Boysen-Osborn Megan, Anderson Craig L, Navarro Roman, Yanuck Justin, Strom Suzanne, McCoy Christopher E, Youm Julie, Ypma-Wong Mary Frances, Langdorf Mark I
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California-Irvine School of Medicine, Orange, CA, USA.
University of California-Irvine School of Medicine, Orange, CA, USA.
J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2016 Feb 18;13:11. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2016.13.11. eCollection 2016.
It aimed to find if written test results improved for advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) taught in flipped classroom/team-based Learning (FC/TBL) vs. lecture-based (LB) control in University of California-Irvine School of Medicine, USA.
Medical students took 2010 ACLS with FC/TBL (2015), compared to 3 classes in LB (2012-14) format. There were 27.5 hours of instruction for FC/TBL model (TBL 10.5, podcasts 9, small-group simulation 8 hours), and 20 (12 lecture, simulation 8 hours) in LB. TBL covered 13 cardiac cases; LB had none. Seven simulation cases and didactic content were the same by lecture (2012-14) or podcast (2015) as was testing: 50 multiple-choice questions (MCQ), 20 rhythm matchings, and 7 fill-in clinical cases.
354 students took the course (259 [73.1%] in LB in 2012-14, and 95 [26.9%] in FC/TBL in 2015). Two of 3 tests (MCQ and fill-in) improved for FC/TBL. Overall, median scores increased from 93.5% (IQR 90.6, 95.4) to 95.1% (92.8, 96.7, P=0.0001). For the fill-in test: 94.1% for LB (89.6, 97.2) to 96.6% for FC/TBL (92.4, 99.20 P=0.0001). For MC: 88% for LB (84, 92) to 90% for FC/TBL (86, 94, P=0.0002). For the rhythm test: median 100% for both formats. More students failed 1 of 3 tests with LB vs. FC/TBL (24.7% vs. 14.7%), and 2 or 3 components (8.1% vs. 3.2%, P=0.006). Conversely, 82.1% passed all 3 with FC/TBL vs. 67.2% with LB (difference 14.9%, 95% CI 4.8-24.0%).
A FC/TBL format for ACLS marginally improved written test results.
旨在探究在美国加州大学欧文分校医学院，以翻转课堂/基于团队的学习（FC/TBL）方式教授的高级心脏生命支持（ACLS）课程，其笔试成绩是否优于传统讲座式（LB）教学方式。
医学生参加2015年采用FC/TBL模式的2010版ACLS课程，并与2012 - 2014年的3个采用LB模式的班级进行比较。FC/TBL模式有27.5小时的教学时间（团队学习10.5小时、播客9小时、小组模拟8小时），LB模式有20小时（讲座12小时、模拟8小时）。团队学习涵盖13个心脏病例；LB模式没有。7个模拟病例和讲授内容在讲座（2012 - 2014年）或播客（2015年）中相同，测试内容也相同：50道多项选择题（MCQ）、20道心律匹配题和7道填空临床病例题。
354名学生参加了该课程（2012 - 2014年LB模式下有259名[73.1%]，2015年FC/TBL模式下有95名[26.9%]）。FC/TBL模式在3项测试中的2项（MCQ和填空）成绩有所提高。总体而言，中位数分数从93.5%（四分位距90.6，95.4）提高到95.1%（92.8，96.7，P = 0.0001）。填空测试方面：LB模式为94.1%（89.6，97.2），FC/TBL模式为96.6%（92.4，99.2，P = 0.0001）。MCQ测试方面：LB模式为88%（84，92），FC/TBL模式为90%（86，94，P = 0.0002）。心律测试方面：两种模式的中位数均为100%。与FC/TBL模式相比，LB模式下更多学生在3项测试中的1项不及格（24.7%对14.7%），以及2项或3项不及格（8.1%对3.2%，P = 0.006）。相反，FC/TBL模式下82.1%的学生3项测试全部通过，LB模式下为67.2%（差异14.9%，95%置信区间4.8 - 24.0%）。
ACLS课程采用FC/TBL模式使笔试成绩略有提高。
