A Meta-Analysis of Outcomes Comparing Flipped Classroom and Lecture

Chris Gillette · Michael J. Rudolph · Craig Kimble · Nicole Rockich‐Winston · Lisa S. Smith · Kimberly Broedel-Zaugg

172 citations0/0 files storedAmerican Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Innovative Teaching Methods Innovations in Medical Education Innovations in Educational Methods

Abstract

Objective. To examine the evidence of the effectiveness of flipped classroom compared to traditional lecture. Methods. Experimental and observational studies were included and obtained through searches of PubMed, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and Google Scholar. Publications from January 1, 2000 through July 1, 2017 were included. Studies were eligible for this research if: (a) the study compared student outcomes using flipped classroom versus lecture and (b) at least one outcome measure was final examination score or final course score. This analysis used a random effects model with weighted mean difference (WMD) as the outcome. Results. Six studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and five were included in the quantitative synthesis. To date, there has only been one prospective randomized comparison of flipped classroom to lecture in student pharmacist education. When comparing final examination scores, there was no significant difference between flipped classroom and lecture based instruction. Only two studies examined the effect of flipped classroom compared to lecture on final course score. This analysis also found no significant difference. Conclusion. Despite a lack of prospective randomized studies, findings from this meta-analysis suggest that flipped classroom may be associated with minimal gains in student knowledge compared to lecture. These findings are important because previous research has estimated that the flipped classroom requires more time to develop and implement. Future studies using prospective randomized designs need to be conducted before widespread adoption.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 172 citations exist upstream.

References

2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement 2014Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics 2011Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials 2008Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies 2013The Flipped Classroom 2017A systematic review of the effectiveness of flipped classrooms in medical education 2015Improvements from a Flipped Classroom May Simply Be the Fruits of Active Learning

Cited by

2019College students’ cognitive learning outcomes in flipped classroom instruction: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature 2021To Flip or Not to Flip? A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Flipped Learning in Higher Education 2022Enhancing the effectiveness of flipped classroom in health science education: a state-of-the-art review 2019The Impact of Active Learning on Students’ Academic Performance 2022

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.