Comparing the Effects of Flipped Classroom and Traditional Lecture Method on Academic Performance and Classroom Environment Perception among Nursing Students: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparison of two methods: flipped classroom and lecture on academic performance and perception of nursing students

This was a randomized controlled pre- and post-test trial with a control group.

All nursing students in the second semester of the Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery of Qom who had taken the Adult and Older Adult Nursing 1 course were included in the study if they were eligible to participate. They were assigned to the intervention and control groups using simple random assignment. This study was conducted in a single-blind manner, such that the researchers who collected and assessed the outcome were unaware of the type of intervention.

Inclusion criteria included taking the Adult and Older Adults Nursing 1 course for the first time; having access to devices such as mobile phones, computers, and the Internet for retrieving educational materials; and expressing willingness to participate in the study. The exclusion criteria included completion of training courses related to fluid and electrolytes, known learning disabilities, and participation in a similar study at the same time.

"Intervention group:" Teaching in the intervention group was inverted as follows: students had to read the educational content related to the same session at home that was provided to them in advance and come to the classroom prepared for the next session. In the class, students were divided into groups of five to six and discussed the scenarios and questions designed by the teacher. The intervention was planned for 4 2-hour sessions, which were delivered over 4 consecutive weeks. "Control group:" The instructor presented the educational content in the form of a lecture and via PowerPoint presentation.

academic performance, students' perceptions

The students were divided into two intervention and control groups using simple randomization. A Microsoft Excel random number generator with a 1:1 ratio was used to generate sequence numbers. The sequence numbers were then coded and placed in sealed opaque envelopes. The research assistant divided the students into intervention (29 people) or control (29 people) groups based on the sequence numbers in the envelope of their choice. The entire randomization process was carried out by a research assistant who was not involved in the intervention and data analysis.

This was a single-blind study. Because this study adopted educational interventions that made it difficult to blind the participants (students) and the researcher (instructor) conducting the intervention, only the researchers responsible for data collection and analysis and for assessing the outcomes were blinded to group assignment. Thus, the researchers responsible for collecting and assessing outcomes had no access to the list of participants assigned to the intervention and control groups. The collected data were recorded and stored using random identifiers (such as unique numbers unrelated to grouping). These codes were created by the principal investigator, who had access to the decoding key. Blinded researchers collected data based on these codes and conducted outcome assessments (such as scoring tests or analyzing responses) without knowledge of the participant groupings.

It can be shared after de-identifying individuals.

Access begins one year after results are published.

People working in academic and scientific institutions

Subject to agreement with Qom University of Medical Sciences

Faculty of Nursing, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Ms. Mahboubeh Sadat Yousefi

Written and official request to the Vice President of Research, Faculty of Nursing