Journal List > J Korean Acad Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs > v.26(2) > 1058117

Lee, Chang, and Jang: Effects of the Flipped Classroom Approach on the Psychiatric Nursing Practicum Course

Abstract

Purpose

In this study effects of a flipped learning-based psychiatric nursing practicum were evaluated for appropriateness with undergraduate nursing students who are digital natives and tech-savvy millennial students.

Methods

For this retrospective comparative study data from 146 undergraduate students (flipped learning group n=70, traditional learning group n=76) were evaluated for academic performance and life core competencies.

Results

There was no significant difference between the flipped and traditional learning groups in prior homogeneity tests. The academic performance of the flipped learning group was higher than the control group in all aspects, except for practical quiz scores. The flipped leaning group had significantly higher self-assessment scores for academic performance (t=2.77, p=.006) and therapeutic communication simulation scores (t=3.18, p=.002). In addition, they showed a significant increase in core life competencies after participating in the flipped-learning practicum (t=-8.56, p<.001). They showed significant increases in all subdomains except Identity-value [Socialization (t=-5.13, p<.001), Responsibility-practice (t=-3.52, p=.001), Problem-solving (t=-2.67, p=.010), Knowledge-construction (t=-2.48, p=.016), and Information-management (t=-5.54, p<.001)]. Nursing students in the flipped learning-based clinical practicum showed significant improvement in performance and life core competencies.

Conclusion

These results suggest that as a student-centered pedagogy, flipped learning is an effective strategy for improving academic performance and core competencies.

REFERENCES

1. Benner P. Curricular and pedagogical implications for the Carnegie study, educating nurses: a call for radical transformation. Asian Nursing Research. 2015; 9(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2015.02.001.
crossref
2. Hawks SJ. The flipped classroom: now or never? AANA Journal. 2014; 82(4):264–269.
3. Prober CG, Khan S. Medical education reimagined: a call to action. Academic Medicine. 2013; 88(10):1407–1410. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182a368bd.
4. Sams A, Bergmann J. Flip your students' learning. Educational Leadership. 2013; 70(6):16–20.
5. King A. From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching. 1993; 41(1):30–35.
crossref
6. Khan S. Let's use video to reinvent education [Internet]. 2011. Available from. https://www.ted.com/talks/salman_khan_let_s_use_video_to_reinvent_education?language=ko.
7. Bergmann J, Sams A. Flipped learning: gateway to student engagement. 1st ed.Int'l Society for Technology in Education;2014. p. 48.
8. Kantar LD. Assessment and instruction to promote higher order thinking in nursing students. Nurse Education Today. 2014; 34(5):789–794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.08.013.
crossref
9. Roehl A, Reddy SL, Shannon GJ. The flipped classroom: an opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning strategies. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences. 2013; 105(2):44–49.
crossref
10. Montenery SM, Walker M, Sorensen E, Thompson R, Kirklin D, White R, et al. Millennial generation student nurses' perceptions of the impact of multiple technologies on learning. Nursing Education Perspectives. 2013; 34(6):405–409. https://doi.org/10.5480/10-451.
crossref
11. Gaughan JE. The flipped classroom in world history. History Teacher. 2014; 47(2):221–244.
12. Green T. Flipped classrooms: an agenda for innovative marketing education in the digital era. Marketing Education Review. 2015; 25(3):179–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2015.1044851.
crossref
13. Davies R, Dean D, Ball N. Flipping the classroom and instructional technology intergration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2013; 61(4):563–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9305-6.
14. Ho J, Bidwal MK, Lopes IC, Shah BM, Ip EJ. Implementation of an accelerated physical examination course in a doctor of pharmacy program. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 2014; 78(10):1–7. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7810182.
crossref
15. McLaughlin JE, Griffin LM, Esserman DA, Davidson CA, Glatt DM, Roth MT, et al. Pharmacy student engagement, performance, and perception in a flipped satellite classroom. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 2013; 77(9):1–8. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe779196.
crossref
16. Fahlberg B, Rice E, Muehrer R, Brey D. Active learning environments in nursing education: the experience of the university of wisconsin-madison school of nursing. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 2014; 137:85–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20089.
crossref
17. Harrington SA, Bosch MV, Schoofs N, Beel-Bates C, Anderson K. Quantitative outcomes for nursing students in a flipped classroom. Nursing Education Perspectives. 2015; 36(3):179–181. https://doi.org/10.5480/13-1255.
crossref
18. Wong TH, Ip EJ, Lopes I, Rajagopalan V. Pharmacy students' performance and perceptions in a flipped teaching pilot on cardiac arrhythmias. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 2014; 78(10):1–6. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7810185.
crossref
19. Waltz CF, Jenkins LS, Han N. The use and effectiveness of active learning methods in nursing and health professions education: a literature review. Nursing Education Perspectives. 2014; 35(6):392–400. https://doi.org/10.5480/13-1168.
crossref
20. Critz CM, Knight D. Using the flipped classroom in graduate nursing education. Nurse Educator. 2013; 38(5):210–213. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0b013e3182a0e56a.
crossref
21. Baek PG. A study on the relationships and characteristics between Korean collegiate essential skills and undergraduates' individual variant factors. Korean Journal of General Education. 2013; 7(3):349–387.
22. Kang M, Kim E, Yoo YR, Kim B. Comparing the life core competency of Korean undergraduates by learners' characteristics. Journal of Lifelong Learning Society. 2014; 10(4):61–84.
crossref
23. Presti CR. The flipped learning approach in nursing education: a literature review. Journal of Nursing Education. 2016; 55(5):252–257. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20160414-03.
crossref
24. Goodwin B, Miller K. Evidence on flipped classrooms is still coming in. Educational Leadership. 2013; 70(6):78–80.
25. Bishop JL, Verleger MA. The flipped classroom: a survey of the research. In ASEE National Conference Proceedings. 2013 June; Atlanta, GA, Vol. 30, No. 9. Paper ID#6219. 1–18.
crossref
26. Jones M. Developing clinically savvy nursing students: an evaluation of problem-based learning in an associate degree program. Nursing Education Perspectives. 2008; 29(5):278–283.
27. Missildine K, Fountain R, Summers L, Gosselin K. Flipping the classroom to improve student performance and satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Education. 2013; 52(10):597–599. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20130919-03.
crossref
28. McCurry MK, Martins DC. Teaching undergraduate nursing research: a comparison of traditional and innovative approaches for success with millennial learners. Journal of Nursing Education. 2010; 49(5):276–279. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20091217-02.
crossref
29. Strayer JF. How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environment Research. 2012; 15:171–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4.
crossref

Table 1.
Demographics of Participants and Homogeneity Test between Flipped-learning Group and Traditional-learning Group (N=146)
Variables Categories Flipped-learning group (n=70) Traditional-learning group (n=76) x2 or t p
n (%) or M±SD n (%) or M±SD
Age   23.06±1.51 22.70±0.95 1.73 .085
Gender Female 60 (85.7) 67 (88.2) 0.19 .661
Male 10 (14.3) 9 (11.8)    
Transfer students No 64 (91.4) 71 (93.4) 0.21 .649
Yes 6 (8.6) 5 (6.6)    
Academic performance   72.90±9.26 75.71±8.69 −1.89 .060
Table 2.
Comparison of the Differences between Flipped-learning Group and Traditional-learning Group (N=146)
Variables Flipped-learning group (n=70) Traditional-learning group (n=76) t p
M±SD M±SD
Quiz 11.89±2.00 11.88±1.83 0.01 .990
Self-assessment 47.64±2.94 46.38±2.56 2.77 .006
Simulation performance 8.00±1.14 7.35±1.28 3.18 .002
Satisfaction 4.66±0.48 4.45±0.50 2.59 .011
Table 3.
Differences in Core Competencies before and after Flipped Learning (N=70)
Variables Before flipped learning (n=70) After flipped learning (n=70) t p
M±SD M±SD
Life core competency 120.54±12.62 127.81±11.66 −8.56 <.001
Socialization 27.70±3.54 29.80±2.87 −5.13 <.001
Responsibility-practice 25.36±4.07 26.60±3.66 −3.52 .001
Problem-solving 24.09±4.53 25.04±3.52 −2.67 .010
Knowledge-construction 17.24±2.87 18.06±3.04 −2.48 .016
Information-management 14.17±2.40 16.01±2.36 −5.54 <.001
Identity-value 11.99±1.92 12.30±1.76 −1.36 .179
TOOLS
Similar articles