Learning outcomes with flipped and traditional classrooms in medical immunology.

Abstract

Abstract Education literature reports the benefits of flipped classrooms (FC), but medical educators still typically rely on traditional didactic lectures (TL) as a primary teaching modality. In fact, when given a choice of delivery modalities, learners often prefer to engage in the easier and comfortable route to knowledge, including listening to lectures. However, learning through passive techniques is less effective because it fails to facilitate application and recall of concepts. High order learning and retention is significantly improved when the learning process is challenging and thought-provoking. We used immunology within a medical school curriculum to compare the effectiveness of and student preferences for two distinct teaching modalities: FC and TL. Data was collected from 170 first year medical students at our institution. In the FC modality, prerecorded lectures were provided to students prior to class. In class, students completed a quiz with low-level questions, the quiz was reviewed, and the remaining class time was spent doing high-level application problems. For the TL, students were provided with the low-level quiz and high-level application problems to do at their own discretion. No aspect of the learning activities was required or graded. Our data show that students who performed poorly on exam items linked to the traditional lecture benefitted disproportionately from the flipped classroom modality, though there was no difference in learning outcomes between the two modalities overall. Finally, students who provided feedback about their learning preferences overwhelmingly preferred traditional lectures and denied learning gains from the flipped modality.