Revisiting The Flipped Classroom: Lessons Learned

Abstract

During the pandemic when all the on‐site courses turned into remote instruction, adaptation to virtual learning was inevitable and designs, such as online flipped classrooms, were developed. This design allowed for student integration while minimizing educational gaps. A year later, we returned to on‐site delivery and another adaptation curve is occurring in reverse. For students that have not experienced on‐site instruction during their first year in a professional academic program, the flipped design allowed them to maintain some virtual features while integrating the on‐site experience gradually, in a hybrid format. However, the impact of this reverse transition in student engagement and academic performance needs to be assessed. It seems a unique opportunity to evaluate the different tools (eg. videos, tables, cases, etc) utilized during the transition to virtual learning and back to on‐site instruction. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of a flipped classroom design on student engagement and academic achievement when returning to on‐site instruction. Two student cohorts enrolled in 2 consecutive academic years in a Systemic Pathology course in Optometry were compared: 1) online flipped instruction (n= 66), 2) on‐site flipped instruction (n= 62). In the online cohort, students were asked to first watch the shortened recorded lectures, complete a short quiz and an assignment before the synchronous session. During the synchronous session they worked in groups on selected cases via an online platform and then discussed with the rest of the class. The cases were based on the topics addressed in the recorded lectures. For the on‐site cohort, the short quiz was moved to the on‐site class time and a short on‐site mini‐review was also incorporated. In addition, the online cohort was asked to complete a questionnaire with a 40.9% completion rate, while the on‐site cohort was asked to complete a different questionnaire with a 98% completion rate. Student academic achievement was assessed in both cohorts with several quizzes and two exams. Student engagement was addressed in the questionnaires. We found that the on‐site cohort obtained higher scores when compared to the online cohort in exams 1 and 2 (84.98 ± 9.72 vs 78.72 ± 9.71 and 82.23 ± 9.66 vs 75.85 ± 11.86, p<0.001 respectively) but similar scores in quiz average (78.37 ± 1.83 vs 78.48 ± 10.42). The questionnaire was modified from one cohort to the next to include task completion and perception of which tools had a greater impact in their learning experience. The answers to these questions indicated that 73.3% of on‐site students completed pre‐class assignments, watched the videos and read the handouts. Students found the tools offered useful for their learning. However, their responses varied greatly and there was no consensus as to which tool/assignment/activity had the greatest impact. In conclusion, the impact of flipped classroom design in student academic performance and perception varied when it was offered either exclusively online or with a traditional on‐site component. Although the on‐site design showed a more positive impact on student engagement and academic achievement, other factors may have contributed to these differences.