↓ Skip to main content

Pure PBL, Hybrid PBL and Lecturing: which one is more effective in developing cognitive skills of undergraduate students in pediatric nursing course?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pure PBL, Hybrid PBL and Lecturing: which one is more effective in developing cognitive skills of undergraduate students in pediatric nursing course?
Published in
BMC Medical Education, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1305-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohsen Salari, Amrollah Roozbehi, Abdolvahed Zarifi, Rohani Ahmad Tarmizi

Abstract

Nursing education in Iran has conventionally focused on lecture-based strategies. Improvements in teaching and learning over the years have led to an expansion of the pedagogies available to educators. Likewise, there has been a suggestion for a move toward more learner-centered teaching strategies and pedagogies that can result in improvement in learning. This study was undertaken to investigate the effects of Problem-Based Learning in developing cognitive skills in learning Pediatric Nursing among university students. In this quasi-experimental, posttest-only nonequivalent control group design, the subjects were undergraduate students who had enrolled in Pediatric Nursing II at Islamic Azad University in Iran. The experiment was conducted over a period of eight weeks, one two-hour session and two two-hour sessions. Two experimental groups, Pure Problem-Based Learning (PPBL) and the Hybrid Problem- Based Learning (HPBL), and one Lecturing or Conventional Teaching and Learning (COTL) group were involved. In the PPBL group, PBL method with guided questions and a tutor, and in the HPBL group, problem-based learning method, some guided questions, minimal lecturing and a tutor were used. The COTL group, however, underwent learning using conventional instruction utilizing full lecture. The three groups were compared on cognitive performances, namely, test performance, mental effort, and instructional efficiency. Two instruments, i.e., Pediatric Nursing Performance Test (PNPT) and Paas Mental Effort Rating Scale (PMER) were used. In addition, the two-Dimensional Instructional Efficiency Index (IEI) formula was utilized. The statistical analyses used were ANOVA, ANCOVA, and mixed between-within subjects ANOVA. Results showed that the PPBL and HPBL instructional methods, in comparison with COTL, enhanced the students' overall and higher-order performances in Pediatric Nursing, and induced higher level of instructional efficiency with less mental effort (p < 0.005). Although there was no significant difference in lower-order performance among the groups during the posttest (p = 0.92), the HPBL group outperformed the COTL group on the delayed posttest (p = 0.028). It may be concluded that both forms of PBL were effective for learning Pediatric Nursing. Moreover, PBL appears to be useful where there are shortages of instructors for handling teaching purposes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Lecturer 6 8%
Other 5 7%
Other 21 28%
Unknown 21 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 18%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Arts and Humanities 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 26 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 April 2019.
All research outputs
#4,426,708
of 14,568,967 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#855
of 2,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,942
of 274,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,568,967 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,133 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,007 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them