Table 1 Comparison of student perspectives between flipped classroom (FC) and traditional classroom (TC).

From: Flipped and traditional classrooms in ophthalmology: an evaluation of the impact of a crossover study

Question

Type of classroom

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

Mann–Whitney U

p value

Z

Pre-learning needed is a burden and takes up too much time

Flipped, n (%)

7 (14.3%)

32 (65.3%)

7 (14.3%)

3 (6.1%)

0 (0%)

1105

0.348

–0.939

Traditional, n (%)

8 (16%)

24 (48%)

18 (36%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

 

Pre-learning materials provided were structured and helpful

Flipped, n (%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

3 (6.1%)

33 (67.3%)

13 (26.5%_

72

<0.001**

–8.889

Traditional, n (%)

0 (0%)

2 (4%)

48 (96%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

 

Class room session with Poll everywhere and case-based discussion were helpful

Flipped, n (%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

1 (2%)

25 (51%)

23 (46.9%)

520

<0.001**

–5.319

Traditional, n (%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

23 (46%)

21 (42%)

6 (12%)

 

A lot of effort was needed for this module to get any benefit from the face-to-face session

Flipped, n (%)

6 (12.2%)

29 (59.2%)

7 (14.3%)

6 (12.2%)

1 (2%)

1108

0.359

 

Traditional, n (%)

9 (18%)

28 (56%)

12 (24%)

1 (2%)

0 (0%)

–0.916

The module improves my motivation for independent learning to acquire knowledge

Flipped, n (%)

0 (0%)

3 (6.1%)

11 (22.4%)

25 (51.0%)

10 (20.4%)

722.5

<0.001**

 

Traditional, n (%)

1 (2%)

5 (10%)

27 (54%)

15 (30%)

2 (4%)

–3.759

The module improves critical thinking and analysis of case-based discussions

Flipped, n (%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.0%)

3 (6.1%)

29 (59.2%)

16 (32.7%)

142.5

<0.001**

–7.839

Traditional, n (%)

2 (4%)

24 (48%)

21 (42%)

2 (4%)

1 (2%)

 

I like this teaching method

Flipped, n (%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.1%)

7 (14.6%)

27 (56.3%)

13 (27.1%)

846

0.005**

–2.811

Traditional, n (%)

0 (0%)

5 (10%)

12 (24%)

29 (58%)

4 (8%)

 

I am satisfied with this module

Flipped, n (%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

4 (8.3%)

30 (62.5%)

14 (29.2%)

1075

0.267

–1.111

Traditional, n (%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

3 (6%)

39 (78%)

8 (16%)

 

I would recommend this teaching method for all ophthalmology modules

Flipped, n (%)

0 (0%)

4 (8.3%)

3 (6.3%)

30 (62.5%)

11 (22.9%)

652.5

<0.001**

–4.222

Traditional, n (%)

1 (2%)

6 (12%)

21 (42%)

20 (40%)

2 (4%)

  1. Table showing the comparison of student perspectives between FC and TC groups for lectures on cataract (CAT) and loss of vision (LOV). Student responses (n = 50) to each of the questions asked were quantified using Likert scale (-2, strongly disagree; -1, disagree; 0, neutral or not applicable; 1, agree; 2, strongly agree). Data shows number (percentage) of students for each response. The two groups have been compared using Mann–Whitney U test p** < 0.01.
Back to article page