Innovative Design and Practice of Flipped Classroom Based on Modified RBL for Cultivating Creative Thinking in Plastic Surgery Education

Medical education has long been a discipline of memorization and repetition, where students absorb vast amounts of established knowledge before ever touching a patient. While this foundation is essential, the modern world demands something more: the ability to think creatively when faced with problems that have no textbook answer. This need is particularly acute in plastic surgery, a field that blends the precision of medicine with the artistry of reconstruction. Here, doctors must not only repair tissue but also restore confidence and function, often navigating complex challenges where standard solutions fail. To prepare future physicians for this reality, educators are exploring new ways to teach, moving beyond lectures to methods that actively engage students in the process of discovery. One such approach involves flipping the traditional classroom, where students learn basic concepts on their own before class, and reserving face-to-face time for deep, collaborative problem-solving. When combined with research-based learning, a method where students act as investigators to explore unanswered questions, these techniques offer a promising path to cultivating the innovative thinking required for the next generation of medical breakthroughs.

In a recent study conducted at Sun Yat-sen University, a team of educators tested a new teaching model designed to spark this kind of creativity in undergraduate medical students. The course, titled "The Art of Rejuvenation: Unveiling the Mysteries of Plastic Surgery," was an elective open to students from various medical backgrounds, including nursing, dentistry, and forensic medicine. Rather than simply listening to lectures, the twenty-three participants were placed in a hybrid learning environment that merged a modified version of research-based learning with a digital platform. The researchers utilized WeChat, a widely used messaging application, to deliver video lessons and scientific articles before each class session. This allowed the students to arrive at their meetings already familiar with the core concepts, freeing up valuable time to tackle real-world clinical challenges in groups.

The heart of the course was a problem-solving journey guided by postdoctoral scholars, who served as full-time mentors for small teams of students. Instead of being given answers, the groups were tasked with identifying specific bottlenecks in plastic surgery, such as the difficulty of treating severe scars, the limitations of breast reconstruction techniques, or the complexities of repairing damaged nerves. The students had to work together to search for existing scientific literature, analyze the gaps in current knowledge, and propose their own experimental designs to address these issues. This process was not merely theoretical; it required them to formulate scientific hypotheses and present their plans to a panel of instructors and mentors who acted as a defense board, questioning their logic and feasibility. Those projects that showed the most promise were even invited to join the mentors' research teams for further experimental validation.

The results of this experiment were striking. The students, who had previously shown little connection between their coursework and scientific inquiry, demonstrated a significant shift in their abilities. By the end of the course, nearly eighty percent of the participants scored above ninety on their final assessments, a testament to their engagement and understanding. More importantly, the students reported a marked improvement in their confidence and skills. They felt more capable of finding information on their own, analyzing complex problems, and working effectively as a team. Their awareness of the importance of innovation in medicine grew substantially, with nearly all students agreeing that they had developed a stronger sense of scientific curiosity. The mentors, too, found the experience rewarding, noting that guiding undergraduates through this process helped them break away from traditional teaching patterns and refresh their own approach to education.

While the study was limited by its short duration and the small number of participants, the findings suggest that this blended approach is a viable way to nurture creative thinking in medical students. The success of the model lies in its ability to make the abstract concrete, turning students from passive recipients of information into active participants in the scientific process. By focusing on authentic clinical dilemmas and providing continuous mentorship, the course bridged the gap between classroom theory and the messy, unsolved problems of real-world medicine. The authors conclude that this framework, which integrates research training with general education, holds great potential for broader application. It offers a blueprint for how medical schools might better prepare their students not just to heal, but to innovate, ensuring that the physicians of tomorrow are equipped to tackle the challenges that current science has yet to solve.