THE COMPARISON STUDY ON THE EFFECT OF VIDEOTAPE AND DIDACTIC METHOD ON INSTRUCTION AND DEMONSTRATION DURING PRACTICAL SESSION: NURSING CONTEXT

Last registered on April 30, 2018

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
THE COMPARISON STUDY ON THE EFFECT OF VIDEOTAPE AND DIDACTIC METHOD ON INSTRUCTION AND DEMONSTRATION DURING PRACTICAL SESSION: NURSING CONTEXT
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0002858
Initial registration date
April 25, 2018

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
April 30, 2018, 1:20 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Uitm

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
UiTM

Additional Trial Information

Status
Completed
Start date
2017-05-01
End date
2017-10-25
Secondary IDs
Abstract
Aim of the study/Purpose: Aim of this study is to compare the effect of videotaping method with didactic method during a demonstration of a practical session among nursing students. This study intended to investigate teaching methods which are the best during conducting the practical sessions.

Introduction in brief: Didactic teaching method is the common method that has been used by teaching institutions. For the nursing students, clinical skills practices are very important. There are many students in one class of a nursing program, hence, the probability of difficulties in observing the demonstration given by the lecturer is clearly very high. Many lectures took place in a big room and interaction does not feel like personal communication because the instructor stands so far away which cause the failure of understanding for the students. The limitations of traditional practical skill teaching have inspired a number of alternatives to the teaching methods including videotaping. The purpose of using video is to standardize the demonstration of procedure that received by students and also to rationalize the teaching program. Thus, current project was carried out to investigate the differences between videotape and didactic teaching methods among nursing students.

Procedures/Methods: A randomized crossover design was conducted at UiTM Selangor. Thirty participants were involved in this study. They have divided into two groups by sequence random sampling and questionnaires (students’ perception of teaching method) were given to the participants as pre-tests. In the first session, both groups were received different teaching methods (either videotaping or didactic method) at the same time but in different locations. After teaching demonstration, one volunteer student was performed a returned demonstration on the procedure which has been taught and guided by the procedure checklist and evaluated by the lecturer. After the completion of the first session, they were given 2 hours times for taking rest (washout period) and proceed with the second session where they switched the teaching methods. Post questionnaire was given after completing the second session. Both teaching methods were conducted by the same lecturer.

Results: Result showed that pre-test means for both groups had no significant different (p=>0.05). Post-test for videotape method showed significant in both groups with p=0.04. On the other hand, didactic method gave a significant result where both groups showed more understanding after attending didactic demonstration with p=0.00. Scores from the students who volunteered to perform return demonstration showed that there was no significant difference between both methods. Meaning, student able to score similar marks after attended both methods (Score after watching video was 26/30 and didactic method was 27/30, p=0.33). Overall, the study finding reveals that there were no significant differences between both teaching method as p-value is greater than 0.05 (Videotaping method versus didactic method, p = 0.12; 0.59).

Conclusion: Study concluded that there was no significant difference between both teaching methods, however, the majority of the participants prefer didactic teaching method with smaller students for a better view. The videotape also can be considered as a complementary method to enhance better understanding on the certain procedure.

Acknowledgments
Special thanks are dedicated to UiTM Selangor for providing research grant (ARAS grant -600-IRMI/DANA 5/3/ARAS (0088/2016) and for nursing students to involve in this project.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
ABDULLAH, SHARIFAH SHAFINAZ BINTI et al. 2018. "THE COMPARISON STUDY ON THE EFFECT OF VIDEOTAPE AND DIDACTIC METHOD ON INSTRUCTION AND DEMONSTRATION DURING PRACTICAL SESSION: NURSING CONTEXT." AEA RCT Registry. April 30. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.2858
Former Citation
ABDULLAH, SHARIFAH SHAFINAZ BINTI et al. 2018. "THE COMPARISON STUDY ON THE EFFECT OF VIDEOTAPE AND DIDACTIC METHOD ON INSTRUCTION AND DEMONSTRATION DURING PRACTICAL SESSION: NURSING CONTEXT." AEA RCT Registry. April 30. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/2858/history/28941
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

Intervention Start Date
2017-06-01
Intervention End Date
2017-09-29

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The purpose of using video is to standardize the demonstration of procedure that received by students and also to rationalize the teaching program. Thus, current project was carried out to investigate the differences between videotape and didactic teaching methods among nursing students.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
A randomized crossover design was conducted at UiTM Selangor. Thirty participants were involved in this study. They have divided into two groups by sequence random sampling and questionnaires (students’ perception of teaching method) were given to the participants as pre-tests. In the first session, both groups were received different teaching methods (either videotaping or didactic method) at the same time but in different locations. After teaching demonstration, one volunteer student was performed a returned demonstration on the procedure which has been taught and guided by the procedure checklist and evaluated by the lecturer. After the completion of the first session, they were given 2 hours times for taking rest (washout period) and proceed with the second session where they switched the teaching methods. Post questionnaire was given after completing the second session. Both teaching methods were conducted by the same lecturer.
Experimental Design Details
N/A
Randomization Method
Randomization done in the skills laboratory by using name list. Odd number were put under intervention group and even number under intervention group
Randomization Unit
N/A
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
N/A
Sample size: planned number of observations
30 students
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
15 student under intervention group and 15 under control group
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
3 effect size
Supporting Documents and Materials

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY MARA MALAYSIA
IRB Approval Date
2017-01-25
IRB Approval Number
600-IRMI(5/1/16) REC/9/17

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
Yes
Intervention Completion Date
October 25, 2017, 12:00 +00:00
Data Collection Complete
Yes
Data Collection Completion Date
September 29, 2017, 12:00 +00:00
Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization)
30 students
Was attrition correlated with treatment status?
No
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations
30 students
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms
15 student under intervention group and 15 under control group
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
No
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials