ArticleCurationis2024
Blended learning: Assessing nursing students' perspectives.
Article in Curationis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBlended learning combines face-to-face and online learning and has recently gained popularity, accelerated by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, often without active evaluation.
objectivesThis study aimed to assess university nursing students' perceptions of a blended learning approach during the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodThe population was 150 third-year nursing students from a university in the Western Cape, South Africa, using all-inclusive sampling. A one-group, pre-and post-evaluation study was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire (Student Perceptions of Blended Learning scale). Differences were assessed using Chi-squared and Mann-Whitney U tests with a significance level of p 0.05.
resultsBefore implementing blended learning, 128 students (85.3%) completed the questionnaire, while 95 (63.3%) did so after. Demographics and access showed no significant differences between the groups. Post-implementation showed a 10.1% increase in preference for blended learning (χ2 = 2.832, p = 0.092). Ease of use was rated significantly higher before implementation (3.07 ± 0.49), with no significant change post-implementation (2.99 ± 0.58). The blended learning process received lower ratings compared to content, with no significant differences before or after implementation for either (process: 2.55 ± 0.58 vs 2.54 ± 0.63; content: 2.75 ± 0.52 vs 2.79 ± 0.52).
conclusionNursing students had a positive perception of blended learning, though the online learning component posed challenges with time and module comprehension.Contribution: The findings can help higher education institutions evaluate existing online management systems and guide nurse educators in meeting students' needs when developing module resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.