Effectiveness of shifting traditional lecture to interactive lecture to teach nursing students


  • Ardashir Afrasiabifar Nurse, Ph.D. Associate professor, School of Nursing, Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj, Iran. email: afrasiabifar.ardashir@yums.ac.ir
  • Mosavi Asadolah Ph.D candidate. Department Of Medical Education, Medical School, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. email: mousavi.asadolah@yums.ac.ir. Corresponding author.




Students, nursing, simulation training, lectures, teacher training.


Objective. This study was conducted to examine effectiveness of interactive lecture in teaching nursing students compared to traditional lecture.

Methods. This study is a quasi-experimental design in which 29 students participated in eighteen sessions of intensive nursing care in Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Iran. These sessions were randomly allocated for the interactive lecture and the traditional lecture. The interactive lecture consists in this steps: explaining the learning objectives, taking the pre-test, teaching the subjects of each session, Group discussion with introduction of the clinical cases, answering students’ questions and mutual feedbacks, taking the post-test, and introducing students’ future activities. The effectiveness of applied teaching method was evaluated through pre-test, post-test of each session, mid-term and final exams.

Results. Significant statistical differences were observed in terms of students' mean score (p=0.001) and their satisfaction (p=0.001) in the interactive teaching method compared to traditional lectures. Further preparation, active participation and received immediate feedback were some benefits reported for the interactive teaching method.

Conclusion. The interactive lecture resulted in significant learning and furthers nursing students’ active participation in the teaching-learning process.

How to cite this article: Afrasiabifar A, Asadolah M. Effectiveness of shifting traditional lecture to interactive lecture to teach nursing students. Invest. Educ. Enferm. 2019; 37(1):e07.

= 827 veces | PDF
= 394 veces| | HTML ENGLISH
= 1 veces| | VIDEO
= 0 veces| | PMC
= 0 veces|


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...


(1) Zhang Q, Lee L, Gruppen LD, Ba D. Medical education: changes and perspectives. Med. Teach. 2013; 35(8):621-7.

(2) Bradshaw M, Hultquist BL. Innovative Teaching Strategies in Nursing and Related Health Professions. 7th Ed. New York: Jones & Barlett; 2017.

(3) Kaur G. Study and analysis of lecture model of teaching. Int. J. Educ. Plan. Admin. 2011; 1(1):9-13.

(4) Mangena A, Chabeli MM. Strategies to overcome obstacles in the facilitation of critical thinking in nursing education. Nurse Educ. Today. 2005; 25(4):291-8.

(5) Sabry K, Barker J. Dynamic interactive learning systems. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2009; 46(2):185-97.

(6) Saif A. Modern educational psychology: Psychology of learning and instruction book. 7th Edition. Tehran, Iran: Doran Pub; 2015.

(7) Shaffer DR. Social and personality development. 6th ED. Wadsworth Inc Fulfillment; 2008.

(8) Sessoms D. Interactive instruction: Creating interactive learning environments through tomorrow’s teachers. Int. J. Technolo. Teach. Learn. 2008; 4(2):86-96.

(9) Yakovleva NO, Yakovlev EV. Interactive teaching methods in contemporary higher education. Pac. Sci. Rev. 2014; 16(2):75-80.

(10) Birgegård G, Persson E, Hoppe A. Randomized comparison of student-activating and traditional lecture: no learning difference. Med. Teach. 2008; 30(8):818-9.

(11) Hafezimoghadam P, Farahmand S, Farsi D, Zare M, Abbasi S. A comparative study of lecture and discussion methods in the education of basic life support and advanced cardiovascular life support for medical students. Turk. J. Emerg. Med. 2013; 13(2):59-63.

(12) Momeni-Danaei S ZL, Oshagh M, Omid-Khoda SM. Which method of teaching would be better; cooperative or lecture? Iran. J. Med. Educ. 2011; 11(1): 1-8.

(13) Salimi T, Shahbazi L, Mojahed S, Ahmadieh MH, Dehghanpour MH. Comparing the effects of lecture and work in small groups on nursing students' skills in calculating medication dosage. Iran. J. Med. Educ. 2007;7(1):79-84.

(14) Murphy R, Sharma N, editors. What Don’t We Know About Interactive Lectures? Seminar.Net Int. J. Media, technol. Lifelong Learn; 2010; 6(1):111-120.

(15) Sandahl SS. Collaborative testing as a learning strategy in nursing education: A review of the literature. Nurs. Educ. Perspect. 2009; 30(3):171-5.

(16) Bartels JE. Educating nurses for the 21st century. Nurs. Health Sci. 2005; 7(4):221-5.

(17) Scott PA, Matthews A, Kirwan M. What is nursing in the 21st century and what does the 21st century health system require of nursing? Nurs. Philos. 2014; 15(1):23-34.

(18) Del Bueno D. A crisis in critical thinking. Nurs. Educ. Perspect. 2005; 26(5):278-82.

(19) Raines DA. CAN-Care: An innovative model of practice-based learning. Int. Nurs. Educ. Scholars. 2006; 3(1):1-19.

(20) Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, Evans T, et al. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet. 2010; 376(9756):1923-58.

(21) Reyes JR, Álvarez LNR, Pomarede MJM. Pedagogic Aspects in Nursing Education: Integrative Review. Invest. Educ. Enferm. 2018;36(3):e03.

(22) Brannan JD, White A, Bezanson JL. Simulator effects on cognitive skills and confidence levels. J. Nurs. Educ. 2008; 47(11):495-500.

(23) Koohestani HR, Baghcheghi N. The effects of team-based learning techniques on nursing students’ perception of the psycho-social climate of the classroom. Med. J. Islam. Republic Iran. 2016; 30:437.

(24) Pourghaznein T, Sabeghi H, Shariatinejad K. Effects of e-learning, lectures, and role playing on nursing students’ knowledge acquisition, retention and satisfaction. Med. J. Islam. Republic Iran. 2015; 29:162.

(25) Safari M, Yazdanpanah B, Ghafarian HR, Yazdanpanah S. Comparing the effect of lecture and discussion methods on studentslearning and satisfaction. Iran. J. Med. Educ. 2006; 6(1):59-64.

(26) Michel N, Cater III JJ, Varela O. Active versus passive teaching styles: An empirical study of student learning outcomes. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2009;20(4):397-418.

(27) Missildine K, Fountain R, Summers L, Gosselin K. Flipping the classroom to improve student performance and satisfaction. J. Nurs. Educ. 2013; 52(10):597-9.

(28) Miller CJ, McNear J, Metz MJ. A comparison of traditional and engaging lecture methods in a large, professional-level course. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2013; 37(4):347-55.

(29) Fyrenius A, Bergdahl B, Silén C. Lectures in problem-based learning—Why, when and how? An example of interactive lecturing that stimulates meaningful learning. Med. Teach. 2005; 27(1):61-5.

(30) Marsh HW. Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and usefulness. In: Perry RM, Smart JC, Editors.The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective: Springer; 2007. P. 319-83.

(31) Cho K, Schunn CD, Wilson RW. Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives. J. Educ. Psychol. 2006; 98(4):891.



How to Cite

Afrasiabifar, A., & Asadolah, M. (2019). Effectiveness of shifting traditional lecture to interactive lecture to teach nursing students. Investigación Y Educación En Enfermería, 37(1). https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.iee.v37n1a07




Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.