Volume 12, Issue 3 (2024)
Health Educ Health Promot 2024, 12(3): 383-388 |
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:
Sadati L, Edalattalab F, Nouri Khaneghah Z, Karami S, Khalilnejad M, Abjar R. Comparing Student-Centered Teaching Methods in Virtual Education; Interactive Lectures vs. Jigsaw Puzzles. Health Educ Health Promot 2024; 12 (3) :383-388
URL: http://hehp.modares.ac.ir/article-5-74948-en.html
URL: http://hehp.modares.ac.ir/article-5-74948-en.html
1- Department of Operating Room, School of Paramedical Sciences, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran
2- “Center for Educational Research in Medical Sciences (CERMS)” and “Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine”, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3- Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- “Center for Educational Research in Medical Sciences (CERMS)” and “Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine”, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3- Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (503 Views)
Aims: This study compared two innovative teaching methods, including interactive online lecture-based versus online jigsaw puzzle-based instruction for surgical technology education in a virtual environment.
Materials & Methods: This quasi-experimental pre-post single-group design was conducted on 42 undergraduate surgical technology students at Alborz University of Medical Sciences. Topics in a general surgical technology module were divided into two sections and taught using these methods. Learning and retention were assessed using 40-item multiple-choice questions in the pre- and post-test stages. Academic enthusiasm was evaluated using a standard 15-item questionnaire.
Findings: Participants’ mean age was 20.26±0.63 years, with a GPA of 16.43±0.94. The interactive online lecture-based group demonstrated significantly higher learning gains than the online jigsaw puzzle-based group (p=0.02, z=-2.20, d=3.41). No significant between-group differences emerged in retention (p=0.95, t=0.05, d=0.013). For academic enthusiasm, the interactive online lecture-based group showed higher behavioral engagement compared to the online jigsaw puzzle-based group (p=0.005, t=2.87), but no other differences were noted.
Conclusion: Interactive online lectures lead to superior learning outcomes, supporting the transition of traditional techniques online with interactivity. However, virtual jigsaw puzzles exhibit weaker educational effects, potentially due to coordination challenges.
Materials & Methods: This quasi-experimental pre-post single-group design was conducted on 42 undergraduate surgical technology students at Alborz University of Medical Sciences. Topics in a general surgical technology module were divided into two sections and taught using these methods. Learning and retention were assessed using 40-item multiple-choice questions in the pre- and post-test stages. Academic enthusiasm was evaluated using a standard 15-item questionnaire.
Findings: Participants’ mean age was 20.26±0.63 years, with a GPA of 16.43±0.94. The interactive online lecture-based group demonstrated significantly higher learning gains than the online jigsaw puzzle-based group (p=0.02, z=-2.20, d=3.41). No significant between-group differences emerged in retention (p=0.95, t=0.05, d=0.013). For academic enthusiasm, the interactive online lecture-based group showed higher behavioral engagement compared to the online jigsaw puzzle-based group (p=0.005, t=2.87), but no other differences were noted.
Conclusion: Interactive online lectures lead to superior learning outcomes, supporting the transition of traditional techniques online with interactivity. However, virtual jigsaw puzzles exhibit weaker educational effects, potentially due to coordination challenges.
Article Type: Original Research |
Subject:
Technology of Health Education
Received: 2024/05/5 | Accepted: 2024/08/28 | Published: 2024/09/5
Received: 2024/05/5 | Accepted: 2024/08/28 | Published: 2024/09/5
References
1. Pilehroud MN. A review of the challenges and educational opportunities in the period prevalence COVID-19. Paramed Sci Mil Health. 2021;16(1):57-64. [Persian] [Link]
2. Sadeghi Mahali N, Arsalani N, Rad M, Nematifard T, Khaki S, Fallahi-Khoshkenab M. Comparison of virtual education challenges in nursing before and after COVID-19; A systematic review. Iran J Syst Rev Med Sci. 2023;1(3):81-103. [Persian] [Link]
3. Sadati L, Abjar R, Nosrati Abarghoee S, Edalat F, Nouri Z. E-learning challenges and opportunities as experienced by the students Alborz University of Medical Sciences during the Covid-19 pandemic: A qualitative study. Educ Dev Judishapur. 2022;12(4):1011-23. [Persian] [Link]
4. Sadati L, Nouri Z, Hajfiroozabadi M, Abjar R. Faculty members' experiences about virtual education opportunities and challenges during the Covid-19: A qualitative study. J Med Educ Dev. 2021;14(42):1-10. [Persian] [Link] [DOI:10.52547/edcj.14.42.1]
5. Dedeilia A, Sotiropoulos MG, Hanrahan JG, Janga D, Dedeilias P, Sideris M. Medical and surgical education challenges and innovations in the COVID-19 era: A systematic review. In Vivo. 2020;34(3 Suppl):1603-11. [Link] [DOI:10.21873/invivo.11950]
6. Safari M, Yazdanpanah B, Ghafarian H, Yazdanpanah S. Comparing the effect of lecture and discussion methods on students' learning and satisfaction. Iran J Med Educ. 2006;6(1):59-64. [Persian] [Link]
7. Wolff M, Wagner MJ, Poznanski S, Schiller J, Santen S. Not another boring lecture: Engaging learners with active learning techniques. J Emerg Med. 2015;48(1):85-93. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jemermed.2014.09.010]
8. Kumar R, Kandhasamy K, Chauhan R, Bazroy J, Purty A, Singh Z. Tutorials: An effective and interactive method of teaching undergraduate medical students. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2016;3(9):2593-5. [Link] [DOI:10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20163079]
9. Begum J, Ali SI, Panda M. Introduction of interactive teaching for undergraduate students in community medicine. Indian J Community Med. 2020;45(1):72-6. [Link] [DOI:10.4103/ijcm.IJCM_232_19]
10. Schwartzstein RM, Roberts DH. Saying goodbye to lectures in medical school-paradigm shift or passing fad?. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(7):605-7. [Link] [DOI:10.1056/NEJMp1706474]
11. Chilwant K. Comparison of two teaching methods, structured interactive lectures and conventional lectures. Biomed Res. 2012;23(3):363-6. [Link]
12. Sadati L, Pazouki AR, Golchin E, Mehdizadehkashi A, Pishgahroudsari M, Tamannaie Z. The effect of cooperative teaching based on students' active participation on learning level in the paramedical faculty of Alborz university of medical sciences. Med Educ J. 2013;1(2):46-52. [Persian] [Link]
13. Khalid K, Ahmad SA. Effectiveness of interactive lectures on knowledge retention and students' motivation in undergraduate medical education-a mixed method study. Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2019;69(1):206-11. [Link]
14. Leon J, Medina-Garrido E, Núñez JL. Teaching quality in math class: The development of a scale and the analysis of its relationship with engagement and achievement. Front Psychol. 2017;8:895. [Link] [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00895]
15. Maulana R, Opdenakker MC, Stroet K, Bosker R. Observed lesson structure during the first year of secondary education: Exploration of change and link with academic engagement. Teach Teach Educ. 2012;28(6):835-50. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.005]
16. Zare H, Arezi S. The effect of teaching methods of puzzle on students learning. Res Sch Virtual Learn. 2014;2(6):7-16. [Persian] [Link]
17. Azimi M, Kiani Gh, Adib Y, Piri M. Effect of different methods performance of cooperative learning on students general self-efficiency. Res Curric Plan. 2016;13(49):99-109. [Persian] [Link]
18. Amani Saribaglo J, Babai Sangleji M, Adib Y, Fathi-Azar E. Students' motivational and social experiences in jig saw cooperative learning method: A qualitative study. J Child Ment Health. 2018;5(1):92-104. [Persian] [Link]
19. Mousavi MS, Mahmoudi M, Hekmat Pou D, Asgari P. Comparison of problem solving and participatory teaching methods on clinical learning, anxiety and satisfaction of nursing students in Arak University of Medical Sciences. J Nurs Educ. 2018;7(1):55-63. [Persian] [Link]
20. Aghapour SA, Vakili MA, Karbasi M, Badeli R. Comparison the effect of student-based group discussion and lecture methods teaching on midwifery student's learning level. Sci J Educ Strateg Med Sci. 2015;8(5):281-6. [Persian] [Link]
21. Zingone MM, Franks AS, Guirguis AB, George CM, Howard-Thompson A, Heidel RE. Comparing team-based and mixed active-learning methods in an ambulatory care elective course. Am J Pharm Educ. 2010;74(9):160. [Link] [DOI:10.5688/aj7409160]
22. Andrews TM, Leonard MJ, Colgrove CA, Kalinowski ST. Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2011;10(4):394-405. [Link] [DOI:10.1187/cbe.11-07-0061]
23. Haladyna TM. Developing and validating multiple-choice test items. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge; 2004. [Link] [DOI:10.4324/9780203825945]
24. Abbasi M, Dargahi S, Pirani Z, Bonyadi F. Role of procrastination and motivational self-regulation in predicting students' academic engagement. Iran J Med Educ. 2015;15:160-9. [Persian] [Link]
25. Iwanaga J, Loukas M, Dumont AS, Tubbs RS. A review of anatomy education during and after the COVID-19 pandemic: Revisiting traditional and modern methods to achieve future innovation. Clin Anat. 2021;34(1):108-14. [Link] [DOI:10.1002/ca.23655]
26. Alsoufi A, Alsuyihili A, Msherghi A, Elhadi A, Atiyah H, Ashini A, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical education: Medical students' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding electronic learning. PLoS One. 2020;15(11):e0242905. [Link] [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0242905]
27. Alaagib NA, Musa OA, Saeed AM. Comparison of the effectiveness of lectures based on problems and traditional lectures in physiology teaching in Sudan. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):365. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/s12909-019-1799-0]
28. Abedi N, Taherabadi AA, Kheirollahi F, Jamshidi B. The effect of teaching method STAD, JIGSAW and virtual education on achieving students' cognitive goals of financial statements based on bloom's classification. Account Audit Rev. 2022;29(1):113-45. [Persian] [Link]
29. Hannani S, Samii N, Khacian A. Comparison of traditional and Jigsaw teaching methods on learning and perception of learning environment of operating room students of Iran university of medical sciences. J Nurs Educ. 2019;8(5):39-46. [Persian] [Link]
30. Melinamani S, Francis F, George R, Pushpa LM, Vergheese S. The Jigsaw effect: Impact of Jigsaw learning technique on nursing students to learn the concepts of normal labor. Asian J Nurs Educ Res. 2017;7(2):181-4. [Link] [DOI:10.5958/2349-2996.2017.00037.4]
31. Shakerian S, Khoshgoftar Z, Rezayof E, Amadi M. The use of the Jigsaw cooperative learning technique for the health science students in Iran: A meta-analysis. Educ Res Med Sci. 2020;9(1):e102043. [Link] [DOI:10.5812/erms.102043]
32. Zamani P, Haghighi SB, Ravanbakhsh M. The use of crossword puzzles as an educational tool. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2021;9(2):102-8. [Link]
33. Alrashidi O, Phan HP, Ngu BH. Academic engagement: An overview of its definitions, dimensions, and major conceptualisations. Int Educ Stud. 2016;9(12):41-52. [Link] [DOI:10.5539/ies.v9n12p41]
34. Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev Educ Res. 2004;74(1):59-109. [Link] [DOI:10.3102/00346543074001059]
35. Azizi S, Bagheri M, Karimi Moonaghi H, Mazloum S. Comparison of the effect of two educational methods of Jigsaw and feedback on the level of satisfaction of nursing and anesthesia students of Mashhad school of nursing and midwifery. Res Med Educ. 2021;12(4):16-28. [Persian] [Link] [DOI:10.52547/rme.12.4.16]
36. Hahn S, Ryu YM. A study on the correlations among IRAT, GRAT, problem solving, communication, learning motivation, and learning satisfaction after team-based learning in nursing students. Int J Pure Appl Math. 2018;118(24). [Link]
37. Sanaie N, Vasli P, Sedighi L, Sadeghi B. Comparing the effect of lecture and Jigsaw teaching strategies on the nursing students' self-regulated learning and academic motivation: A quasi-experimental study. Nurse Educ Today. 2019;79:35-40. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.nedt.2019.05.022]
38. Alotiby AA. The correlation between stress levels among undergraduate medical students and their motivation for studying medicine. Educ Res Int. 2022;2022(1):1605435. [Link] [DOI:10.1155/2022/1605435]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |