ASSESSMENT OF FLIPPED CLASSROOM AS A NOVEL TEACHING-LEARNING METHOD IN PHARMACOLOGY AMONG SECOND PHASE MBBS STUDENTS

Abstract

Background: Flipped classroom (FC) is learner-centric, self-paced knowledge acquisition followed by classroom-based discussion. It has three basic components- pre-class assignment, in class activities and post-class activities. This study was undertaken to assess flipped classroom as a novel method of teaching and learning pharmacology among second phase MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery) students and to assess students’ perspectives towards FC.

Methods: Eligible second phase MBBS students were divided into two groups (1 & 2). Two modules–A and B from core topics of pharmacology were developed by subject experts. Module A consisted of mechanism of drug action (MODA) whereas module B consisted of renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS). In the module A, flipped classroom (FC) was administered to Group 1 and traditional didactic lecture (TDL) to Group 2 and in the module B, interventions were crossed over. Pre-class assignment consisted of a preparatory video of 20 minutes in FC group and reading study materials of their choice in TDL. In-class activity in FC consisted of facilitator-led group discussion whereas in TDL, it consisted of a power point-based lecture. A pre-test prior to in-class activities was conducted in both groups during both the modules. Post-class activities included MCQs-based post-test and retention test and a questionnaire-based survey.

Results: The mean pre-test score of students in FC (6.64±3.13 in module A and 6.90±2.92 in module B) was higher than that in TDL (4.98±2.07 in module A and 5.30±2.20 in module B) and difference was statistically significant in both modules A (mean difference=1.66, p=0.001) and B (mean difference=1.60, p=0.001). The mean post-test scores of FC (13.21±2.92 in module A and 13.90±2.55 in module B) was higher than that of TDL (10.54±2.54 in module A and 10.90±2.97 in module B) and differences were statistically significant in both modules A (mean difference=2.67, p=0.001) & B (mean difference=3.00, p=0.001). The mean change in score was higher in FC (6.57±1.18 in module A and 7.00±1.41 in module B) than in TDL (5.56±0.982 in module A and 5.88±1.18 in module B) and the difference was statistically significant in both modules A (difference in mean change=1.01; p<0.001 and B (difference in mean change=1.12; p<0.001). In the retention test, the mean score of students was higher in FC (9.46±2.75 in module A and 9.55±3.25 in module B) than in TDL (7.63±2.58 in module A and 7.78±2.77 in module B) and the difference was statistically significant in both the modules A (mean difference=1.83; p<0.001) and B (mean difference=1.77; p=0.003). In the questionnaire-based survey, most of students (77 to 85%) either strongly or simply agreed to questions favouring FC over TDL.

Conclusion: FC can be a better tool than traditional power point slide-based lecture for second phase medical students for teaching and learning pharmacology. Most of students had positive attitude towards FC and agreed to favour FC over TDL.