Table 2 Participant reactions to the online FC-TBL teaching strategy (n = 62)
Items | Teaching strategies | Static | |
|---|---|---|---|
FC-TBL (n = 31) (n, %) | LBL (n = 31) (n, %) | χ2 (P) | |
Should be used by more clinical laboratory immunology teachers? | 26 (84%) | 2(6%) | 37.51(< 0.001) |
Is a more scientific way for medical teaching? | 24 (77%) | 7(22%) | 18.65(< 0.001) |
Stimulates your interest in learning clinical laboratory immunology? | 26 (84%) | 5(16%) | 28.45(< 0.001) |
Strengthens your intrinsic motivation? | 26 (84%) | 4(12%) | 31.26(< 0.001) |
Develops your self-directed learning skills? | 30 (97%) | 6(19%) | 38.15(< 0.001) |
Improves your problem-solving skills? | 27 (87%) | 7(22%) | 26.05(< 0.001) |
Helps you prepare for clinical laboratory immunology exams? | 17 (55%) | 5(16%) | 10.15(0.001) |
Provides benefits in terms of long-term memory? | 27 (87%) | 2(6%) | 40.49(< 0.001) |
Helps you understand the course objectives? | 28 (90%) | 6(19%) | 31.52(< 0.001) |
I can easily browse lessons according to my own situation any time? | 23 (74%) | 9(29%) | 12.66(0.001) |
May not bring an additional increase in workload? | 29(94%) | 11(35%) | 22.83(< 0.001) |
The delivery of knowledge in an FC-TBL is fragmented and unsystematic? | 25(81%) | 4(12%) | 28.57(< 0.001) |
Is feasible for the current educational environment? | 24 (77%) | 3(9%) | 28.93(< 0.001) |
Is an effective teaching model that is worthy of promotion? | 27 (87%) | 2(6%) | 40.49(< 0.001) |
Summary (%) | 25.6 (83%) | 5.2 (17%) | 376.9(< 0.001) |