Abstract
Objective: To 1. implement flipped classroom rheumatology teaching for undergraduate
education. 2. Evaluate outcomes of teaching using OSCE assessment and student perceived effectiveness
and satisfaction survey.
Methods: The flipped classroom education, 55-students, was conducted in 3 phases. Phase 1: Carried
out in the students’ own time. Web links were emailed to assist exposure of the instructional
part of the lesson online. Phase 2: Interactive in-class activity to share personal reflection and reinforce
the key aspects. Phase 3: A simulated OSCE assessment. A cohort of 56-students, who were
taught in the last educational year on the same topics according to standard teaching protocols,
were included as control group. The clinical Outcomes were assessed using the scores of the OSCE
examination model. Academic outcomes included the engagement measure as well as the students’
answers to perceived effectiveness and satisfaction survey.
Results: There was no significant difference regarding demographics between the 2 students’
groups. There was a significant improvement (p< 0.05) in the flipped learning, in contrast to the
control group, in terms of clinical (OSCE score) as well as communication skills. Student perceived
effectiveness and satisfaction was significantly higher among the flipped learning (p< 0.05). Scores
from the flipped learning cohort showed a state of engagement significantly higher than the control
group (p< 0.01).
Conclusion: Flipped learning implementation musculoskeletal learning successfully demonstrated
a promising platform for using technology to make better use of the students' time, and for increasing
their satisfaction. Active learning increases student engagement and can lead to improved retention
of knowledge.
Keywords:
Flipped learning, undergraduates, teaching, rheumatology, medical education, OSCE.
[4]
Taylor DC, Hamdy H. Adult learning theories: Implications for learning and teaching in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 83. Med Teach 2013; 35(11): e1561-72.
[5]
Graffam B. Active learning in medical education: Strategies for beginning implementation. Med Teach 2007; 29(1): 38-42.
[6]
Committee on the accreditation of canadian medical schools.
CACMS standards and elements: Standards for accreditation of
medical education programs leading to the M.D. Degree. Ottawa,
Canada; 2015.
[8]
Goh L, Samanta A, Cavendish S, Heaney D. Rheumatology curriculum: Passport to the future successful handling of the musculoskeletal burden? Rheumatol 2004; 43: 1468-72.
[9]
Day C, Yeh A, Franko O, Ramirez M, Krupat E. Musculoskeletal medicine: An assessment of the attitudes and knowledge of medical students at Harvard medical school. Acad Medicine 2007; 82(5): 452-7.
[10]
Freedman K, Bernstein J. Educational deficiencies in musculoskeletal medicine. J Bone Joint Surg American 2002; 84(4): 604-8.
[11]
McLaughlin JE, Roth MT, Glatt DM, et al. The flipped classroom: A course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health professions school. Acad Med 2014; 89(2): 236-43.
[12]
O’Flaherty J, Phillips C. The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. Ind High Educ 2015; 25: 85-95.
[13]
Jeffries PR (Ed.) (2007). Simulation in nursing education. New
York: National League for Nursing.
[15]
Pierce R, Fox J. Vodcasts and active-learning exercises in a “flipped classroom” model of a renal pharmacotherapy module. Am J Pharm Educ 2012; 76(10): 196.
[16]
de Fátima Wardenski R, de Espíndola MB, Struchiner M, Giannella TR. Blended learning in biochemistry education: Analysis of medical students perceptions. Biochem Mol Biol Educ 2012; 40(4): 222-8.
[17]
Veeramani R, Madhugiri VS, Chand P. Perception of MBBS students to “flipped class room” approach in neuroanatomy module. Anat Cell Biol 2015; 48(2): 138-43.
[20]
Mazur E. Education. Farewell, lecture? Science 2009; 323(5910): 50-1.
[22]
Johnson L. The sea change before us. Educ Rev 2006; 41: 72-3.
[23]
Oblinger G, Oblinger J, Eds. Educating the net generation. Washington, DC: Educause 2005.
[24]
Admiraal W, Huizenga J, Akkerman S, Dam G. The concept of flow in collaborative game-based learning. Comput Human Behav 2011; 27(3): 1185-94.
[25]
McCoy L, Pettit R, Lewis J, Allgood J, Bay C, Schwartz F. Evaluating medical student engagement during virtual patient simulations: A sequential, mixed methods study. BMC Med Educ 2016; 16: 20.
Download PDF Flyer