Tang F, Chen C, Zhu Y, et al. Comparison between flipped classroom and lecture-based classroom in ophthalmology clerkship. Med Educ Online. 2017;22(1):1395679.
Table 1.
Demographic information of medical students who participated in an ophthalmology clerkship study.
| FG | TG | Statistics | df | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of students | 48 | 47 | |||
| Gender | 0.752a | ||||
| Male | 25 (52.1%) | 26 (55.3%) |
X2 =0.1 (df =1) |
1 | |
| Female | 23 (47.9) | 21 (44.7%) | |||
| Age (years old) | 22.3 ± 0.6 | 22.6 ± 0.4 | t=–1.23 (df=93) |
93 | 0.223b |
FG: flipped classroom group, TG: traditional lecture-based classroom group, df = degrees of freedom
aThe two groups were compared using the Pearson Chi-Square test.
bThe two groups were compared using Independent samples t test.
Table 2.
Comparison of students’ perspectives between flipped classroom and traditional lecture-based classroom in ocular trauma clerkship
| Items | Group | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Statistics | P valuea | Effect sizeb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The course improves my learning motivation. | FG | 0 (0%) | 12 (29.2%) | 29 (70.8%) | U=511.5 | 0.012* | 0.60 |
| TG | 1 (2.8%) | 19 (54.3%) | 15 (42.9%) | ||||
| The course is helpful for understanding the course material. | FG | 0 (0%) | 22 (48.8%) | 21 (51.2%) | U=536.5 | 0.029* | 0.51 |
| TG | 3 (8.6%) | 23 (65.7%) | 9 (25.7%) | ||||
| The course is helpful for the final examination. | FG | 1 (2.4%) | 20 (48.8%) | 20 (48.8%) | U=443 | 0.001** | 0.70 |
| TG | 4 (11.4%) | 26 (74.3%) | 5 (14.3%) | ||||
| I am satisfied with the course. | FG | 0 (0%) | 18 (43.9%) | 23 (56.1%) | U=675 | 0.610 | 0.10 |
| TG | 1 (2.9%) | 16 (45.7%) | 18 (51.4%) | ||||
| I like this teaching method. | FG | 0 (0%) | 18 (43.9%) | 23 (56.1%) | U=622.5 | 0.253 | 0.23 |
| TG | 0 (0%) | 20 (57.1%) | 15 (42.9%) | ||||
| I would like this teaching method to be applied in the future ophthalmology curriculum. |
FG | 1 (2.9%) | 21 (51.2%)) | 18 (43.9%) | U=638.5 | 0.351 | 0.19 |
| TG | 1 (2.9%) | 15 (42.8%) | 19 (54.3%) | ||||
| This course gives me too much burden and pressure. | FG | 8 (19.5%) | 23 (56.1%) | 10 (24.4%) | U=483.0 | 0.007** | 0.58 |
| TG | 15 (42.9%) | 18 (51.4%) | 2 (5.7%) | ||||
| This course occupies too much of my spare time. | FG | 9 (22.0%) | 24 (58.5%) | 8 (19.5%) | U=601.5 | 0.169 | 0.28 |
| TG | 11 (31.4%) | 21 (60.0%) | 3 (8.6 %) | ||||
| I need to spend a lot of energy on this course. | FG | 16 (39.9%) | 25 (60.1%) | 0 (0%) | U=669.5 | 0.559 | 0.12 |
| TG | 16 (45.7%) | 19 (54.3%) | 0 (14.3%) |
FG: flipped classroom group, TG: traditional lecture-based classroom group
Students’ answers to the survey questions were quantified using a three-point Likert scale (-1, disagree; 0, neutral; 1, agree). Data presented indicate the number (percentage) of students that chose the answer.
aThe two groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. *P<0.05, **P<0.01
bCohen’s D effect sizes were calculated with the Effect size calculator for non-parametric tests (40)
Table 3.
Comparison of students’ self-perceived competence after flipped classroom methods and traditional lecture-based classroom in ocular trauma clerkship
| Items | Group | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Statistics | P valuea | Effect sizeb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The course improves my communication ability. | FG | 1 (2.4%) | 20 (48.8%) | 20 (48.8%) | U=544 | 0.037* | 0.42 |
| TG | 2 (5.7%) | 24 (68.6%) | 9 (25.7%) | (Z=-2.087) | |||
| The course improves my clinical thinking ability. | FG | 1 (2.4%) | 11 (26.8%) | 29 (70.7%) | U=555.5 | 0.049* | 0.40 |
| TG | 2 (5.7%) | 16 (45.7%) | 17 (48.6%) | (Z=-1.971) | |||
| The course improves my ability to acquire knowledge. | FG | 0 (0%) | 12 (29.3%) | 29 (70.7%) | U=654.5 | 0.446 | 0.15 |
| TG | 1 (2.9%) | 14 (40%) | 20 (57.1%) | (Z=-0.762) | |||
| The course improves my ability to give presentations and express my opinions. | FG | 0 (0%) | 21 (51.2%) | 20 (48.8%) | U=705.5 | 0.886 | 0.03 |
| TG | 0 (0%) | 22 (62.9%) | 13 (37.1%) | (Z=-0.143) | |||
| The course improves my ability in scientific thinking. | FG | 2 (4.9%) | 22 (53.6%) | 17 (41.5%) | U=660.5 | 0.500 | 0.14 |
| TG | 1 (2.8%) | 17 (48.6%) | 17 (48.6%) | (Z=-0.675) |
FG: flipped classroom group, TG: traditional lecture-based classroom group.
Students’ answers to the survey questions were quantified using a three-point Likert scale (-1, disagree; 0, neutral; 1, agree). Data presented indicate the number (percentage) of students who chose the answer.
aThe two groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. *P<0.05.
bCohen’s D effect sizes were calculated with the Effect size calculator for non-parametric tests (40)
https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2017.1395679
When the above article was first published online, the tables were published without footnotes. This has now been corrected in the online version as below.