Document Type : Original Article
Authors
- . Mohsen Kolahdouzan
- . Mohsen Mahmoudieh
- . Mehdi Rasti
- . Athar Omid 1
- . Arvin Rostami 2
- . Nikoo Yamani
1 Department of Medical Education, Medical Education, Development Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Medical School, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Department of Medical Education, Medical Education, Development Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Teaching is one of the most important needs of human societies, and selecting
the best method of teaching is so important to improve the teaching as well as learning of students.
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of case‑based teaching (CBT) and flipped
classroom methods in comparison with lecture method on students’ learning and satisfaction at
internship of Department of General Surgery, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This experimental study was performed on fifty medical surgery
internship students in Isfahan University of Medical Sciences in 2017. Students were randomly
divided into two groups of control group and intervention group. The data were collected by a posttest
after holding every class and a researcher‑made form for evaluating students’ satisfaction after the
end of the project. The results of this study were analyzed by SPSS 21 software using descriptive
statistical methods (mean and standard deviation) and paired t‑test.
RESULTS: The comparison of the mean posttest scores in the three classes showed that the mean
scores of the students in the intervention group in the first and second sessions unlike the third
session were higher than that in the control group; this difference was statistically significant in the
first session (P = 005) and the third session (P = 0.002). Students’ satisfaction with case‑based
learning method (4.03 ± 0.87) was higher than that of lecture method (2.88 ± 0.78).
CONCLUSION: In CBT and flipped classroom, students’ learning and the quality of teaching were
improved. In addition, students were more satisfied with this method in comparison with the lecture
method. However, it should be noted that the success of using this teaching method depends on
choosing the appropriate subject.
Keywords
and lecturing in learning rate of laboratory medicine students.
Strides Develop Med Educ 2007;4:51‑6.
2. Mirbagher Ajorpaz N, Ranjbar N. Comparison of the effect of
group discussion and traditional education methods on learning
of nursing students in clinical situations. Dena 2008;3:1‑10.
3. Kaveh MH. Motivation and learning. Magazine of E‑learning
distribution in academy. 2010;1:19‑27.
4. Firouznia S, Yousefi A, Ghassemi GH. The rela tionship between
academic motivation and academic achievement in medical
students of Isfahan University of medical sciences. Iran J Med
Educ 2009;9:79‑85.
5. Knowles MS, Holton EF, Swanson RA. The Adult Learner. 6th ed.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2005.
6. Brunton PA, Morrow LA, Hoad‑Reddick G, McCord JF,
Wilson NH. Students’ perce ptiolecture‑based teaching in
restorative dentistr y. Eur J Dent Educ. 2000;4:108‑11.
7. Albanese MA, Mitchell S. Problem‑based learning: A review of
literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Acad Med
1993;68:52‑81.
8. Wood DF. ABC of learning and teaching in medicine Problem
based learning. BMJ 2003;326:328.
9. Onyon C. Problem‑based learning: A review of the educational
and psychological theory. Clin Teach 2012;9:22‑6.
10. Hofsten A, Gustafsson C, Haggstron E. Case seminars open
doors to deeper understanding: Nursing students’ experi‑ences
of learning. Nurse Educ Today 2010;30:533‑9.
11. Chan WP, Hsu CY, Hong CY. Innovative case‑based inte‑grated
teaching in an undergraduate medical curriculum: Development
and teachers’ and students’ responses. Ann Acad Med Singapore
2008;37:952‑6.
12. Hakkarainen P, Saarelainen T, Ruokamo H. Towards meaningful
learning through digital video‑support‑ed, case‑based teaching.
Australas J Educ Technol 2007;23:87‑v109.
13. McParland M, Noble LM, Livingston G. The effectiveness of
problem based learning compared to traditional teaching in
under‑graduate psychiatry. Med Educ 2004;38:859‑67.
14. PierceR, Fox J. Vodcasts and active‑learning exercises in a “flipped
classroom” model of a renal pharmacotherapy module. Am J
Pharm Educ 2012;76:196.
15. Rose E, Claudius I, Tabatabai R, Kearl L, Behar S, Jhun P. The
flipped classroom in emergency medicine using online videos
with interpolated questions. J Emerg Med 2016;51:284‑910.
16. TolksD, Schäfer C, RaupachT, KruseL, SarikasA, Gerhardt‑Szép S,
et al. An introduction to the inverted/flipped classroom model
in education and advanced training in medicine and in the
healthcare professions. GMS J Med Educ 2016;33:Doc46.
17. Anderson SM, Helberg SB. Chart‑based, case‑based learning. S D
Med 2009;60:391.
18. Braeckman L, Bekaert M, Cobbaut L, De Ridder M, Glazemakers J,
Kiss Philippe. Workplace visits versus case studies in
undergraduate occupational medicine teaching. J Occup Environ
Med 2009;51:1455‑9.
19. Owen C, Ryall MA, Corrigan G. Case‑based learning: Developing
patient‑ and student‑centred learning. Med Educ 2007;41:508‑9.
20. Drakeford PA, Davis AM, van Asperen PP. Evaluation of a
paediatric asthma education package for health professionals.
J Paediatr Child Health 2007;43:342‑52.
21. Fesharaki M, Islami M, Moghimian M, Azarbarzin M. The effect
of lecture in comparison with lecture and problem based learning
on nursing students self‑effcacy in Najafabad Islamic Azad
University. Iran J Med Educ 2010;10:262‑8.
22. Ilguy M, Ilguy D, Fişekçioglu E, Oktay I. Comparison of
case‑based and lecture‑based learning in dental education using
the SOLO Taxonomy. J Dent Educ 2014;78:1521‑7.
23. Momeni Danaei S, Zarshenas L, Oshagh M, Khoda SM. Which
method of teaching would be better cooperative or lecture? Iran
J Med Educ 2011;11:24‑31.
24. Nikfar R, Valavi E, Aminzadeh M, Taheri M, Ziaee T, Mortazavi M,
et al. Comparing medical student opinions regarding teaching
based on lectures and problem‑based learning in large groups.
Bimonthly J Hormozgan Univ Med Sci 2013;17:257‑63.
25. Frame TR, Cailor SM, Gryka RJ, Chen AM, Kiersma ME,
Sheppard L. Student perceptions of team‑based learning vs.
traditional lecture‑based learning. Am J Pharm Educ 2015;79:51.
26. Tune D, Sturek M, David P. Flipped classroom model improves
graduate student performance in cardiovascular, respiratory, and
renal physiology Johnathan. Adv Physiol Educ 2013;37:316‑20.
27. Moffett J, Mill AC. Evaluation of the flipped classroom approach
in a veterinary professional skills course. Adv Med Educ Pract
2014;5:415‑25.
28. Whillier S, Lystad RP. No differences in grades or level of
satisfaction in a flipped classroom for neuroanatomy. J Chiropr
Educ 2015;29:127‑33.
29. Jensen JL, Kummer TA, d M Godoy PD. Improvements from a
flipped classroom may simply be the fruits of active learning.
CBE Life Sci Educ 2015;14:ar5.
30. Nikfar R, Valavi E, Aminzadeh M, Taheri M, Ziaee T, Mortazavi M,
et al. An introduction to the inverted/flipped classroom model
in education and advanced training in medicine and in the
healthcare professions. GMS J Med Educ 2016;33(3):1‑23.
31. Haqqani Fariba, Rezaei Habibollah, Beikzadeh Amin, Eghbali
Batool . Flipped classroom: A educational method. Iran J Med
Educ 2016;16:104‑19.
)