UCSF

Health education has seen a surge of interest in active learning strategies like the flipped classroom. In response to the need for physical distancing in the age of COVID-19, schools are rapidly shifting to web-based and video technology, sometimes without being able to predict the outcomes of this change. The objectives of this pilot experiment were to (1) compare active learning (AL) methods versus traditional lecture for transmitting and retaining knowledge in the introductory pre-clinical medical school curriculum and (2) weigh whether the costs required to flip instruction were justified by learning gains. The authors took a 2 h lecture for first-year medical students and converted half of it into an AL format. In-person lecture and active learning groups were compared in terms of student knowledge at pre-intervention, immediately post-intervention, and 6 months post-intervention. Costs for first-time delivery and anticipated costs for repeat delivery of each format were calculated. Students' gains in knowledge increased in both groups, though more by lecture (control) than via AL. Delivering a single hour of new AL costs 3.4 times that of a new lecture. Repeat offerings of the AL intervention were estimated to cost 5.4 times that of the repeat lecture. The 1 h AL session was less effective than the 1 h lecture for knowledge acquisition and retention at 6-month follow-up. The AL was more expensive to produce and to repeat. Future research needs to evaluate the impact of AL with a larger N, control group, structured faculty/resident procedures, and assessment of gaining and applying attitudes and skills in addition to knowledge.