Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Comparison of knowledge acquisition and retention following traditional didactic vs. flipped classroom education utilizing a standardized national curriculum: a randomized controlled trial

Journal of Perinatology volume 42, pages 1512–1518 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective

Measure the effectiveness of and preference for a standardized, national curriculum utilizing flipped classrooms (FC) in neonatal-perinatal medicine (NPM) fellowships.

Study design

Multicentered equivalence, cluster randomized controlled trial of NPM fellowship programs randomized to receive standardized physiology education as in-class lectures (traditional didactic, TD arm) or as pre-class online videos followed by in-class discussions (FC arm). Four multiple-choice question quizzes and three surveys were administered to measure knowledge acquisition, retention, and educational preferences.

Results

530 fellows from 61 NPM fellowships participated. Quiz performance was comparable between groups at all time points (p = NS, TD vs FC at 4 time points). Post intervention, more fellows in both groups preferred group discussions (pre/post FC 42% vs. 58%, P = 0.002; pre/post TD 43% vs. 60%, P = < 0.001). FC fellows were more likely to rate classroom effectiveness positively (FC/TD, 70% vs. 36%, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

FCs promote knowledge acquisition and retention equivalent to TD and FC modalities are preferred by fellows.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Traditional didactic and flipped classroom models.
Fig. 2: Consort diagram.
Fig. 3: Knowledge acquisition and retention with education via traditional didactic vs. flipped classroom methods.
Fig. 4: Learner perceptions of their classroom experiences.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Datasets and other supporting materials will be made available to readers promptly upon request.

References

  1. Ryan RMDE. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-bein. Am Psychol. 2000;55:68–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ten Cate O, Kusurkar RA, Williams GC. How self-determination theory can assist our understanding of the teaching and learning processes in medical education. AMEE Guide No. 59. Med Teach. 2012;33:961–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Phillips J, Wiesbauer F. The flipped classroom in medical education: A new standard in teaching. Trends Anaesth Crit Care. 2022;42:4–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen F, Lui AM, Martinelli SM. A systematic review of the effectiveness of flipped classrooms in medical education. Med Educ. 2017;51:585–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. French H, Arias-Shah A, Gisondo C, Gray MM. Perspectives: the flipped classroom in graduate medical education. Neoreviews. 2020;21:e150–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Blair RA, Caton JB, Hamnvik OR. A flipped classroom in graduate medical education. Clin Teach. 2020;17:195–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lin Y, Zhu Y, Chen C, Wang W, Chen T, Li T, et al. Facing the challenges in ophthalmology clerkship teaching: Is flipped classroom the answer? Plos One. 2017;12:e0174829.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Martinelli SM, Chen F, DiLorenzo AN, Mayer DC, Fairbanks S, Moran K, et al. Results of a flipped classroom teaching approach in anesthesiology residents. J Graduate Med Educ. 2017;9:485–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tainter CR, Wong NL, Cudemus-Deseda GA, Bittner EA. The “flipped classroom” model for teaching in the intensive care unit. J Intensive Care Med. 2016;32:187–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Marchalot A, Dureuil B, Veber B, Fellahi JL, Hanouz JL, Dupont H, et al. Effectiveness of a blended learning course and flipped classroom in first year anaesthesia training. Anaesth Crit Care Pa. 2018;37:411–5.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Riddell J, Jhun P, Fung CC, Comes J, Sawtelle S, Tabatabai R, et al. Does the flipped classroom improve learning in graduate. Med Educ? J Graduate Med Educ. 2017;9:491–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Graham KLCA, Reynolds EE, Huang GC. Effect of a flipped classroom on knowledge acquisition and retention in an internal medicine residency program. J Grad Med Educ. 2019;11:92–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. French H, Gray M, Gillam-Krakauer M, Bonachea EM, Carbajal M, Payne A, et al. Flipping the classroom: a national pilot curriculum for physiology in neonatal–perinatal medicine. J Perinatol. 2018;38:1420–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Izatt S, Gray M, Dadiz R, French H. Development and implementation of a national neonatology flipped classroom curriculum. J Graduate Med Educ. 2019;11:335–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gray M, Dadiz R, Izatt S, Gillam-Krakauer M, Carbajal MM, Falck AJ, et al. Value, strengths, and challenges of e-learning modules paired with the flipped classroom for graduate medical education: a survey from the national neonatology curriculum. Am J Perinat. 2020;38:e187–92.

  16. American Board of Pediatrics. Content Outline: Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine. https://www.abp.org/sites/abp/files/pdf/neonatal_perinatal_content_outline.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2018.

  17. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inf. 2009;42:377–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. McConnell MMMS, Bryson GL. Sample size calculations for educational interventions: principles and methods. Can J Anesth. 2019;66:864–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.

  20. Vaona A, Banzi R, Kwag KH, Rigon G, Cereda D, Pecoraro V, et al. E‐learning for health professionals. Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2018;1:CD011736.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hew KF, Lo CK. Flipped classroom improves student learning in health professions education: a meta-analysis. Bmc Med Educ. 2018;18:38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Evans L, Vanden Bosch ML, Harrington S, Schoofs N, Coviak C. Flipping the classroom in health care. High Educ Nurs Educ. 2019;44:74–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rui Z, Lian-rui X, Rong-zheng Y, Jing Z, Xue-hong W, Chuan Z. Friend or foe? Flipped classroom for undergraduate electrocardiogram learning: a randomized controlled study. Bmc Med Educ. 2017;17:53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Prithishkumar I, Michael S. Understanding your student: Using the VARK model. J Postgrad Med. 2014;60:183–6.

  25. Rogers L, Cohen MS. Medical education in pediatric and congenital heart disease: a focus on generational learning and technology in education. Prog Pediatr Cardiol. 2020;59:101305.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the AAP’s Section of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine for their funding of the National Neonatology Curriculum and this research project. We also thank NPM fellowship programs, fellows, and educators who participated in the study for their time and Med Ed On the Go for their support of this project.

Funding

This research was supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Section on Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Strategic Aims Grant. The AAP was not involved in study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, or writing of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, 4800 Sand Point Way, Seattle, WA, 98105, USA

    Megan M. Gray

  2. Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Box 651, Rochester, 14642, Rochester, NY, USA

    Rita Dadiz

  3. Department of Pediatrics, Duke University, DUMC Box 102509, Durham, NC, 27710, USA

    Susan Izatt

  4. Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 11112 Doctor’s Office Tower, 2200 Children’s Way, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA

    Maria Gillam-Krakauer

  5. Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Children’s Hospital, 6621 Fannin Street, W6104, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Melissa M. Carbajal

  6. Department of Pediatrics, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA

    Lindsay C. Johnston

  7. Department of Pediatrics, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, 11100 Euclid Avenue, RBC Suite 3100, Mailstop 6010, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA

    Allison Payne

  8. Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Health San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, MSC 7812, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA

    Margarita M. Vasquez

  9. Department of Pediatrics, Ohio State University, 700 Children’s Drive, FB 6th floor Neonatology, Columbus, OH, 43205, USA

    Elizabeth M. Bonachea

  10. Department of Pediatrics, Emory University/Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, 2105 Uppergate Drive NE, Rm 324, Atlanta, GA, 30033, USA

    Heidi Karpen

  11. Department of Pediatrics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 110 South Paca 8th floor, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA

    Alison J. Falck

  12. Departments of Pediatrics and Biomedical Engineering, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Box 651, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA

    Patricia R. Chess

  13. Division of Neonatology, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, 3401 Civic Center Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Matthew Huber

  14. Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Heather French

  15. The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, 3401 Civic Center Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Heather French

Authors
  1. Megan M. Gray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rita Dadiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susan Izatt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria Gillam-Krakauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Melissa M. Carbajal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lindsay C. Johnston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Allison Payne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Margarita M. Vasquez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Elizabeth M. Bonachea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Heidi Karpen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Alison J. Falck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Patricia R. Chess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Matthew Huber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Heather French
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MG, HF, RD, SI, MGK, EB, MV, AP, PC, HK, LJ, MC, and AF contributed to the conception and design of the study and data collection instruments. HF and MG were involved in the recruitment of participants. MG, HF, RD, SI, MGK, EB, MV, AP, PC, HK, LJ, MC, and AF were involved in data collection. MG, MH, and HF performed data analysis. All authors (MG, HF, RD, SI, MGK, EB, MV, AP, PC, HK, LJ, MC, AF, MH) contributed to the interpretation of the data. HF, MG, RD, and SI prepared the initial draft manuscript. MG, HF, RD, SI, MGK, EB, MV, AP, PC, HK, LJ, MC, and AF were involved in the revision and edit of the manuscript. All authors (MG, HF, RD, SI, MGK, EB, MV, AP, PC, HK, LJ, MC, AF, MH) approved of the final version to be published and are responsible for accuracy and integrity of all aspects of research.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heather French.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gray, M.M., Dadiz, R., Izatt, S. et al. Comparison of knowledge acquisition and retention following traditional didactic vs. flipped classroom education utilizing a standardized national curriculum: a randomized controlled trial. J Perinatol 42, 1512–1518 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-022-01423-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-022-01423-4

Search

Advanced search

Quick links