ArticleBMC medical education2024
Comparison of the teaching clinical biochemistry in face-to-face and the flex-flipped classroom to medical and dental students: a quasi-experimental study from IRAN.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBiochemistry is one of the main courses of basic sciences in the medical curriculum, along with other difficult subjects that are difficult to learn. The emergence of new technologies has made it possible to test new methods such as e-Learning. In this study, we compared two methods of Flex-Flipped Classroom (FFC) and face-to-face.
methodA quasi-experimental research was done which involved both medical and dental students studying the clinical biochemistry course in the joint semester in 2019. A total of 100 medical students were trained in biochemistry through face-to-face teaching, and 60 dental students were trained in the same course through the FFC model. Three researcher-made tools were used to compare the two groups to assess the student's satisfaction, scores, and self-evaluation. The content validity of the tools was checked using the opinions of 10 experts through the CVI index. The results were analyzed using one-sample t-tests, independent t-tests, and ANOVA.
resultsBoth groups scored significantly more than the cut-off-point (Mean > 3.5) in their average scores of the total and sub-components of the self-evaluation questionnaire (P < 0.05). Face-to-face teaching was viewed more favorably than the FFC teaching except for considering the flexibility (4.14 ± 1.55), but the difference was not significant (P > 0.05). The students' knowledge score in the FFC was slightly higher than that in the face-to-face method, but this difference was not significant(P = 0.758).
conclusionBoth face-to-face and FFC methods were effective according to the students, but the level of satisfaction with the face-to-face method was higher. It seems that teacher-student interaction is an important factor in students' preferences. However, the students preferred the flexibility of multimedia. It seems necessary to use the advantages of each method in a model appropriate to the students' conditions and available facilities.
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.