Table 1. Survey that was sent to the students about the use of flipped classroom in respiratory pathophysiology.
The model of class used for respiratory pathophysiology is more enjoyable than the usual master class
- Completely agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Completely disagree
The model of class used for respiratory pathophysiology contributes to the student increasing his/her interest by the subject
- Completely agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Completely disagree
The model of class used for respiratory pathophysiology contributes to increased learning
- Completely agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Completely disagree
The model of class used for respiratory pathophysiology decreases the effort of learning
- Completely agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Completely disagree
Would you like to find this model of class in other subject in the future?
- Yes
- Depending of the subject and the teacher
- Don’t care
- No
Do you think the flipped classroom model should replace the use of master class?
- Yes
- Yes, but partially
- Don’t care
- No
Table 2. Baseline comparison of both groups of students.
|
2017 (control)
N=229
|
2018 (intervention**)
N=201
|
P
|
Age
20 years
> 20 years
|
190 (83%)
39 (17%)
|
150 (75%)
51 (25%)
|
0.043
|
Gender
Male
Female
|
73 (32%)
156 (68%)
|
78 (39%)
123 (61%)
|
0.156
|
Results in General Pathology*
|
58.9 (0.9)
|
59.2 (0.9)
|
0.830
|
Comparisons between groups were done with the Chi-square test (categorical variables) and Student’s t test (continuous variables).
P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results are expressed as mean (standard error of mean) or number (percentage).
* out of 100 (N=218 in 2017 and 176 in 2018)
**Intervention: Flipped classroom in Respiratory Pathophysiology.
Table 3. Comparison of the results obtained in respiratory and blood pathophysiology in the control and the intervention group*.
|
2017 (control)
N=229
|
2018 (intervention**)
N=201
|
P
|
Blood Pathophysiology
|
48.8 (1.4)
|
47.9 (1.4)
|
0.649
|
Respiratory Pathophysiology
|
42.1 (1.4)
|
48 (1.5)
|
0.004
|
Groups were compared with the Student’s t test.
P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results are expressed as mean (standard error of mean).
*out of 100
**Intervention: Flipped classroom in Respiratory Pathophysiology.
Table 4. Evaluation of the impact of flipped classroom in respiratory pathophysiology teaching in students above and below the median in general pathology*.
|
2017 (control)
N=229
|
2018 (intervention**)
N=201
|
P
|
Blood Pathophysiology
Below median
Above median
|
39.4 (1.8)
59.5 (1.8)
|
38.2 (2.0)
58.1 (1.8)
|
0.647
0.573
|
Respiratory Pathophysiology
Below median
Above median
|
32.9 (1.7)
53.5 (1.9)
|
39.8 (1.9)
57.2 (2.2)
|
0.009
0.200
|
Groups were compared with the Student’s t test.
P < 0.017 was considered statistically significant.
Results are expressed as mean (standard error of mean).
*out of 100. Median score in General Pathology was 59 in 2017 and 60 in 2018.
**Intervention: Flipped classroom in Respiratory Pathophysiology.
Table 5. Evaluation of the impact of flipped classroom in the teaching of respiratory pathophysiology according to gender*.
|
2017 (control)
N=229
|
2018 (intervention**)
N=201
|
P
|
Blood Pathophysiology
Male
Female
|
52.0 (2.3)
47.4 (1.7)
|
48.7 (2.1)
47.5 (1.9)
|
0.301
0.981
|
Respiratory Pathophysiology
Male
Female
|
44.1 (2.4)
41.1 (1.7)
|
52.5 (2.1)
45.2 (2.0)
|
0.010
0.125
|
Groups were compared with the Student’s t test.
P < 0.017 was considered statistically significant.
Results are expressed as mean (standard error of mean).
*out of 100
**Intervention: Flipped classroom in Respiratory Pathophysiology.
Table 6. Comparison of the academic results between male and female students.*
|
Male
|
Female
|
P
|
2017 (control)
General Pathology
Blood
Respiratory
|
N=73
58.3 (1.7)
52.0 (2.3)
44.1 (2.4)
|
N=156
59.2 (1.0)
47.4 (1.7)
41.1 (1.7)
|
0.638
0.131
0.324
|
2018 (intervention**)
General Pathology
Blood
Respiratory
|
N=78
59.9 (1.5)
48.7 (2.1)
52.5 (2.1)
|
N=123
58.7 (1.2)
47.5 (1.9)
45.1 (2.0)
|
0.534
0.670
0.014
|
Groups were compared with the Student’s t test.
P < 0.017 was considered statistically significant.
Results are expressed as mean (standard error of mean).
*out of 100
**Intervention: Flipped classroom in Respiratory Pathophysiology.
Table 7. Evolution of academic results* according to age after applying the flipped classroom method in respiratory pathophysiology in 2018.
|
2017 (control)
|
2018 (intervention**)
|
P
|
20-year-old
General Pathology
Blood Pathophysiology
Respiratory Pathophysiology
|
N=39
60.0 (0.9)
50.2 (1.6)
44.1 (1.5)
|
N=51
60.6 (1.0)
49.8 (1.6)
51.1 (1.6)
|
0.665
0.888
0.002
|
Older students
General Pathology
Blood Pathophysiology
Respiratory Pathophysiology
|
N=179
52.6 (2.6)
42.5 (3.0)
32.5 (3.1)
|
N=150
53.5 (2.4)
42.4 (2.7)
38.9 (2.9)
|
0.789
0.973
0.142
|
Groups were compared with the Student’s t test.
P < 0.017 was considered statistically significant.
Results are expressed as mean (standard error of mean).
*out of 100
**Intervention: Flipped classroom in Respiratory Pathophysiology.
Table 8. Results of the survey about the flipped learning (20 respondents).
|
Agree
|
Neither agree nor disagree
|
Disagree
|
Flipped method is more enjoyable
|
12 (60%)
|
7 (35%)
|
1 (5%)
|
Flipped method increases interest
|
11 (55%)
|
7 (35%)
|
2 (10%)
|
Flipped method increases learning
|
15 (75%)
|
5 (25%)
|
0 (0%)
|
Flipped method decreases the effort of learning
|
14 (70%)
|
4 (20%)
|
2 (10%)
|
Flipped method should substitute lectures (partially or totally)
|
15 (75%)
|
0 (0%)
|
5 (25%)
|