The purpose of this study is to investigate how constant changes in team allocation within a modified flipped team-based learning (FTBL) study can affect student’s perception of a course (gathered by an online questionnaire) and academic performance. This teaching strategy is a team-based learning (TBL) approach combined with flipped classroom learning methodology, in which BSc students studying pharmaceutical science/biotechnology courses in a UK satellite campus in China preview online lectures and apply their knowledge in different in-class activities. The students are randomly assigned into teams in each session. The project was run across the full academic year (sixteen sessions). Students’ perceptions regarding modified FTBL were statistically analyzed, and their academic performance was compared with previous results obtained by the initial FTBL study. Although students initially showed reluctance to leave their ‘comfort zone’—the main limitation of this study—our findings show that learners perceived benefits to the adoption of continued random allocation, which resulted in the removal of limitations from their social clustering and eventual accustomization to this learning approach. Modified FTBL assisted students in enhancing their team-work skills, improving their academic performance, developing their reflective capabilities, improving their rapport building skills, learning and academic performance. Learners also believed that this learning strategy creates critical incidents that can simulate their future work environment, as they might be expected to work in unfamiliar situations. Therefore, the present study indicated strong support for the modified FTBL method, which was seen to work exceptionally well despite some minor problems that students experienced working in a team with different teammates in every session.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited