Trial reportPloS one2022
Dependence of learning outcomes in flipped and lecture classrooms on review questions: A randomized controlled trial and observational study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Which novel teaching strategy is most recommended in medical education? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC medical education · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Perceived effectiveness of the person-environment-occupation innovative teaching model in rehabilitation therapy students.BMC medical education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe effects of class structure (i.e., lecture vs. flipped) and repeated review on: 1) exam scores and 2) student perceptions of learning were compared in a prospective randomized controlled trial (Study 1) and a retrospective cohort study (Study 2).
methodsIn Study 1, 42 second year students in a Doctor of Physical Therapy program were randomized to either a lecture or flipped section of a neurobiology class. Both sections incorporated repeated review. In Study 2, exam scores were retrospectively compared between two cohorts: a lecture cohort without repeated review (n = 42) and a flipped cohort with repeated review (n = 46). In both studies, outcomes of interest were exam scores and student surveys.
resultsIn Study 1, students in the lecture and flipped sections had similar exam averages (lecture = 76.7 ± 17%, flipped = 77.5 ± 17%, p = 0.73). Repeated review significantly improved exam scores by 12.0 percentage points (95% CI: 8.0 to 16.0 percentage points) in the lecture section and 10.8 percentage points (95% CI: 6.9 to 14.8 percentage points) in the flipped section. The flipped section reported higher levels of satisfaction and perceived learning. In Study 2, the flipped cohort had significantly higher exam scores than the lecture cohort (lecture = 70.2 ± 6.9%, flipped = 83.4 ± 7.7%, p < 0.0001). Student satisfaction and perceived learning were similar in both cohorts.
conclusionExam scores improve with review questions and quizzes provided in a class, both in a lecture or flipped classroom.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.