[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
:: Volume 10, Issue 1 (spring 2018) ::
rme 2018, 10(1): 48-55 Back to browse issues page
Compare the effect of two electronic and traditional education methods on first principles of instruction in nursing students of Guilan University of Medical Sciences in 2016
A Badanara marzdashty , A Emami Sigaroudi , E Kazemnezhad-Leyli , M Poursheikhian *
operating room & anesthesia dept, langroud paramedical & nursing - midwifery school, Guilan University of medical sciences,Rasht, Iran , pourshaikhian_m@yahoo.com
Abstract:   (201 Views)
Introduction: technology developed rapidly  during the past decade and using these technologies increased in higher education more than before. Many studies in the field of electronic education has been done in recent years in Iran but e- learning assessment and its programs was neglected. This study was done with the aim of determining students’ views about using first principles of instruction in two electronic and traditional education methods.
Methods: This is a quasi- experimental study which was done in 2016.  Statistical population was all nusrsing students at Shahid Beheshti nursing and midwifery school in Guilan University of Medical Sciences during their 3rd semester of bachelor degree which studying adult nursing in 2015- 2016.  Among them 41 students were selected through censes Sampling method. “Teaching and learning quality” assessment tool was used For exploration of first principle of instruction(demonstration,application,duties,activation,unity). For comparison of first principles of instruction, paired T test and Wilcoxon test were used and data were anlayzed  using SPSS.
Results: Mean and standard deviation of The first principal of instruction in traditional education group was 3.70±0.24 and in electronic education group was 3.49±0.25 which was statistically ignificant difference based on paired T test analysis (p=0.001). Mean and standard deviation of The demonstration principal in electronic education group was 3.49±0.29 and in traditional education group was 3.69±0.40,The application principal in electronic education group was 3.31±0.52 and in traditional education group was 3.76±0.59, activation principal in electronic education group was 3.35±0.36 and in traditional education group was 3.70±0.34 which was statisticaly significant difference between 2 groups based on wilcoxon analysis (p<0.05).
Conclusion: it seems that traditional education method is superior to electronic education method in terms of first principles of instruction implementation.
Keywords: education distance, students, nursing, learning
Full-Text [PDF 208 kb]   (62 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
1. Saif A. [Modern educational psychology]. 7th ed; tehran: doran; 2015. [persian]
2. Button D, Harrington A, Belan I. E-learning & information communication technology (ICT) in nursing education: A review of the literature. Nurse Education Today 2014; 34 (10): 1311- 23. [DOI:10.1016/j.nedt.2013.05.002]
3. Sun PC, Tsai RJ, Finger G, Chen YY, Yeh D. What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & education 2008; 50 (4): 1183-202. [DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007]
4. Keller JM. First principles of motivation to learn and e3‐ learning. Distance education 2008; 29 (2): 175- 85. [DOI:10.1080/01587910802154970]
5. Sekhon M, Hartley D. Basics of E- Learning Revisited. 2nd ed: alexanderia VA;american Society for Training & Development; 2014.
6. Sezer B. Faculty of medicine students' attitudes towards electronic learning and their opinion for an example of distance learning application. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016; 55: 932- 9. [DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.018]
7. Sung YH, Kwon IG, Ryu E. Blended learning on medication administration for new nurses: integration of e- learning and face- to- face instruction in the classroom. Nurse education today 2008; 28 (8): 943- 52. [DOI:10.1016/j.nedt.2008.05.007]
8. Sinclair PM, Kable A, Levett- Jones T, Booth D. The effectiveness of Internet- based e- learning on clinician behaviour and patient outcomes: A systematic review. International journal of nursing studies 2016; 57: 70- 81. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.01.011]
9. rokhafrooz d, sayadi n, ashrafslsadat h. [the study of knowedge and view of faculity members of ahwaz jundishapour university of medical science with short term and long term strategies of combined e learning. a cross- sectional study]. educational development of jundishapur 2012; 3 (4): 30- 8.[persian]
10. Emran E, salary Z. [blended learning. new approach in education development and teaching process]. education methods in medical education bimonthly scientific and research journal 2012; 1 (5): 140 -8. [persian]
11. Kenny A. Online learning: enhancing nurse education? Journal of Advanced Nursing 2002; 38 (2): 127- 35. [DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02156.x]
12. Ghanbari A, Asgari F, Taheri M. [View Points of Faculty Members of Guilan university of Medical Sciences in regard to Electronic Learning]. Strides in Development of Medical Education 2012; 8 (2): 159 - 66.[persian]
13. Melo BC, Falbo AR, Muijtjens AM, Vleuten CP, Merriënboer JJ. The use of instructional design guidelines to increase effectiveness of postpartum hemorrhage simulation training. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 2017; 137(1):99-105 [DOI:10.1002/ijgo.12084]
14. Merrill MD. If Content Is King then e 3 Instruction Is Queen. Learning and Knowledge Analytics in Open Education: Springer; 2017.
15. Firuzi Z, karami M, rezvani MS, karshaki H. [assessment of david merill method in teachers inservice education]. teachin and learning studies journa 2015, 7 (1): 49 - 70. [persian]
16. Margaryan A, Bianco M, Littlejohn A. Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education 2015; 80: 77 - 83. [DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.005]
17. Hew KF, Cheung WS. Students' and instructors' use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review 2014; 12: 45 - 58. [DOI:10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001]
18. Anarinejad A, Mohammadi M. [The Practical Indicators for Evaluation of E - Learning in Higher Education in Iran]. IJVLMS 2014; 5 (1): 11- 25 [persian].
19. Clark RC, Mayer RE.E- learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning:1st ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2016. [DOI:10.1002/9781119239086]
20. Frick TW, Chadha R, Watson C, Zlatkovska E. Improving course evaluations to improve instruction and complex learning in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development 2010; 58 (2): 115- 36. [DOI:10.1007/s11423-009-9131-z]
21. Merrill MD. First principles of instruction:1st ed. san francisco: John Wiley & Sons; 2012.
22. Gardner J, Belland BR. Problem- Centered Supplemental Instruction in Biology: Influence on Content Recall, Content Understanding, and Problem Solving Ability. Journal of Science Education and Technology 2017; 26(4) 1- 11. [DOI:10.1007/s10956-017-9686-0]
23. Könings KD, Brand‐ Gruwel S, Merriënboer JJ. Towards more powerful learning environments through combining the perspectives of designers, teachers, and students. British Journal of Educational Psychology 2005; 75 (4): 645- 60. [DOI:10.1348/000709905X43616]
24. Fardanesh H, Ebrahimzadeh E, Sarmadi M, omrani s.[comparison of two electronic and traditional edducation method on learning and motivation of countinious medical education society]. Journal of Education Technology 2013; 5(2):143-152.[persian]
25. Emamiyan Kheshti M, Ghasemi M, Mehraji N, Kazem Banihashem S, Badali M. [The effect of integration of Merrill's first principles of instruction with team based learning on the achievement of recall and application of nursing students]. journal of nursing education 2016; 5 (1): 62- 71. [persian]
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:


XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Badanara marzdashty A, Emami Sigaroudi A, Kazemnezhad-Leyli E, Poursheikhian M. Compare the effect of two electronic and traditional education methods on first principles of instruction in nursing students of Guilan University of Medical Sciences in 2016. rme. 2018; 10 (1) :48-55
URL: http://rme.gums.ac.ir/article-1-497-en.html

Volume 10, Issue 1 (spring 2018) Back to browse issues page
پژوهش در آموزش علوم پزشکی Research in Medical Education