翻转教学与检索实践相结合促进学生学习。

IF 1.7 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Advances in Physiology Education Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-06 DOI:10.1152/advan.00080.2024
Chaya Gopalan
{"title":"翻转教学与检索实践相结合促进学生学习。","authors":"Chaya Gopalan","doi":"10.1152/advan.00080.2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Flipped teaching (FT) is an instructional approach centered around students, displacing traditional lectures from the classroom to make room for active learning. Retrieval practice can enhance content recall. This study investigated the effectiveness of lecture-style teaching (TT), FT, and a combination of retrieval practice with FT (FTR) in a physiology course over four consecutive semesters. Student performance in the FT (92.78 ± 3.93) and FTR (92.98 ± 3.73) methods surpassed that of the TT method (89.28 ± 4.67; <i>P</i> < 0.01), with a notable correlation between science grade point averages and the instructional methods employed (<i>P</i> < 0.01). Analysis of the impact of teaching methods on different segments of the class revealed higher scores for both upper and lower halves in the FT (95.78 ± 1.85 Upper; 89.52 ± 2.79 Lower) and FTR (95.95 ± 1.48 Upper; 89.89 ± 2.68 Lower) compared to the TT group (92.44 ± 1.76 Upper; 85.85 ± 4.43 Lower; <i>P</i> < 0.0001). The gender-based evaluation indicated similar performance between male and female students across the teaching methods tested. Although survey data suggested a preference for TT (100%) over FT (58%) or FTR (85%), student performance contradicted this preference. These findings underscore the effectiveness of FT and FTR methods compared to traditional instructional modalities, with male and female students responding similarly to the teaching approaches. Despite student preferences favoring TT, actual performance indicates that FT and FTR methods enhance student learning outcomes.<b>NEW & NOTEWORTHY</b> Flipped teaching (FT) actively engages students and promotes information retrieval. This study compared FT and traditional teaching (TT) in a graduate physiology course, showing better student outcomes with FT and FT plus retrieval practice (FTR). Gender had no impact: both male and female students performed equally well. Although students preferred TT, they learned better with FT and FTR. This suggests FT and FTR are more effective than traditional lectures.</p>","PeriodicalId":50852,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Physiology Education","volume":" ","pages":"147-153"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Enhancing student learning with flipped teaching and retrieval practice integration.\",\"authors\":\"Chaya Gopalan\",\"doi\":\"10.1152/advan.00080.2024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Flipped teaching (FT) is an instructional approach centered around students, displacing traditional lectures from the classroom to make room for active learning. Retrieval practice can enhance content recall. This study investigated the effectiveness of lecture-style teaching (TT), FT, and a combination of retrieval practice with FT (FTR) in a physiology course over four consecutive semesters. Student performance in the FT (92.78 ± 3.93) and FTR (92.98 ± 3.73) methods surpassed that of the TT method (89.28 ± 4.67; <i>P</i> < 0.01), with a notable correlation between science grade point averages and the instructional methods employed (<i>P</i> < 0.01). Analysis of the impact of teaching methods on different segments of the class revealed higher scores for both upper and lower halves in the FT (95.78 ± 1.85 Upper; 89.52 ± 2.79 Lower) and FTR (95.95 ± 1.48 Upper; 89.89 ± 2.68 Lower) compared to the TT group (92.44 ± 1.76 Upper; 85.85 ± 4.43 Lower; <i>P</i> < 0.0001). The gender-based evaluation indicated similar performance between male and female students across the teaching methods tested. Although survey data suggested a preference for TT (100%) over FT (58%) or FTR (85%), student performance contradicted this preference. These findings underscore the effectiveness of FT and FTR methods compared to traditional instructional modalities, with male and female students responding similarly to the teaching approaches. Despite student preferences favoring TT, actual performance indicates that FT and FTR methods enhance student learning outcomes.<b>NEW & NOTEWORTHY</b> Flipped teaching (FT) actively engages students and promotes information retrieval. This study compared FT and traditional teaching (TT) in a graduate physiology course, showing better student outcomes with FT and FT plus retrieval practice (FTR). Gender had no impact: both male and female students performed equally well. Although students preferred TT, they learned better with FT and FTR. This suggests FT and FTR are more effective than traditional lectures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50852,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Physiology Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"147-153\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Physiology Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00080.2024\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Physiology Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00080.2024","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

翻转教学(FT)是一种以学生为中心的教学方法,取代了课堂上的传统讲座,为主动学习腾出空间。检索练习可以增强内容回忆。本研究在连续四个学期的生理学课程中,探讨了授课式教学(TT)、记忆记忆练习(FT)以及检索练习与记忆记忆练习(FTR)相结合的有效性。FT法(92.78p±3.93)和FTR法(92.98p±3.73)优于TT法(89.28p±4.67);p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Enhancing student learning with flipped teaching and retrieval practice integration.

Flipped teaching (FT) is an instructional approach centered around students, displacing traditional lectures from the classroom to make room for active learning. Retrieval practice can enhance content recall. This study investigated the effectiveness of lecture-style teaching (TT), FT, and a combination of retrieval practice with FT (FTR) in a physiology course over four consecutive semesters. Student performance in the FT (92.78 ± 3.93) and FTR (92.98 ± 3.73) methods surpassed that of the TT method (89.28 ± 4.67; P < 0.01), with a notable correlation between science grade point averages and the instructional methods employed (P < 0.01). Analysis of the impact of teaching methods on different segments of the class revealed higher scores for both upper and lower halves in the FT (95.78 ± 1.85 Upper; 89.52 ± 2.79 Lower) and FTR (95.95 ± 1.48 Upper; 89.89 ± 2.68 Lower) compared to the TT group (92.44 ± 1.76 Upper; 85.85 ± 4.43 Lower; P < 0.0001). The gender-based evaluation indicated similar performance between male and female students across the teaching methods tested. Although survey data suggested a preference for TT (100%) over FT (58%) or FTR (85%), student performance contradicted this preference. These findings underscore the effectiveness of FT and FTR methods compared to traditional instructional modalities, with male and female students responding similarly to the teaching approaches. Despite student preferences favoring TT, actual performance indicates that FT and FTR methods enhance student learning outcomes.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Flipped teaching (FT) actively engages students and promotes information retrieval. This study compared FT and traditional teaching (TT) in a graduate physiology course, showing better student outcomes with FT and FT plus retrieval practice (FTR). Gender had no impact: both male and female students performed equally well. Although students preferred TT, they learned better with FT and FTR. This suggests FT and FTR are more effective than traditional lectures.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
19.00%
发文量
100
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Physiology Education promotes and disseminates educational scholarship in order to enhance teaching and learning of physiology, neuroscience and pathophysiology. The journal publishes peer-reviewed descriptions of innovations that improve teaching in the classroom and laboratory, essays on education, and review articles based on our current understanding of physiological mechanisms. Submissions that evaluate new technologies for teaching and research, and educational pedagogy, are especially welcome. The audience for the journal includes educators at all levels: K–12, undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs.
期刊最新文献
How to get recognition for peer review? Talk less, listen more. Ultrasound technology as a tool to teach basic concepts of physiology and anatomy in undergraduate and graduate courses: a systematic review. A qualitative survey on perception of medical students on the use of large language models for educational purposes. Study while you sleep: using targeted memory reactivation as an independent research project for undergraduates.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1