3.52 ± 0.1.03 vs. 2.87 ± 0.92, p = .012). The examination scores (77.936 ± 11.573 vs. 70.484 ± 7.434, p < .001), especially the scores for questions related to case analysis (33.032 ± 5.363 vs. 26.968 ± 7.657, p < .001), were significantly higher in the FC group than in the LBT group.
Conclusions: The flipped classroom for online teaching was efficient in improving undergraduates' emergency medical academic performance and promoting the development of clinical case analysis ability. These findings provide an alternative flipped classroom approach for online teaching of emergency medicine.
期刊介绍：
Medical Teacher provides accounts of new teaching methods, guidance on structuring courses and assessing achievement, and serves as a forum for communication between medical teachers and those involved in general education. In particular, the journal recognizes the problems teachers have in keeping up-to-date with the developments in educational methods that lead to more effective teaching and learning at a time when the content of the curriculum—from medical procedures to policy changes in health care provision—is also changing. The journal features reports of innovation and research in medical education, case studies, survey articles, practical guidelines, reviews of current literature and book reviews. All articles are peer reviewed.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
