Skip to main content

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Front. Educ.
Sec. Higher Education
Volume 9 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1485540
This article is part of the Research Topic Along the Path to Recovery: Supporting Student Learning Motivation, Engagement and Development in Post-Pandemic Higher Education View all 9 articles

Is the flipped classroom more effective than the traditional classroom in clinical medical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Provisionally accepted
Xu-Ying Shi Xu-Ying Shi 1Qing Yin Qing Yin 1Qiu-Wen Wang Qiu-Wen Wang 1Bing-Rui Lu Bing-Rui Lu 1Guo-Xiang Li Guo-Xiang Li 1Shuhong Huang Shuhong Huang 2*Zhi-Gang Sun Zhi-Gang Sun 1*
  • 1 Jinan Central Hospital, Jinan, China
  • 2 School of Basic Medicine, Shandong First Medical University, Taian, Shandong Province, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    The flipped classroom teaching method has been increasingly adopted in recent years for teaching clinical medical specialties in medical schools around the world. However, the outcomes of this approach have not been systematically and quantitatively assessed. This meta-analysis aims to rigorously compare the effects of flipped classroom (FC) and traditional classroom (TC) teaching models on students' learning in clinical medicine. Methods: We conducted a systematic search for all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs/Q-RCTs) comparing traditional classrooms and flipped classrooms in the context of clinical medical education. The literature search included the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, with the final retrieval conducted on October 26, 2024. We screened the literature based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of each study was assessed using RevMan (Version 5.4). The outcome indicators included theoretical scores, composite scores, skills scores, and student satisfaction. Data extraction and subsequent meta-analysis were performed using Stata 17.0 software.Results: A total of 12 studies were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that the flipped classroom (FC) group exhibited significantly higher theoretical scores (SMD = 0.481, 95% CI: 0.214 to 0.748, P=0.000), composite scores (SMD = 0.642, 95% CI: 0.273 to 1.011, P = 0.001), and skills scores (SMD = 0.660, 95% CI: 0.312 to 1.008, P=0.000) compared to the traditional classroom (TC) group. However, no statistically significant difference was observed in student satisfaction (SMD = -0.195, 95% CI: -1.081 to 0.691, P = 0.667).The flipped classroom teaching method is more effective in enhancing the theoretical scores, composite scores, and skill scores of clinical medicine students compared to the traditional classroom teaching method. However, there was no statistically significant difference in student satisfaction between the two teaching approaches. Due to the limitations of the included studies, further robust randomized controlled trials (RCTs) across diverse educational contexts are necessary to validate these findings.

    Keywords: Clinical Medicine, flipped classroom, FC, Traditional classroom, TC, Education

    Received: 24 Aug 2024; Accepted: 16 Dec 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Shi, Yin, Wang, Lu, Li, Huang and Sun. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence:
    Shuhong Huang, School of Basic Medicine, Shandong First Medical University, Taian, Shandong Province, China
    Zhi-Gang Sun, Jinan Central Hospital, Jinan, China

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.