A Comparative Qualitative Analysis of Flipped Classroom and Traditional Learning Models in Midwifery Education

Abstract

ABSTRACT Purpose: This phenomenological study aimed to explore the views of second-year midwifery students who experienced the flipped classroom model regarding both the flipped classroom and traditional learning models. Material and Methods: The study was conducted with 12 volunteer students between November 15 and November 30, 2025. Data were collected through a focus group interview and analyzed using content analysis with MAXQDA 24 software. Themes and subthemes were finalized based on expert review. Results: Content analysis identified three main themes and 11 subthemes related to the advantages and disadvantages of the flipped classroom model. Students reported that the model reduced both student and instructor workload by shortening in-class time and offered advantages such as the ability to repeatedly review content, view practical applications as many times as needed, and learn independently of time and place. However, students also highlighted certain limitations, including the inability to ask questions instantly and the risk of acquiring incorrect information. Conclusion: The findings indicate that the flipped classroom model facilitates learning and supports effective learning. However, for the model to be implemented effectively, it should be planned alongside complementary practices that enhance instructor guidance and synchronous interaction.

Keywords

• Flipped classroom model
• Traditional teaching
• Advantages and disadvantages
• Learning experiences
• Midwifery education

Ebelik Eğitiminde Ters Yüz Sınıf ve Geleneksel Öğrenme Modellerinin Karşılaştırmalı Nitel Analizi

Abstract

ÖZET Amaç: Bu fenomenolojik çalışma, ters yüz sınıf modelini deneyimleyen ikinci sınıf ebelik öğrencilerinin, hem ters yüz sınıf hem de geleneksel öğrenme modellerine ilişkin görüşlerini incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Araştırma, 15–30 Kasım 2025 tarihleri arasında 12 gönüllü öğrenci ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veriler, odak grup görüşmesi yöntemiyle toplanmış ve MAXQDA 24 yazılımı kullanılarak içerik analizi yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. Tema ve alt temalar, uzman görüşü doğrultusunda son hâline getirilmiştir. Bulgular: İçerik analizi sonucunda, ters yüz sınıf modelinin avantaj ve dezavantajlarına ilişkin üç ana tema ve 11 alt tema belirlenmiştir. Öğrenciler, sınıf içi sürenin kısalmasıyla birlikte hem öğrenci hem de eğitici iş yükünün azaldığını; içeriğin tekrar tekrar izlenebilmesi, uygulamaların istenildiği kadar gözden geçirilebilmesi ve zaman ile mekândan bağımsız öğrenme olanağı sunması gibi avantajlar sağladığını ifade etmiştir. Bununla birlikte, soruların anında sorulamaması ve yanlış bilgi edinme riski gibi bazı sınırlılıklar da vurgulanmıştır. Sonuç: Bulgular, ters yüz sınıf modelinin öğrenmeyi kolaylaştırdığını ve etkili öğrenmeyi desteklediğini göstermektedir. Ancak modelin etkili bir şekilde uygulanabilmesi için, eğitici rehberliğini ve eş zamanlı etkileşimi artıracak tamamlayıcı uygulamalarla birlikte planlanması önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• Tersyüz sınıf modeli
• Geleneksel öğrenme
• Avantaj ve dezavantajları
• Öğrenme deneyimleri
• Ebelik eğitimi

References

1. Akçayır, G., Akçayır, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers & Education, 126, 334–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021
2. Alessa, I. A., Hussein, S. (2023). Using traditional and modern teaching methods on the teaching process from teachers’ own perspective. Route Educational and Social Science Journal, 10(2), 65–92.
3. Al-Mugheed, K., Bayraktar, N. (2021). Effectiveness of a venous thromboembolism course using flipped classroom with nursing students: A randomized controlled trial. Nursing Forum, 56(3), 623–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12573
4. Al-Said, K., Krapotkina, I., Gazizova, F. et al. (2023). Distance learning: Studying the efficiency of implementing flipped classroom technology in the educational system. Education and Information Technologies, 28(10), 13689–13712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11711-x
5. Amirova, N. (2025). Traditional vs. non-traditional teaching in secondary education: A comparative analysis. Porta Universitatis, 1(3), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.69760/portuni.010309
6. Behmanesh, F., Bakouei, F., Nikpour, M. et al. (2022). Comparing the effects of traditional teaching and flipped classroom methods on midwifery students’ practical learning: The embedded mixed method. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27(2), 599–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09478-y
7. Betihavas, V., Bridgman, H., Kornhaber, R. et al. (2016). The evidence for “flipping out”: A systematic review of the flipped classroom in nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 38, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2015.12.010
8. Bishop, J. L., Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In Proceedings of the 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--22585

9. Cho, H. J., Zhao, K., Lee, C. R. et al. (2021). Active learning through flipped classroom in mechanical engineering. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00302-2
10. El-Banna, M. M., Whitlow, M., McNelis, A. M. (2017). Flipping around the classroom: Accelerated Bachelor of Science in Nursing students’ satisfaction and achievement. Nurse Education Today, 56, 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.06.003
11. Etemi, B. P., Uzunboylu, H. (2020). The effects of flippedlearning method on students’ perception and learning of Java programming. International Journal of Engineering Education, 36(4), 1372–1382. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020774
12. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M. et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
13. Galway, L. P., Corbett, K. K., Takaro, T. K. et al. (2014). A novel integration of online and flipped classroom instructional models in public health higher education. BMC Medical Education, 14, 181. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/14/181
14. Geist, M. J., Larimore, D., Rawiszer, H. et al. (2015). Flipped versus traditional instruction and achievement in a baccalaureate nursing pharmacology course. Nursing Education Perspectives, 36(2), 114–115. https://doi.org/10.5480/13-1292
15. Georgieva-Tsaneva, G., Serbezova, I., Serbezova-Velikova, M. (2025). Evaluating nursing and midwifery students’ self-assessment of clinical skills following a flipped classroom intervention with innovative digital technologies in Bulgaria. Nursing Reports, 15(8), 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep15080285
16. Harrington, S. A., Vanden Bosch, M., Schoofs, N. et al. (2015). Quantitative outcomes for nursing students in a flipped classroom. Nursing Education Perspectives, 36(3), 179–181. https://doi.org/10.5480/13-1255
17. Hew, K. F., Lo, C. K. (2018). Flipped classroom improves student learning in health professions education: A meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education, 18, 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1144-z
18. Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., Mainemelis, C. (2014). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. In Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles (pp. 227–247). Routledge.
19. Kraml, M. (2024). Advantages and disadvantages of flipped classroom in adult education using distance learning for learning programming. EPH International Journal of Educational Research, 8(1), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.53555/ephijer.v8i1.109
20. Kyngäs, H., Mikkonen, K., Kääriäinen, M. (2020). The application of content analysis in nursing science research. Springer.
21. Lumpkin, A., Achen, R. M. (2015). Flipping a class: Active learning and more of it. Sport Management Education Journal, 9(2), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1123/SMEJ.2014-0042
22. Marcinauskas, L., Iljinas, A., Čyvienė, J. et al. (2024). Problem-based learning versus traditional learning in physics education for engineering program students. Education Sciences, 14(2), 154. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020154
23. Naing, C., Whittaker, M. A., Aung, H. H. et al. (2023). The effects of flipped classrooms in undergraduate health professional education: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 19(3), e1339. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1339
24. Nichat, A., Gajbe, U., Bankar, N. J. et al. (2023). Flipped classrooms in medical education: Improving learning outcomes and engaging students in critical thinking skills. Cureus, 15(11). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.48199
25. Nouri, J. (2016). The flipped classroom: For active, effective and increased learning—especially for low achievers. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13, 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0032-z
26. Ryan, M. D., Reid, S. A. (2016). Impact of the flipped classroom on student performance and retention: A parallel controlled study in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00717
27. Talan, T., Batdı, V. (2020). Evaluating the flipped classroom model through the multi-complementary approach. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 21(4), 31–67.
28. Tan, C., Yue, W. G., Fu, Y. (2017). Effectiveness of flipped classrooms in nursing education: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Chinese Nursing Research, 4(4), 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnre.2017.10.006
29. Tang, T., Abuhmaid, A. M., Olaimat, M. et al. (2023). Efficiency of flipped classroom with online-based teaching under COVID-19. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(2), 1077–1088. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1817761
30. Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
31. Turan, Z., Göktaş, Y. (2015). Yükseköğretimde yeni bir yaklaşım: Öğrencilerin ters yüz sınıf yöntemine ilişkin görüşleri. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, (2), 156– 164. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2015.118
32. Van Wyk, M. M. (2019). Flipping the economics class in a teacher education course. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24, 373–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9377-9
33. Wang, Y., Wang, G. J., Yan, L. J. et al. (2024). Qualitative research on the flipped classroom cognition of undergraduate nursing students. BMC Medical Education, 24, 1460. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909- 024-06426-7
34. Yavuz, M. (2016). Ortaöğretim düzeyinde ters yüz sınıf uygulamalarının akademik başarı üzerine etkisi ve öğrenci deneyimlerinin incelenmesi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Atatürk Üniversitesi, Erzurum.
35. Yıldırım, A., Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (6. baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
36. Zhou, X., Yang, Q., Bi, L. et al. (2024). Integrating traditional apprenticeship and modern educational approaches in traditional Chinese medicine education. Medical Teacher, 46(6), 792–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2023.2284661