The Effectiveness of a Question-Embedded Movie Clips Learning Program in Nursing Students: A Quasi-Experimental Pretest-Posttest Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Technological innovations make significant impacts on nursing education. New teaching strategies are constantly emerging, offering students a dynamic and interactive educational experience. The Question-Embedded Movie Clips Learning program used in this study was developed based on the drill and practice learning principle, aiming to facilitate nursing students' skills and build their confidence before entering real clinical settings. Objective: This study aims to investigate the comparative effect between the newly developed Question-Embedded Movie Clips Learning program and the current practice of mind mapping exercises on students' learning outcomes and study satisfaction. Methods: This study adopted a quasi-experimental design using a pretest-posttest approach with nonequivalent groups. The study sample consisted of 132 third-year nursing students who enrolled in one of two class sections of the psychiatric nursing course at a university in Thailand. By flipping a coin, the first study section (n=62) was assigned to the intervention, and the second section (n=70) was assigned to the control group. During the 2-hour class sessions, students received identical learning structure and sequence, except for group exercises of either the Question-Embedded Movie Clips Learning program or the mind mapping. The data were collected through the pretest-posttest questionnaire, the perceived satisfaction with the learning experience scale, and the open-ended reflective questions. Results: A statistically significant increase was observed in the learning outcome scores of both the intervention group (t61=-30.48, 95% CI -10.59 to -9.28; P<.001) and the control group (t69=-27.04, 95% CI -8.19 to -7.07; P<.001); all t statistics reported are based on 2-tailed tests. There was, however, a statistically significant difference in the outcome scores between the 2 groups. Even after controlling for pretest scores, students in the experimental group had a significantly higher adjusted mean score than those in the control group (F1,129=67.67, P<.001). Conclusions: The study has provided empirical evidence that using the Question-Embedded Movie Clips Learning program along with traditional instruction in teaching therapeutic relationships and communication significantly improves learning outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".