Flipping a Single Lecture in a Survey Course to Active Learning: Do the Benefits Justify the Costs?

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.

Flipping a Single Lecture in a Survey Course to Active Learning: Do the Benefits Justify the Costs?

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.

A Survey of Residents/Fellows, Program Directors, and Faculty About Telepsychiatry: Clinical Experience, Interest, and Views/Concerns.

The effectiveness of telepsychiatry video for clinical care is well established, and clinician and psychiatry resident interest in it is growing-particularly in light of the COVID-19 impact. Still, few residency programs in the United States have core curricula, rotations/electives available, and competencies, and many faculty have no experience. A survey was sent via national organization listserves for residents, fellows, faculty, and program directors to complete. The survey queried demographics, clinical experience and interest, and views/concerns, using Likert-like and yes/no questions. Descriptive statistics and other analyses compared the groups to assess impact of clinical experience on interest and views/concerns. Respondents (N = 270) have limited clinical experience with telepsychiatry (46% none), with trainees having less than others, and yet, most were very interested or interested in it (68%). Trainees (N = 123) have concerns about being prepared for future practice. Clinical experience with video in the range of 6-20 h appears to dramatically increase interest and reduce concerns, though less time has a positive effect. Respondents have concerns about connectivity, medico-legal issues, and clinical effectiveness (e.g., diverse populations, psychosis, and emergencies) with telepsychiatry. More research is needed to assess current clinical and curricular experience, interest, and concerns. Additional curricular interventions during residency and fellowship training could build skills and confidence, if this is feasible, and the benefits outweigh the costs.