Physiotherapy and RehabilitationNCT06950918
Flipped Classroom vs. Flip-Jigsaw in Theoretical Physiotherapy Education
A study testing Experimental in people with Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation and Educational Technology, run by Isparta University of Applied Sciences at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
Study Summary: This quasi-experimental pre-test-post-test study aims to compare the effects of Flipped Classroom (FC) and Flip-Jigsaw instructional models on theoretical knowledge acquisition, academic motivation, and class engagement among 86 third-year physiotherapy undergraduates enrolled in a theory-based public… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 25 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Educational Technology, Educational Interventions
- What is being tested?
- Experimental
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 85 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 10 May 2025to 10 Dec 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 25 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- To be between the ages of 18-25
- Volunteering to participate in the study
- Taking the course for the first time
- Having access to the Internet
- Compulsory course attendance
Who cannot join
- having received prior training on the relevant theoretical subject,
- not attending more than 20% of the training sessions,
- not participating in the measurements.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: The Role of Flipped Classroom and Flip-Jigsaw in Theoretical Physiotherapy Education: A Comparison of Knowledge, Motivation and Engagement
Study Summary:
This quasi-experimental pre-test-post-test study aims to compare the effects of Flipped Classroom (FC) and Flip-Jigsaw instructional models on theoretical knowledge acquisition, academic motivation, and class engagement among 86 third-year physiotherapy undergraduates enrolled in a theory-based public health course.
Read more
Primary Questions:
H1: The F-JigII method will provide significantly higher scores in theoretical knowledge acquisition compared to FC.
H2: The F-JigII method will provide significantly higher scores in long-term retention of theoretical knowledge compared to FC.
Comparison: Researchers will compare the FC group (pre-class videos + in-class discussions) with the Flip-Jigsaw group (video-based pre-learning + structured peer teaching) to evaluate differences in outcomes.
Participant Tasks:
Attend lectures and complete pre-/post/retention knowledge tests.
Engage in practical sessions (FC: group discussions; Flip-Jigsaw: peer-led jigsaw activities).
Complete participation assessments.
Significance: Addresses the gap in understanding Flip-Jigsaw's efficacy in physiotherapy education, despite prior reports on FC and Jigsaw's individual benefits.
- Conditions
- Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Educational Technology, Educational Interventions, Students, Undergraduate Health Professional Students
- Being tested
- Experimental
- Keywords
- Flipped Clasroom, Flip-J, Learning Model, Physiotherapy education
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
ExperimentalOther
This study is a quasi-experimental parallel group design comparing Flipped Classroom (FC) and Flip-Jigsaw models in a theoretically-oriented public health course. Both groups used the same pre-prepared video lectures to standardize content, but differentiated in-class strategies: The FC group used instructor-led discussions, while the Flip-Jigsaw group used Jigsaw technique and peer teaching (students learning subtopics in "expert groups" and teaching them in "master groups"). Unlike traditional FC, this hybrid model includes systematic peer collaboration and role-based accountability mechanisms. Theoretical knowledge acquisition was assessed through quantitative tests (before-after-retention recall tests) and objectivity was ensured by single-blind evaluators.The study brings innovation to the literature as it is the first study to demonstrate the unique effect of Flip-Jigsaw in theoretical courses in the fie
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Flipped Clasroom Group | Experimental | Pre-class: Asynchronous video lectures covering theoretical content (e.g., public health principles, manual therapy techniques) were provided via an online platform. Students were required to review materials before in-person sessions. In-class: Instructor-led interactive discussions, case analyses, and problem-solving activities focused on applying theoretical knowledge. No peer-teaching components were included. Structure: Emphasis on self-paced learning followed by collaborative, instructor-guided reinforcement. Receives: Other: Experimental |
| Flipped-Jigsaw Group | Experimental | Pre-class: The same video lessons as the FC group are delivered only to the students in the expert group in the pre-class content delivery.
In-class: Structured peer-teaching using the Jigsaw technique:
Expert Groups: Students were divided into small groups, each assigned a subtopic to master.
Home Groups: Students returned to mixed groups to teach their subtopic to peers, ensuring collective knowledge integration.
Instructor Role: Facilitated discussions and provided feedback but did not lead content delivery.
Structure: Combines self-paced learning with peer-driven, collaborative skill-building. Receives: Other: Experimental |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Level of theoretical knowledge
The theoretical knowledge part of the course content will be done with a 24 question 5-choice multiple choice test. The same multiple choice test will be used as a post test after the lecture. It will be used as a persistence test after 5 months.
Measured: pre-test, immediately after the intervention post-test (7 weeks after study enrollment) and retention-test (5 mounth after post-test)
Level of student engagement
Course duration can be recorded in minutes on the education platform.
Measured: immediately after the intervention (7 weeks after study enrollment)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted30 Apr 2025
- Study start10 May 2025
- Primary completion10 Nov 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion10 Dec 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Physiotherapy and RehabilitationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 85 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Isparta University of Applied Sciences
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Suleyman Demirel University
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Ziya Yildiz, Isparta University of Applied Sciences
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06950918
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- postdr2
- Status last verified
- Oct 2026
- First submitted
- 21 Mar 2025
- Last updated
- 30 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Raw data and statistical analyses can be shared, with participant identities obscured.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 30 Oct 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Role of Flipped Classroom and Flip-Jigsaw in Theoretical Physiotherapy Education: A Comparison of Knowledge, Motivation and Engagement
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06950918
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- postdr2
- Conditions
- Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Educational Technology, Educational Interventions, Students, Undergraduate Health Professional Students
- Keywords
- Flipped Clasroom, Flip-J, Learning Model, Physiotherapy education
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrolment
- 85 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Isparta University of Applied SciencesUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Suleyman Demirel University
- Study start
- 10 May 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 10 Nov 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 10 Dec 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 30 Apr 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Study Summary:
This quasi-experimental pre-test-post-test study aims to compare the effects of Flipped Classroom (FC) and Flip-Jigsaw instructional models on theoretical knowledge acquisition, academic motivation, and class engagement among 86 third-year physiotherapy undergraduates enrolled in a theory-based public health course.
Primary Questions:
H1: The F-JigII method will provide significantly higher scores in theoretical knowledge acquisition compared to FC.
H2: The F-JigII method will provide significantly higher scores in long-term retention of theoretical knowledge compared to FC.
Comparison: Researchers will compare the FC group (pre-class videos + in-class discussions) with the Flip-Jigsaw group (video-based pre-learning + structured peer teaching) to evaluate differences in outcomes.
Participant Tasks:
Attend lectures and complete pre-/post/retention knowledge tests.
Engage in practical sessions (FC: group discussions; Flip-Jigsaw: peer-led jigsaw activities).
Complete participation assessments.
Significance: Addresses the gap in understanding Flip-Jigsaw's efficacy in physiotherapy education, despite prior reports on FC and Jigsaw's individual benefits.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Flipped Clasroom Group | Experimental | Other: ExperimentalPre-class: Asynchronous video lectures covering theoretical content (e.g., public health principles, manual therapy techniques) were provided via an online platform. Students were required to review materials before in-person sessions. In-class: Instructor-led interactive discussions, case analyses, and problem-solving activities focused on applying theoretical knowledge. No peer-teaching components were included. Structure: Emphasis on self-paced learning followed by collaborative, instructor-guided reinforcement. |
| Flipped-Jigsaw Group | Experimental | Other: ExperimentalPre-class: The same video lessons as the FC group are delivered only to the students in the expert group in the pre-class content delivery. In-class: Structured peer-teaching using the Jigsaw technique: Expert Groups: Students were divided into small groups, each assigned a subtopic to master. Home Groups: Students returned to mixed groups to teach their subtopic to peers, ensuring collective knowledge integration. Instructor Role: Facilitated discussions and provided feedback but did not lead content delivery. Structure: Combines self-paced learning with peer-driven, collaborative skill-building. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 25 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- To be between the ages of 18-25
- Volunteering to participate in the study
- Taking the course for the first time
- Having access to the Internet
- Compulsory course attendance
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- having received prior training on the relevant theoretical subject,
- not attending more than 20% of the training sessions,
- not participating in the measurements.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| ExperimentalThis study is a quasi-experimental parallel group design comparing Flipped Classroom (FC) and Flip-Jigsaw models in a theoretically-oriented public health course. Both groups used the same pre-prepared video lectures to standardize content, but differentiated in-class strategies: The FC group used instructor-led discussions, while the Flip-Jigsaw group used Jigsaw technique and peer teaching (students learning subtopics in "expert groups" and teaching them in "master groups"). Unlike traditional FC, this hybrid model includes systematic peer collaboration and role-based accountability mechanisms. Theoretical knowledge acquisition was assessed through quantitative tests (before-after-retention recall tests) and objectivity was ensured by single-blind evaluators.The study brings innovation to the literature as it is the first study to demonstrate the unique effect of Flip-Jigsaw in theoretical courses in the fie | Other | Flipped Clasroom Group, Flipped-Jigsaw Group |
Primary outcome
Level of theoretical knowledge
Time frame: pre-test, immediately after the intervention post-test (7 weeks after study enrollment) and retention-test (5 mounth after post-test)
The theoretical knowledge part of the course content will be done with a 24 question 5-choice multiple choice test. The same multiple choice test will be used as a post test after the lecture. It will be used as a persistence test after 5 months.
Level of student engagement
Time frame: immediately after the intervention (7 weeks after study enrollment)
Course duration can be recorded in minutes on the education platform.
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 30 Oct 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Raw data and statistical analyses can be shared, with participant identities obscured.
Related trials for Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation
Recruiting
Rehabilitation and Sex Therapy to Optimize Recovery After Prostate Cancer Treatment
Prostate Cancer, Urinary Incontinence
Recruiting
Hybrid mHealth and Telerehabilitation vs Conventional Physiotherapy for Subacromial Pain Syndrome
Subacromial Pain Syndrome
Recruiting
Using Personalized Rehabilitation to Reduce Disease and Increase Activity of Patients With Polymyalgia Rheumatica
Polymyalgia Rheumatica (PMR)
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Upper Extremity Physiotherapy and Home Exercises on Functional Outcomes in Individuals With Stroke
Stroke
Not yet recruiting
"Effectiveness of a Telerehabilitation Program Versus a Conventional Rehabilitation Program in Patients With Subacromial Pain"
Subacromial Impingement Syndrome
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Experimental in people with Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation and Educational Technology, run by Isparta University of Applied Sciences at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: under way, not looking for participants, as of the sponsor's last update on 30 Oct 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Level of theoretical knowledge (time frame: pre-test, immediately after the intervention post-test (7 weeks after study enrollment) and retention-test (5 mounth after post-test)). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 30 Oct 2026.