Table 2.
Comparison of students’ perspectives and self-perceived competence between TG and CG
| Items | TG | CG | P valuea |
|---|---|---|---|
| Learning motivation | 3.5 ± 0.6 | 4.4 ± 0.6 | 0.000 |
| Understanding the course | 4.0 ± 0.6 | 4.2 ± 0.6 | 0.026 |
| Student-teacher interaction | 3.0 ± 0.5 | 4.5 ± 0.6 | 0.000 |
| Occupies too much spare time | 3.3 ± 0.5 | 4.2 ± 0.6 | 0.000 |
| Final examination | 3.5 ± 0.7 | 4.2 ± 0.6 | 0.000 |
| Communication ability | 3.5 ± 0.6 | 4.4 ± 0.7 | 0.000 |
| Clinical thinking ability | 3.4 ± 0.6 | 4.3 ± 0.5 | 0.000 |
| Self-learning ability | 3.1 ± 0.8 | 4.3 ± 0.6 | 0.000 |
| Teamwork ability | 2.9 ± 0.6 | 4.6 ± 0.6 | 0.000 |
| Knowledge acquisition ability | 3.5 ± 0.6 | 4.5 ± 0.7 | 0.000 |
| Presentation and expression ability | 3.5 ± 0.6 | 4.3 ± 0.5 | 0.000 |
TG traditional lecture-based classroom group, CG combination group of flipped classroom with problem-based learning
According to the degree of improvement, scores were divided into 5 grades, from 1 point (poor) to 5 points (excellent)
aThe two groups were compared using independent samples t test