A Comparative Study of Flipped Classroom (FC) Teaching versus Traditional Didactic Classroom (TDC) Teaching among Undergraduate Medical Students: A Two-period Crossover Quasi-experimental Study

Roy Rajib; Dr. Lata

doi:10.51168/45xr0f90

Autori

Roy Rajib Professor & HOD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, ESIC Medical College, Bihta, Patna, Bihar, India
Dr. Lata Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, ESIC Medical College, Bihta, Patna, Bihar, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51168/45xr0f90

Cuvinte cheie:

active learning, crossover study, undergraduate medical students, medical education, traditional didactic teaching, flipped classroom

Rezumat

Background: Flipped classroom (FC) teaching promotes pre-class learning and uses classroom time for interaction and application, whereas traditional didactic classroom (TDC) teaching relies primarily on lectures.

Aim: To compare the effectiveness of FC and TDC teaching in improving knowledge among second-year MBBS students and assess student and faculty perceptions of FC.

Methods: This interventional medical education study used a two-period crossover design involving 100 second-year MBBS students at ESIC Medical College and Hospital, Bihta, Patna, Bihar, India, from March to June 2025. Students received FC and TDC teaching on antepartum haemorrhage and postpartum haemorrhage. Knowledge was assessed using 20-item multiple-choice question pre-tests and post-tests. Student and faculty perceptions were assessed using 5-point Likert-scale questionnaires.

Results: Knowledge scores improved significantly after both teaching approaches (p < 0.001). In the first assessment, mean scores increased from 10.78 ± 1.70 to 13.48 ± 1.35 with FC and from 10.10 ± 1.60 to 11.76 ± 1.45 with TDC. In the second assessment, scores increased from 10.82 ± 1.56 to 14.52 ± 1.26 with FC and from 10.38 ± 1.44 to 12.16 ± 1.18 with TDC. Student feedback favoured interactive methods and learning resources, while faculty identified additional time, resource and training requirements.

Conclusion: Both approaches improved knowledge scores, with greater absolute improvements observed with FC.

Recommendation: Larger multicentre studies using rigorous allocation methods and assessing long-term outcomes are recommended to validate these findings.

Biografii autori

Roy Rajib, Professor & HOD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, ESIC Medical College, Bihta, Patna, Bihar, India

is Professor and Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at ESIC Medical College, Bihta, Patna, Bihar, India. His qualifications and research interests should be added by the author.
Dr. Lata, Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, ESIC Medical College, Bihta, Patna, Bihar, India

is Assistant Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at ESIC Medical College, Bihta, Patna, Bihar, India. Her qualifications and research interests should be added by the author.

Referințe

1. Bergmann J, Sams A. Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education; 2012.

2. Viveka S, Sagar TV, Sudha MJ. Effectiveness of flipped classroom for teaching anatomy and students' perceptions. Natl J Clin Anat. 2017;6(1):71-81. doi:10.1055/s-0039-1700730. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1700730

3. Tune JD, Sturek M, Basile DP. Flipped classroom model improves graduate student performance in cardiovascular, respiratory, and renal physiology. Adv Physiol Educ. 2013;37(4):316-320. doi:10.1152/advan.00091.2013. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00091.2013

4. Ramnanan CJ, Pound LD. Advances in medical education and practice: student perceptions of the flipped classroom. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2017;8:63-73. doi:10.2147/AMEP.S109037. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S109037

5. Chen F, Lui AM, Martinelli SM. A systematic review of the effectiveness of flipped classrooms in medical education. Med Educ. 2017;51(6):585-597. doi:10.1111/medu.13272. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13272

6. Andrade-Castellanos CA, Yanowsky-Escatell FG. Impact of the flipped classroom on medical education: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Rev Med Chil. 2026;154(1):1-12. doi:10.4067/S0034-98872026000100001. PMID:41891730. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0034-98872026000100001

7. Hamdan N, McKnight P, McKnight K, Arfstrom KM. A Review of Flipped Learning. Arlington, VA: Flipped Learning Network; 2013.

8. Dwan K, Li T, Altman DG, Elbourne D. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised crossover trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4378. doi:10.1136/bmj.l4378. PMID:31366597. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4378

9. Hopewell S, Chan AW, Collins GS, et al. CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials. JAMA. 2025;333(22):1998-2005. doi:10.1001/jama.2025.4347. PMID:40228499. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2025.4347