Cost Comparison of a Traditional Didactic versus National Flipped Classroom Curriculum

Abstract

Objective

We compared the cost of faculty time preparing educational materials for traditional didactic (TD) education provided at local institutions with that of faculty time preparing National Neonatology Curriculum (NNC) flipped classroom (FC) educational materials shared among institutions for fellow education across the United States.

Study Design

Using survey data and the national average for faculty educators' salaries, we calculated the cost of developing TD versus FC materials. Wilcoxon rank-sum test and comparison of two Poisson rates were utilized to evaluate the time to create versus update TD materials and the cost to create new TD versus FC materials, respectively.

Results

FC materials required more time to develop than TD materials (FC, median 17 h, interquartile range [IQR]: 17; TD, median, 5 h, IQR: 5; p < 0.001). However, when the size of individual fellowship programs was factored into the cost analysis, FC materials shared nationally among programs resulted in a 19- to 72-fold cost savings when compared to the creation of new locally used TD materials (FC, $2.49 per fellow; TD $32.05–576.90 per fellow at very large-to-small fellowship programs; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Educational materials developed and disseminated to fellowship programs across the country confer significant savings in faculty educator time and cost per learner. Standardized programs such as the NNC may serve as a model to develop shared peer-reviewed educational resources for other specialties.

Key Points

• Educational materials developed for national use confer time and cost savings.

• Small fellowships benefit greatly from having access to shared resources.

• Shared, peer-reviewed resources promote equity in education.

• Shared resources can free faculty time to focus on other academic interests.

Keywords

cost analysis - didactic teaching - educator time - faculty time - flipped classroom - national curriculum - neonatal–perinatal medicine

Note

The American Academy of Pediatrics was not involved in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing of this manuscript.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 21. Mai 2024

Angenommen: 06. September 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
06. September 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
30. September 2024

• References

• 1 Riddell J, Jhun P, Fung CC. et al. Does the flipped classroom improve learning in graduate medical education?. J Grad Med Educ 2017; 9 (04) 491-496
• 2 French H, Gray M, Gillam-Krakauer M. et al. Flipping the classroom: a national pilot curriculum for physiology in neonatal-perinatal medicine. J Perinatol 2018; 38 (10) 1420-1427
• 3 Graham KL, Cohen A, Reynolds EE, Huang GC. Effect of a flipped classroom on knowledge acquisition and retention in an Internal Medicine Residency Program. J Grad Med Educ 2019; 11 (01) 92-97
• 4 Izatt S, Gray M, Dadiz R, French H. Development and implementation of a national neonatology flipped classroom curriculum. J Grad Med Educ 2019; 11 (03) 335-336
• 5 Geis GM, Feldman HA, Berson ER, Cummings CL. Developing a digitally innovative ethics and professionalism curriculum for neonatal-perinatal medicine fellows: a 3-year multicenter pilot study. J Perinatol 2022; 42 (04) 476-482
• 6 Chan PP, Lee VWY, Yam JCS. et al. Flipped classroom case learning vs traditional lecture-based learning in medical school ophthalmology education: a randomized trial. Acad Med 2023; 98 (09) 1053-1061
• 7 Gray MM, Dadiz R, Izatt S. et al. Value, strengths, and challenges of e-learning modules paired with the flipped classroom for graduate medical education: a survey from the National Neonatology Curriculum. Am J Perinatol 2021; 38 (S 01): e187-e192
• 8 Gray MM, Dadiz R, Izatt S. et al. Comparison of knowledge acquisition and retention following traditional didactic vs. flipped classroom education utilizing a standardized national curriculum: a randomized controlled trial. J Perinatol 2022; 42 (11) 1512-1518
• 9 Artino Jr. AR, La Rochelle JS, Dezee KJ, Gehlbach H. Developing questionnaires for educational research: AMEE Guide No. 87. Med Teach 2014; 36 (06) 463-474
• 10 Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM. Chapter 4: The fundamentals of writing questions. In: Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 4th ed.. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2014
• 11 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 (02) 377-381
• 12 Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL. et al; The REDCap Consortium. building an international community of software partners. J Biomed Inform 2019; 95: 103208
• 13 Horowitz E, Feldman HA, Savich R. Neonatologist salary: factors, equity and gender. J Perinatol 2019; 39 (03) 359-365
• 14 Shoemaker EZ, Johnson C, Hilty DM, Fung CC. Flipping a single lecture in a survey course to active learning: do the benefits justify the costs?. J Technol Behav Sci 2022; 7 (02) 151-159
• 15 Beer L, Gray M, Carbajal MM. et al. “Megaflip,” a novel approach to national collaboration for flipped classroom education. Acad Pediatr 2020; 20 (06) 758-759