Volume 12, Issue 1 (2024)
Health Educ Health Promot 2024, 12(1): 85-89 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Sohrabi Z, Rasouli D, Nouri Khaneghah Z, Ramezanpour E, Nosrati S, Zhianifard A. Comparing the Effect of Virtual Doughnut Educational Rounds and Online Lecture Methods on the Learning and Satisfaction of Operating Room Nursing Students; A Self-Directed Learning Method. Health Educ Health Promot 2024; 12 (1) :85-89
URL: http://hehp.modares.ac.ir/article-5-73229-en.html
URL: http://hehp.modares.ac.ir/article-5-73229-en.html
1- “Center for Educational Research in Medical Sciences (CERMS)” and “Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine”, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (1208 Views)
Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of virtual Doughnut educational rounds on learning levels and satisfaction among nursing students in the operating room setting.
Materials & Methods: This quasi-experimental study with a pre-test-post-test design involved 70 undergraduate nursing students specializing in operating room practices, selected through a census approach. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups: one receiving instruction via online lectures and the other through virtual Doughnut educational rounds. The educational material was delivered to the first group using the virtual Doughnut round method and to the second group through online lectures. Data were gathered and analyzed using SPSS software version 19, employing descriptive statistics, t-tests, analysis of covariance, and the Mann-Whitney test.
Findings: The pre-test scores did not show a statistically significant difference between students taught by online lectures and those taught by virtual Doughnut educational rounds (p-value=0.538). However, t-test analysis indicated that the Doughnut round method was more effective than traditional lectures, with students showing significantly greater satisfaction with the Doughnut round approach (p<0.0001).
Conclusion: The virtual Doughnut round method is more effective than traditional lectures for teaching operating room nursing students, particularly those in their senior year.
Materials & Methods: This quasi-experimental study with a pre-test-post-test design involved 70 undergraduate nursing students specializing in operating room practices, selected through a census approach. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups: one receiving instruction via online lectures and the other through virtual Doughnut educational rounds. The educational material was delivered to the first group using the virtual Doughnut round method and to the second group through online lectures. Data were gathered and analyzed using SPSS software version 19, employing descriptive statistics, t-tests, analysis of covariance, and the Mann-Whitney test.
Findings: The pre-test scores did not show a statistically significant difference between students taught by online lectures and those taught by virtual Doughnut educational rounds (p-value=0.538). However, t-test analysis indicated that the Doughnut round method was more effective than traditional lectures, with students showing significantly greater satisfaction with the Doughnut round approach (p<0.0001).
Conclusion: The virtual Doughnut round method is more effective than traditional lectures for teaching operating room nursing students, particularly those in their senior year.
Keywords: Teaching Rounds [Mesh], Nursing Student [MeSH], Self-Directed Learning as Topic [MeSH], Doughnut Education [MeSH]
Article Type: Original Research |
Subject:
Health Education and Health Behavior
Received: 2024/01/2 | Accepted: 2024/03/5 | Published: 2024/03/20
Received: 2024/01/2 | Accepted: 2024/03/5 | Published: 2024/03/20
References
1. Wilson G. Redesigning oR orientation. AORN J. 2012;95(4):453-62. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.aorn.2012.01.022]
2. Kim KH. Clinical competence among senior nursing students after their preceptorship experiences. J Prof Nurs. 2007;23(6):369-75. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.profnurs.2007.01.019]
3. Baraz Pordanjani S, Fereidooni Moghadam M, Loorizade MR. Clinical education status according to the nursing and midwifery students point of view Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2009;5(2):102-12. [Persian] [Link]
4. Angelopoulou P, Panagopoulou E. Non-clinical rounds in hospital settings: A scoping review. J Health Organ Manag. 2019;33(5):605-16. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/JHOM-09-2018-0244]
5. Rajasoorya C. Clinical ward rounds-challenges and opportunities. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2016;45(4):152-6. [Link] [DOI:10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.V45N4p152]
6. Yosefi M. Clinical round anxiety. Horiz Med Educ Dev. 2016;6(2):39-40. [Persian] [Link]
7. Dolcourt JL, Zuckerman G, Warner K. Learners' decisions for attending Pediatric Grand Rounds: A qualitative and quantitative study. BMC Med Educ. 2006;6:26. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/1472-6920-6-26]
8. Zhang Y, Zerafa Simler MA, Stabile I. Supported self-directed learning of clinical anatomy: A pilot study of Doughnut rounds. Eur J Anat. 2017;21(4):319-24. [Link]
9. Fleiszer D, Fleiszer T, Russell R. Doughnut rounds: A self-directed learing approach to teaching critical care in surgery. Med Teach. 1997;19(3):190-3. [Link] [DOI:10.3109/01421599709019380]
10. Satyajit S, Hironmoy R. Students' perception on 'Doughnut rounds' in self directed learning of anatomy. Int J Sci Res. 2019;8(12). [Link]
11. Dung DTH. The advantages and disadvantages of virtual learning. IOSR J Res Method Educ. 2020;10(3 Ser 5):45-8. [Link]
12. Novintan S, Mann S, Hazemi-Jebelli Y. Simulations and virtual learning supporting clinical education during the COVID 19 pandemic. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2020;11:649-50. [Link] [DOI:10.2147/AMEP.S276699]
13. Rezaei B. Quality of clinical education (a case study in the viewpoints of nursing and midwifery students in Islamic Azad University, Falavarjan Branch). Educ Strateg Med Sci. 2016;9(2):106-17. [Persian] [Link]
14. Momeni Danaei S, Zarshenas L, Oshagh M, Omid Khoda SM. Which method of teaching would be better cooperative or lecture?. Iran J Med Educ. 2011;11(1):24-31. [Persian] [Link]
15. Nayak M, Belle V. Various methods of Self-directed learning in medical education. MediSys J Med Sci. 2020;1(1):15-22. [Link] [DOI:10.51159/MediSysJMedSci.2020.v01i01.004]
16. Pai KM, Rao KR, Punja D, Kamath A. The effectiveness of self-directed learning (SDL) for teaching physiology to first-year medical students. Australas Med J. 2014;7(11):448-53. [Link] [DOI:10.4066/AMJ.2014.2211]
17. Vinay G, Veerapu N. A comparison of self-directed learning and lecture methods for teaching embryology among first year medical students. Sch Int J Anat Physiol. 2019;2(12):352-5. [Link] [DOI:10.36348/sijap.2019.v02i12.003]
18. Palve S, Palve S. Comparative study of self-directed learning and traditional teaching method in understanding cardio-respiratory physiology among medical undergraduates. Biomedicine. 2022;42(1):138-42. [Link] [DOI:10.51248/.v42i1.662]
19. Hill M, Peters M, Salvaggio M, Vinnedge J, Darden A. Implementation and evaluation of a self-directed learning activity for first-year medical students. Med Educ Online. 2020;25(1):1717780. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/10872981.2020.1717780]
20. Bergman EM, Sieben JM, Smailbegovic I, De Bruin ABH, Scherpbier AJJA, Van Der Vleuten CPM. Constructive, collaborative, contextual, and self-directed learning in surface anatomy education. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6(2):114-24. [Link] [DOI:10.1002/ase.1306]
21. Lollis MAW. Self-directed learning readiness, student satisfaction, self-confidence, and persistence in associate degree nursing students [dissertation]. Minneapolis: Capella University; 2016. [Link]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |