ARTICLE INFO

Article Type

Descriptive & Survey Study

Authors

Mardanparvar   H. (1)
Sabohi   F. (*)
Yousefi   H. (2)
Rezaei Dehghani   A. (3)






(*) “Ulcer Repair Research Center” and “Medical-Surgical Nursing Department, Nursing & Midwifery Faculty”, “Ulcer Repair Research Center” and “Medical-Surgical Nursing Department, Nursing & Midwifery Faculty”, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
(1) “Student Research Committee” and “Medical-Surgical Nursing Department, Nursing & Midwifery Faculty”, “Student Research Committee” and “Medical-Surgical Nursing Department, Nursing & Midwifery Faculty”, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
(2) “Ulcer Repair Research Center” and “Medical-Surgical Nursing Department, Nursing & Midwifery Faculty”, “Ulcer Repair Research Center” and “Medical-Surgical Nursing Department, Nursing & Midwifery Faculty”, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
(3) Health Department, Nursing & Midwifery Faculty, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Correspondence

Article History

Received:  February  8, 2016
Accepted:  February 26, 2016
ePublished:  March 28, 2016

BRIEF TEXT


… [1-10] As a learning method, the lecture method can provide the learners comprehensive information in a relatively short time. In addition, based on the viewpoints of some experts, the method, if it be presented truly, might be effective [11-14]. … [15-17] As an active and learner-centered method, the guided discovery learning method provides the learners a situation to learn favorably through answers to questions [12, 18]. As a dynamic approach, the question and answer method make the students to be engaged in solving the unknowns based on their own information [19-22]. … [23]

The correlations between learning levels and the question and answer method [24], between methods based on discoveries and the lecture method [25], and between the guided discovery method and the lecture method [26] have been studied. In addition, the difference between the guided discovery method and the lecture method in the students’ level scores [27], the influence of the guided discovery method on the memorable information [28], and the influences of active and lecture methods on the information retention [29] have been studied.

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of teaching via three methods including group guided discovery, question and answer, and lecture methods on the nursing students’ learning level and information retention.

This is a semi-experimental study.

Four-semester nursing students of Nursing and Midwifery Faculty of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, studying the infectious course (internal-surgery 3) for the first time in the 1st semester of the academic year 2015-16, were studied.

62 students, selected via census method, were divided into three groups including group-guided discovery (n=21), question and answer (n=20), and lecture (n=21) groups.

Before the training program, pretest was done using a researcher-made questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of 30 questions about the content of the infectious course. Its reliability was confirmed by 10 faculty members of Isfahan Nursing and Midwifery Faculty, one infectious expert, and one medicine education expert (MS). Its reliability was 0.83 using Cronbach’s alpha. The course content was presented in five 2-hour sessions, which was homogeneous in the groups. The students of the first group (n=21), divided into three 5-person sub-groups and one 6-person sub-group, were taught via guided discovery method using a study guide for each session [12, 14]. The second group (n=20) was taught by the question and answer method using slide show and questions about the presented method [20, 21, 29]. The third group (n=21) was taught via the classic lecture method [12, 14]. Immediately after the conducting of the educational program in each session, the related questions were answered by the students based on their knowledge. The test score of the stage was considered as the learning level. Finally, one month after the conduction of the program, the students completed the questionnaire, again. The score of the stage was considered as information retention level. Both learning and information retention scores were computed based on 30 scores. Data was analyzed by SPSS 19 software. Chi-square test was used to compare frequency distribution of gender and place of resident of the students in three groups. One-way ANOVA was used to compare the mean ages and GPAs of three last semesters of the students in three groups. Repeated observation ANOVA was used to investigate the mean scores before, after, and one month after the conducting of the training program in each group. LSD post-hoc test was used to compare the mean scores of tests between the groups before, after, and one month after the conduction of the training program.

29 students (46.77%) and 33 students (53.23%) were male and female, respectively. 11 students (52.4%) and 10 students (47.6%) in lecture group, 9 students (45.0%) and 11 students (55.0%) in question and answer group, and 9 students (42.9%) and 12 students (57.1%) in group-guided discovery group were male and female, respectively. 19 students (30.64%) and 43 students (69.36%) were dormitory resident and non-dormitory, respectively. Mean ages of lecture, question and answer, and group-guided discovery groups were 21.7±1.9, 21.6±2.3, and 21.1±0.8 years, respectively. Mean GPA values in lecture, question and answer, and group-guided discovery groups were 15.27±1.27, 15.37±1.29, and 15.49±1.17, respectively. There was no significant difference between the students’ resident place (p=0.51) and gender frequency distribution (p=0.81), as well as between mean age (p=0.499) and the students’ GPA (p=0.84), in three groups. There were significant differences between mean test scores before, immediately after, and one month after the conducting of the training course in each group (lecture, question and answer, and group-guided discovery groups; p<0.001). And there was a significant increase in the mean score in each group immediately after the conduction of the training course. Nevertheless, there was a bit decrease in the mean score one month after the program, which was lesser in group-guided discovery group than both lecture and question and answer groups. In addition, there was no significant difference between three groups in mean test score before the conduction of the program (p=0.54), but there were significant differences between three groups in the mean test score immediately after (p<0.001) and one month after (p<0.001) the conduction of the program (Table 1). Based on the post-hoc test, there was a significant difference in the mean test score immediately after the program between lecture and group-guided discovery groups (p<0.001), as well as question and answer group (p<0.001). And the mean score in lecture group was significantly lower than other groups, while there was no significant difference between question and answer and discovery groups (p=0.81). In addition, there were significant differences in the mean test score one month after the program between group-guided discovery group and question and answer (p=0.004) and lecture (p=0.001) groups, in such a way that mean test score of discovery group was significantly higher than other groups. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in the mean test score one month after the program between lecture and question and answer groups (p=0.61).

All three methods led to increases in the students’ learning levels. The lecture method leads to an increase in the nurses’ learning level [30]. The lecture method leads to a better awareness, attitude, and behavior in the students [31]. The question and answer method leads the audience into thinking, arouses the curiosity, and leads to a higher information level [20]. The guided discovering method enhances the students’ learning and creativity in mathematics [32]. The results are consistent with the present results. There were significant differences between three educational methods in the students’ learning level. The active educational methods lead to a higher participation level of the students in the topics, providing better grounds to enhance the motivational beliefs and self-regulating strategies [23]. The results are consistent with the present results. There was a higher increase in the learning level by the question and answer method than the lecture method. The time consuming by the students to study in the question and answer method is more than the lecture method, leading the students to a higher learning level [24]. The result is consistent with the present result. There was a higher increase in the learning level by the group-guided discovery method than the lecture method. Mean score of functioning in discovery group is significantly more than the lecture method [25]. The result is consistent with the present results. There is no significant difference between the scores of memorized knowledge level of the nursing students in guided discovery and lecture groups [27]. In addition, the scores of the students trained by the guided discovery method are not higher than the explanatory method [26]. The results are not consistent with the present results showing that there was no significant difference in the learning level between the group-guided discovery and the question and answer methods. There was no significant difference in the level of information retention between the group-guided discovery, question and answer, and lecture methods. The guided discovery method enhances the capability to memorize the information by the students [28]. The result is consistent with the present results. There was no significant difference between the lecture and the question and answer methods in the students’ information retention. Mean score of information retention assessment test in the active learning method is significantly more than the lecture method [29]. The result is inconsistent with the present results.

Similar studies should be done in different educational environments with different cultures and educational backgrounds.

Teaching three methods only by one teacher and a common educational environment were of the limitations of the study.

The active training methods lead to a higher participation level of the students in the educational topics, resulting in a ground to enhance learning and better information retention.

The staff of Isfahan Nursing and Midwifery Faculty and all four-semester nursing students are appreciated.

There is no conflict of interests.

Informed consent and the right to be excluded from the study were the ethical items. In addition, confidentiality of identity was confirmed.

The study was funded by the Research Deputy of Isfahan Nursing and Midwifery Faculty.

TABLES and CHARTS

Show attach file


CITIATION LINKS

[1]Olson MH, Hrgnhahn BR. Introduction to the theory of learning. Seif A, translator. 20th edition. Tehran: Doran; 2012. [Persian]
[2]Bamiro AO. Effects of guided discovery and thinkpair-share strategies on secondary school students’ achievement in chemistry. SAGE Open. 2015;1-7.
[3]Abdisa G, Getinet T. The effect of guided discovery on students’ Physics achievement. Lat Am J Phys Educ. 2012;6(4):531-7.
[4]Islamian H, Saeidi Rezvani M, Fatehi Y. Compare the effectiveness of teaching methods, group discussion and lecture on student learning and satisfaction from teaching in Din & Zendegi lesson. J Res Curric. 2013;2(11):13-23. [Persian]
[5]Mohagheghian SH, Rahimi M, Hamadi GH. Recognition and application of new teaching models among the humanities faculty members. J Sci Res. 2012;2(8):48-59. [Persian]
[6]Johnson JP, Mighten A. A comparison of teaching strategies: Lecture notes combined with structured group discussion versus lecture only. J Nurs Educ. 2005;44(7):319-22.
[7]Mooneghi HK, Dabbaghi F, Oskouei F, Julkunen KV. Learning style in theoretical courses: Nursing students’ perceptions and experiences. Iran J Med Educ. 2009;9(1):43-51. [Persian]
[8]Moghimian M, Fesharaki M, Azarbarzin M. The effect of lecture in comparison with lecture and problem based learning on nursing students self-efficacy in Najafabad Islamic Azad University. Iran J Med Educ. 2009;10(3):262-8. [Persian]
[9]Mogharab M, Nateghi K, Sharifzadeh GH. Effects of lecture and team member teaching design on nursing students' learning and academic motivation. Modern Care. 2013;10(3):173-82. [Persian]
[10]Baghaie Lake M, Atrkar Roshan Z. A comparision of two teaching strategies: Lecture and pbl, on learning and retaining in nursing students. J Guilan Univ Med Sci. 2003;12(47):86-94. [Persian]
[11]Abdolallian M. Teaching and learning methods in nursing education. 1st edition. Babol: Babol University Press of Medical Sciences; 2000. [Persian]
[12]Safavi A. Methods & techniques of teaching with new patterns of teaching. 15th edition. Tehran: Moaser; 2013. [Persian]
[13]Salimi T, Shahbazi L, Mojahed S, Ahmadieh MH, Dehghanpour MH. Comparing the effects of lecture and work in small groups on nursing students' skills in calculating medication dosage. Iran J Med Educ. 2007;7(1):79-84. [Persian]
[14]Seif A. Modern breeding psychology / psychology of learning & education. 7th edition. Tehran: Doran; 2013. [Persian]
[15]Aein F, Nourian K. Problem–based learning: A new experience in education of pediatric nursing course to nursing students. J Shahrekord Univ Med Sci. 2006;8(2):16-20. [Persian]
[16]Safari M, Yazdanpanah B, Ghafarian Shirazi H, Yazdanpanah Sh. Comparing the effect of lecture and discussion methods on students` learning and satisfaction. Iran J Med Educ. 2007;1(6):59-64. [Persian]
[17]Ikedolapo OO. Comparative effect of guided discovery and concept maping teaching strategy on Sss student chemistry achievement. J Humanit Soc Sci. 2010;5(1):1-6.
[18]Prince MJ, Felder RM. The many of inductive teaching and learning. J Coll Sci Teach. 2007;36(5):14-20.
[19]Mohamadkhah F, Amin Shokravi F, Faghihzadeh S, Ghaffarifar S. The effect of digital media programs on the oral health promotion in the health office: A quasi-experimental study. Shiraz E-Medical J. 2013;14(1):2-12.
[20]Khodam L. Methodology of Karim Quran in teching of tohid Unity-style questions and answers. J Teach Quran. 2010;7(4):50-5. [Persian]
[21]Shabani H. Educational & breeding skills (methods & techniques of teaching). 24th edition. Tehran: SAMT; 2013. [Persian]
[22]Michael J. Where's the evidence that active learning works?. Adv Physiol Educ Dec. 2006;30(4):159-67.
[23]Karimi Moonaghi H, Mohammady A, Saleh Moghadam AR, Gholami H, Kareshki H, Zamanian N. Comparison effect of education with method of lecture & Cooperative learning method on motivational beliefs & self-regulated learning strategies. Iran J Med Educ. 2014;14(5):393-402. [Persian]
[24]Quistorff B, Aspegren K. The interactive lecture A simple form of student-activating learning. Ugeskr Laeger. 2003;165(36):3400-3.
[25]Summerlee A, Murray J. The impact of enquiry-based learning on Academic performance and student engagement. Canadian J High Educ. 2010;40(2):78-94.
[26]Heywood J. The training of student-teachers in discovery methods of instruction and learning (and) comparing Guided discovery and expository methods. Irland: University of Dublin; 1992. p. 143.
[27]Newsome GG, Tillman MH. Effects of guided design and lecture teaching strategies on knowledge recall and on problem-solving performance of student nurses. Nurs Diagn. 1990;1(3):89-96.
[28]Meany JE, Minderhout V. Application of Hammond’s postulate: An activity for guided discovery learning in organic chemistry. J Chem Educ. 2001;78(2):204-7.
[29]Pishgahi A, Derhashiri Sh, Owlia MB, Halvani A, Noori Majelan N, Salman Rooghani H, et al. Effect of active learning method on satisfaction & durability information of Students of pathophysiology period of Yazd University of Medical Sciences. Iran J Med Educ. 2010;9(3):208-15. [Persian]
[30]Farshi M, Babatabar Darzi H, Mokhtari Noori J, Mahmoudi H. Study of the effect of air evacuation and transport training using lecture method on nurses' level of learning. Iran J Crit Care Nurs. 2012;5(1):17-22. [Persian]
[31]Mohamadkhah F, Amin Shokravi F, Faghihzadeh S, Babaei Heydarabadi A, Kazwmbeygi F, Maghsoodi R. Comparison of two methods of dental health education lectures and film screenings on knowledge, attitude and practice of students. J Ilam Univ Med Sci. 2013;20(5):43-50. [Persian]
[32]Kolaeinejad J, Jafari Nedoushan S. The effectiveness of guided discovery method in mathematics lesson on creativity of third primary school daughter students. J Initiat Creativity Humanit. 2014;3(3):93-112. [Persian]