Irby DM , Cooke M & O'brien BC: Calls for reform of medical education by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: 1910 and 2010. Acad Med 85 : 220, 2010.
Flexner A , Pritchet H & Henry S: Medical Education in the United States and Canada Bulletin Number Four (The Flexner Report), Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Stanford, CA, 2010.
Ludmerer KM: Commentary: understanding the Flexner report. Acad Med 85 : 193, 2010.
Custers EJFM: Long-term retention of basic science knowledge: a review study. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 15 : 109, 2010.
Lloyd DH: A concept of improvement of learning response in the taught lesson. Vis Educ 21 : 23, 1968.
Johnstone AH & Percival F: Attention breaks in lectures. Educ Chem 13 : 49, 1976.
Spaulding WB & Cochran J: Revitalizing Medical Education: McMaster Medical School, The Early Years 1965-1974, BC Decker, Philadelphia, 1991.
Berryman SE: Designing Effective Learning Environments: Cognitive Apprenticeship Models, Institute on Education and the Economy, New York, 1991.
Millis BJ: “Introducing Faculty to Cooperative Learning,” in Teaching Improvement Practices: Successful Strategies for Higher Education, edited by Wright, WA p 127, Anker Publishing, Bolton, MA, 1995.
Bonwell CC & James AE: Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom: 1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, George Washington University, Washington, DC, 1991.
Johnson DW , Johnson RT & Smith KA: Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Interaction Book Co, Edina, MN, 1998.
Johnson DW , Johnson RT & Smith KA: Cooperative learning returns to college: what evidence is there that it works? Change: the magazine of higher learning 30 : 26, 1998.
Prince M: Does active learning work? a review of the research. J Eng Educ 93 : 223, 2004.
Albanese MA & Mitchell S: Problem-based learning: a review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Acad Med 68 : 52, 1993.
Barrows HS: Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: a brief overview. New Dir Teach Learn 68 : 3, 1996.
Vernon DT & Blake RL: Does problem-based learning work? a meta-analysis of evaluative research. Acad Med 68 : 550, 1993.
Lage MJ , Platt GJ & Treglia M: Inverting the classroom: a gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. J Econ Educ 31 : 30, 2000.
McLaughlin JE , Roth MT & Glatt DM et al.: The flipped classroom: a course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health profession school. Acad Med 89 : 236, 2014.
Findlay-Thompson S & Mombourquette P: Evaluation of a flipped classroom in an undergraduate business course. Business Education and Accreditation 6 : 63, 2014.
Pierce R & Fox J: Vodcast and active-learning exercises in a “flipped classroom” model of a renal pharmacotherapy module. Am J Pharm Educ 76 : 196, 2012.
Bishop JL & Verleger MA: The flipped classroom: a survey of the research. Paper presented at: 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, GA, June 2013.
Cohen PA , Ebeling BJ & Kulik JA: A meta-analysis of outcome studies of visual-based instruction. ECTJ 29 : 26, 1981.
Herreid CF & Schiller NA: Case studies and the flipped classroom. J Coll Sci Teach 42 : 62, 2013.
Moravec M , Williams A & Aguilar-Roca N et al.: Learn before lecture: a strategy that improves learning outcomes in a large introductory biology class. CBE-Life Sci Educ 9 : 473, 2010.
Gibley CW Jr: History of podiatric medical education: an update. JAPMA 77 : 404, 1987.
Levy LA: Podiatric medical education and practice: 1960s to the 21st century. JAPMA 86 : 370, 1996.
Silge J & Robinson D: Tidytext: text mining and analysis using tidy data principles in R. J Open Source Software 1 : 37, 2016.
Prober CG & Khan S: Medical education reimagined: a call to action. Acad Med 88 : 1407, 2013.
Prober CG & Heath C: Lecture halls without lectures: a proposal for medical education. N Engl J Med 366 : 1657, 2012.
Liebert CA , Lin DT & Mazer LM et al.: Effectiveness of the surgery core clerkship flipped classroom: a prospective cohort trial. Am J Surg 211 : 451, 2016.
O'Connor EE , Fried J & McNulty N et al.: Flipping radiology education right side up. Acad Radiol 23 : 810, 2016.
Miller CJ & Metz MJ: A comparison of professional-level faculty and student perceptions of active learning: its current use, effectiveness, and barriers. Adv Physiol Educ 38 : 246, 2014.
Ramnanan CJ & Pound LD: Advances in medical education and practice: student perceptions of the flipped classroom. Adv Med Educ Pract 8 : 63, 2017.
Roehl A , Reddy SL & Shannon GJ: The flipped classroom: an opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning strategies. J Fam Consumer Sci 105 : 45, 2013.
Chen F , Lui AM & Martinelli SM: A systematic review of the effectiveness of flipped classrooms in medical education. Med Educ Rev 51 : 585, 2017.
Strayer JF: How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learn Environ Res 15 : 171, 2012.
Evans KH , Thompson AC & O'Brien C et al.: An innovative blended preclinical curriculum in clinical epidemiology and biostatistics: Impact on student satisfaction and performance. Acad Med 91 : 696, 2016.
Bonnes SL , Ratelle JT & Halvorsen AJ et al.: Flipping the quality improvement classroom in residency education. Acad Med 92 : 101, 2017.
O'Flaherty J & Phillips C: The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: a scoping review. Internet Higher Ed 25 : 85, 2015.
Silverthorn DU , Thorn PM & Svinicki MD: It's difficult to change the way we teach: lessons from the Integrative Themes in Physiology curriculum module project. Adv Physiol Educ 30 : 204, 2006.
Richardson D: Don't dump the didactic lecture: fix it. Adv Physiol Educ 32 : 23, 2008.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate student learning outcomes in a flipped classroom versus a traditional classroom in a podiatric medical school. To date no published reports in podiatric medical schools have used the flipped classroom for the entirety of a medical school course.
Students from the class of 2017 completed the Emergency Medicine and Trauma course using traditional classroom lectures, and the class of 2018 used a flipped classroom approach. Each class took two assessments that contained 99 identical questions and completed a postcourse evaluation that contained student comments. A multivariate analysis of covariance was conducted to determine whether student performances were significantly affected by the differences in the teaching method. Student evaluation comments were analyzed using textual data analysis to determine the sentiments that students expressed regarding their exposure to the teaching method.
The multivariate analysis of covariance results revealed that students scored slightly lower on assessments during the flipped classroom delivery compared with the traditional classroom delivery, when adjusted for Medical College Admission Test scores and grade point average, but not significantly (P = .4340). Similarly, the sentiment analysis of student comments indicated that the average positive sentiment score for the flipped classroom delivery was higher but was not significant (P = .08914).
The analysis showed there was not a statistically significant change in examination scores based on teaching method. Sentiment analysis revealed that student sentiments were more positive with the flipped classroom group compared with the traditional lecture group, although not statistically significantly.
College of Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, Des Moines University, Des Moines, IA.
Division of Health Management, Des Moines University, Des Moines, IA.