Investigating the differential efficacy of lecture and demonstration teaching methods in teaching medical-surgical nursing among nursing students

Abstract

Medical-surgical nursing is one of the core courses in general nursing, through which nursing students acquire skills for clinical practice. Medical-surgical nurses work in diverse clinical areas and specialisations to deliver the highest quality care with a view to preserving life, improving health status, and maintaining client health throughout their lifetimes by using an appropriate skill that is better acquired from school through appropriate teaching methods. Hence the need to choose a suitable teaching method to educate the would-be nurses. This study examined the differential efficacy of lecture and demonstration methods for teaching medical-surgical nursing courses in BUTH Ogbomoso with a view to improving the academic performance of nursing students in medical-surgical nursing courses. An experimental research method was used; stratified random sampling was employed to select seventy participants; a pretest was conducted, followed by intervention, and then a post-test. Frequency distribution table, pie chart, bar charts, means, two-tail ANOVA, and t-test were used to analyse the result. Findings revealed that there was a significant difference in the mean score between the two studied groups with a P value of 0.000 < 0.05. It is therefore recommended that medical-surgical nursing educators should not only use the lecture method but employ the demonstration method in teaching medical-surgical nursing. There is a need to equip skill laboratories in the nursing institution for learning.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12912-024-02541-4.

Introduction

Nursing education has evolved throughout the years, from apprenticeship to classroom training [1]. Successful teaching-learning interactions are a must for effective knowledge and expertise in medical-surgical nursing [2]. Medical-surgical nursing forms the foundation and framework of nursing practice; therefore, there is a need to properly communicate the content to the would-be nurses, which the entire world is waiting for. It is very important to choose an effective teaching method for which the nursing student can develop the required skills for practice upon which nursing is built. Terry and Peck (2020) [3] asserted that the sometimes-binary nature of how nursing knowledge and practices are delivered in colleges and universities can be challenging for students’ comprehension and synchronisation towards practices, leading to overwhelming, withdrawal, or failure of students. Effective nursing manpower can only be developed through sound education and training.

Lecturing is the most basic, traditional, and widespread kind of instruction. Learning is accomplished through listening and taking notes, as it is based on the instructor’s talks and explanations. During a didactic lecture, a competent nurse delivers ordered thoughts and facts verbally in a consistent manner [4]. In many academic subjects, it is still widely used—if not the most popular—and is perhaps the oldest method of instruction. Demonstration methodology makes proper use of facts and principles along with materials for showing or teaching an audience or students [5]. The demonstration aims to give students the ability to seek and find an individualistic answer to the problem they are combating or dealing with during the experiments [6].

This study aims to examine the differential efficacy of lecture and demonstration methods for teaching medical-surgical nursing courses in BUTH Ogbomoso. Most research on teaching methods is describing the teachers and students opinions, perceptions, and acceptances, but this is an experimental study on demonstration and lecture teaching methods in medical-surgical nursing courses. When nurses are well-trained in the classroom, they can better deliver healthcare and improve community, social, and national health status by being able to adapt to changes in the practice setting.

Hypothesis

H₀ : There is no significant difference in the mean score of student achievements who were taught using the lecture method of teaching and demonstration method of teaching in medical-surgical nursing.

Methodology

This section described the method used in carrying out a study on the differential efficacy of lecture and demonstration teaching methods in teaching Medical - Surgical Nursing among Nursing students at BUTH Ogbomoso.

Research design

The experimental design was employed to examine the effect of lecture and demonstration methods on student performance. For the study, acute respiratory and acute cardiac conditions were considered. The students were taken through lectures on the reactive airway, asthmatic attack, and cardiac conditions discussed, including cardiac arrest. Lectures were also delivered on treat and acute nursing care of the patient with the discussed conditions. Moreover, students received lectures on procedures such as the administration of supplementary oxygen, administration of AED, administration of bronchodilators using nebuliser, and administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The lecture took place twice a week for six weeks, two hours per lecturing period. The demonstrative aspect of the study includes the performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, supplementary oxygen administration, utilisation of automated external defibrillation, suctioning, and nebulization. The researcher administered a pretest to the target population before teaching them selected medical-surgical nursing topics using the lecture method and demonstration method, respectively, to the two groups of students, one as the control and the other as the experimental group. The control group were only lectured while the experimental group were both lectured and were taught demonstratively. The demonstrative teaching was carried out in a skill lab, using mannequin-based simulations.

Research setting

College of Nursing at Bowen University Teaching Hospital Ogbomoso was the research setting. The school was founded in 1981 and runs basic nursing education. It is a mission school and has produced more than one thousand, five hundred registered nurses. Presently it has full accreditation, hence the capacity of admitting seventy-five students yearly. The school is well attended by different tribes in the country and has trained international nursing students.

Target population

Student nurses in the College of Nursing, Bowen University Teaching Hospital, Ogbomoso, Nigeria. The entire population of the school was 150 students.

Sampling technique

The population of the students in the school were divided into three stratas based on their class years. That is; year one, year two and year three. Stratified random sampling was employed to select 74 students for the study who were in two groups of 37 for both experimental and control. All of them were in the second year of their training in the school. The student were distributed into both the control and experimental group using balloting techniques. The student randomly drew ballots and they were assigned to corresponding groups based on the drawn ballot.

Exclusion and inclusion criteria of the study populaton

Inclusion criteria

The study participant must be a student who have completed and pass the first year medical surgical nursing course and was now in year two.

Exclusion criteria

Any particiapnt who has undergone any component of the course chosen by the researcher either through seminar or conference were excluded. Also, students who were absent in any class session through the course of the study were excluded from the study.

The exclusion criteria led to the exclusion of 4 study participants, who missed at least one class session during the research study. This resulted in a final study participant count of 70, with 35 participants in each of the control and experimental groups.

Research instrument

The research instrument has 50 objective test items and three OSCE stations, which were designed to evaluate student academic performance. The data was collected using pretest and posttest items; the pretests principally comprise of the 50 objective question items, each of the question Items have four stem options for answering the questions. Participants of the study were evaluated at the OSCE stations by the seasoned and liecensed Nurse educators who works in the school. All the participants possess prior knowledge of respiratory tract anatomy and physiology; they also possess some basic knowledge of nursing care. The component of the lecture was based on the following: cardiac arrest, acute asthmatic attachment, caseation of breathing (apnoea). Cardiopulmonary resuscitation, chronic obstructive airway disease, nebulisation, oxygen administration, and the use of an automated external defibrillator (AED).

The demonstration was primarily on the methods of assessing the conditions mentioned; it also featured how to operate an automated external defibrillator (AED), nebulisation, and oxygen administration. All the candidates attempted the pretest and the same was used to evaluate the entry behaviour of the subjects into the teaching and learning experience.

Validity of instrument

The researcher obtained the content and construct validity of the instrument through a composition of 50 objective questions after studying through textbooks, journals, articles, and other sources of information on the subject matter. In the same vein, three OSCE check lists were developed, and the test items were given out to the nurse educators who teach medical-surgical nursing, who diligently studied through the instrument and made their contribution to the test items. After which the instruments were submitted for review to nurse educators and the project supervisor.

Reliability of instrument

The reliability of the instrument was tested through a pilot study that was carried out among nursing students at LAUTECH. The split-half method was employed to obtain the coefficient of the reliability of the instrument. Using Spearman-Brown Coefficient R = .72.

Data analysis

The data collected was analysed through the use of a student t-test, a mean, and an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The student t-test was used to test within-group relationships or differences, and an analysis of covariance was used to examine the difference between the group that is between the control and the experimental group. SPSS version 20 was used in computing and analyses of the data.

Result

This section deals with the presentation of analysed data to determine the differential effect of lecture and demonstration methods of teaching medical-surgical nursing courses.

Demographic result

Gender

Both male and female nursing students in Bowen University Teaching Hospital, Ogbomoso, were considered for this study; however, it is important to know the ratio of the male to the female, as this may indicate to us which gender is more interested in the profession.

There were 12 males and 58 females who participated in the study. This indicates that the population of the females is a multiple of the males in nursing training at Bowen University Teaching Hospital Ogbomoso.

Age distribution of participants

Age range is very important in this profession; this is because of the intellect, energy, and skills involved in the professional practice and the academic pursuit. The data collected on the age range of the students shows that 21–25 years have the highest population, followed by those in the age range of 17–20, and the ages between 26 and 35 have the lowest population. This indicates that the population in training is growing and the future promising for the nursing profession.

Experimental results

Table 1 shows the overall performance of the candidate before and after the intervention session. Table 1 showed the number of candidates who got each of the question item correctly in both pretest and posttest. The table showed that 620 question items were correctly attempted in the pretest this actually indicated that the student are not completely ignorant of subject matter they were to be taught while 1445 items were correctly attempted after the interventions, showing improvement in the knowledge acquired, therefore the respondent were able to develop new knowledge that help them to answer 825 new question successfully after intervention. The percentage increment in point score in the posttest is 75.15%.

Table 1.

Summary of the test scores in the Pre-test and Post-test exercise

Order of the Question Items	Pre Test Item Result	Post Test Item Result	Difference in the Score
1	20	49	29
2	29	61	32
3	17	33	16
4	14	20	6
5	16	29	13
6	11	37	26
7	20	35	15
8	7	17	10
9	38	59	21
10	23	46	22
11	6	20	14
12	17	45	28
13	15	46	31
14	24	51	27
15	26	48	22
16	8	17	9
17	16	26	10
18	4	29	25
19	36	55	19
20	14	48	34
21	5	6	−1
22	9	34	25
23	8	37	29
24	16	41	25
25	20	50	30
26	7	22	15
27	8	15	7
28	3	30	27
29	12	46	34
30	4	12	8
31	2	29	27
32	5	26	21
33	22	43	21
34	7	22	15
35	9	26	17
36	11	13	2
37	10	27	17
38	6	13	7
39	8	18	10
40	12	23	11
41	1	12	11
42	4	8	4
43	10	16	6
44	3	5	2
45	15	3	−12
46	1	9	8
47	12	18	6
48	11	23	12
49	4	16	12
50	14	31	17
Total	620	1445	825

Table 2 shows the performance of the control group, it discovered that candidates preformed better in the post-test than in the pre-test. For example some of them scored up to 18 more point after intervention whereas two candidates did not add any new point to the initial point score, furthermore one candidate lose two point during the post-test, this might indicate that the candidate was not attentive during the intervention procedures or more likely that the candidate prepared more for pre-test more than the post-test. The average increase in the point after intervention at the posttest among the control group was 7.17429 that is about 7 point increment. The percentage increment is 51.22% of the average pre-test score.

Table 2.

The performance of the control group in pre-test and post-test

Candidate Identity Number	Pre test	Post test	Difference
Candidate 1468	10	18	8
Candidate 1499	7	12	5
Candidate 1502	18	19	1
Candidate 1506	20	20	0
Candidate 1507	16	23	7
Candidate 1509	18	28	10
Candidate 1514	12	16	4
Candidate 1515	19	33	14
Candidate 1516	3	16	13
Candidate 1517	16	23	7
Candidate1519	9	16	7
Candidate 1522	20	22	2
Candidate 1523	9	12	3
Candidate 1530	19	20	1
Candidate 1533	8	26	18
Candidate 1538	12	30	18
Candidate 1539	15	22	7
Candidate 1544	14	21	7
Candidate 1545	17	18	1
Candidate 1546	13	20	7
Candidate 1547	15	27	12
Candidate 1548	10	23	13
Candidate 1549	16	14	−2
Candidate 1551	17	21	4
Candidate 1553	16	27	11
Candidate 1554	15	26	11
Candidate 1556	13	17	4
Candidate 1557	11	28	17
Candidate 1559	17	17	0
Candidate 1562	9	16	7
Candidate 1563	12	19	7
Candidate 1567	20	25	5
Candidate 1568	12	26	14
Candidate 1570	15	23	8
Candidate 1578	17	17	0

Table 3 showed the performance of the experimental group, from the result it discovered that candidates preformed better in the post test than in the pre test. For instance some of them scored up to 25 more point after intervention whereas some one person did not add any new point to the initial point scored the candidate initial score was the best among others, this is probably because the candidate had more than enough exposure to the subject matter being taught, furthermore one candidate lose one point during the post test, this might indicate that the candidate was not attentive during the intervention procedures or more likely that the candidate prepared more for pretest more than the post test. The average increase in the point after intervention at the post test among the experimental group was 9.823529. That is about 10 point increment from the pre test. The percentage increase is 57.99% of the average pre test scores.

Table 3.

The performance of the experimental group for both the pre-test and the pos-test

Candidate Number	Pretest	Post test	Diff
Candidate 1476	21	26	5
Candidate 1497	22	23	1
Candidate 1504	9	29	20
Candidate 1505	7	22	15
Candidate 1508	15	31	16
Candidate 1510	21	28	7
Candidate 1511	15	23	8
Candidate 1512	12	34	22
Candidate 1513	18	23	5
Candidate 1521	12	24	12
Candidate 1524	21	32	11
Candidate 1525	19	24	5
Candidate 1528	16	31	15
Candidate 1529	17	42	25
Candidate 1531	18	17	−1
Candidate 1532	15	24	9
Candidate 1534	9	24	15
Candidate 1535	19	31	12
Candidate 1537	16	27	11
Candidate 1540	21	29	8
Candidate 1541	18	22	4
Candidate 1542	16	28	12
Candidate 1550	19	28	9
Candidate 1555	21	28	7
Candidate 1558	19	29	10
Candidate 1560	17	27	10
Candidate 1561	21	29	8
Candidate 1564	17	26	9
Candidate 1566	21	26	5
Candidate 1569	14	29	15
Candidate 1572	15	27	12
Candidate 1573	19	21	2
Candidate 1574	6	16	10
Candidate 1576	30	30	0

Table 4 showed the scores of candidate in three OSCE stations where the skill of the candidates were tested on Cardiopulmonary resuscitation, Oxygen administration and Nebulization of patient with cardio pulmonary problems. The over all average score of the candidates is 3.07.

Table 4.

The control group practical test scores

Candidate Number	Station1	station2	station3
Candidate1468	2.5	2	2
Candidate1499	1.25	3.5	2
Candidate1502	3.5	3.5	2
Candidate1506	2	5.5	4
Candidate1507	2.5	2	1
Candidate1509	2.5	3.5	2.25
Candidate1514	2.5	5.25	1.5
Candidate1515	5	5.5	7
Candidate1516	1.25	3.5	3
Candidate1517	2	3	3
Candidate1519	2.75	5.5	2
Candidate1522	1.75	4.5	2.5
Candidate1523	2.25	2.75	6
Candidate1530	1.5	4.75	2.5
Candidate1533	2	3.5	1.5
Candidate1538	1.75	4.75	1.5
Candidate1539	2.25	3.25	2.25
Candidate1544	2	2.75	6
Candidate1545	1.5	3	0.75
Candidate1546	3.5	4	1.5
Candidate1547	3.25	4	6.5
Candidate1548	2.5	3
Candidate1549	2.75	5.5	5
Candidate1551	3.75	3.75	1.5
Candidate1553	3	4	3.5
Candidate1554	2.5	4.5	0.5
Candidate1556	2	3.5	6.5
Candidate1557	4.5	4	4.25
Candidate1559	1.5	2.75	1.25
Candidate1562	3	4.5	4.25
Candidate1563	1.25	1.75	0.5
Candidate1567	2	3.25	5
Candidate1568	2.75	3.25	3.5
Candidate1570	2.5	3.25	6.25
Candidate1578	1.5	3.5	1.25
Overall Average Score	2.428571	3.728571	3.058824

Table 5 shows the scores of candidate in three OSCE stations where the skill of the candidates were tested on Cardiopulmonary resuscitation, Oxygen administration and Nebulization of patient with cardio pulmonary problems. The overall average score of the candidates is 5.24.

Table 5.

The performance of experimental group during skill acquisition test

Candidate Number	Station1	Station2	Station3
Candidate 1476	4.25	5.5	6.25
Candidate 1497	4.5	5	6.25
Candidate1504	4.75	5.25	6.5
Candidate1505	5.75	5	5
Candidate1508	4.5	5.5	6.25
Candidate1510	3.5	5.25	4
Candidate1511	4.75	5	5
Candidate1512	5.25	5.5	5.75
Candidate1513	5	4.5	5.5
Candidate1521	5	5.5	6.75
Candidate1524	4.75	5.5	6.25
Candidate1525	4.25	5.75	6.5
Candidate1528	5.25	6	4.75
Candidate1529	5	5.5	7.5
Candidate1531	3.75	6	7.5
Candidate1532	4.5	5	5.25
Candidate1534	4	5	6.5
Candidate1535	5.5	5.5	6.5
Candidate1537	5.5	4	7
Candidate1540	5	5	4.25
Candidate1541	5	5	5.5
Candidate1542	5.75	5.5	6.25
Candidate1550	6	6	4.75
Candidate1555	6.75	6.5	3
Candidate1558	5.5	5.25	5.5
Candidate1560	4	4	4.5
Candidate1561	7	5.25	6
Candidate1564	4.75	5.5	6.25
Candidate1566	3.5	5	3.5
Candidate1569	2.75	4.5	5.75
Candidate1572	5	5.5	5.25
Candidate1573	5.75	5.5	4.75
Candidate1574	4.5	5.25	5
Candidate1576	3.5	4.5	5.75
Overall Average Score	4.838235	5.25	5.617647

The mean performance of experimental and control group

The mean score of pretest for control group was 9.8, after receiving lecture the mean score increased to 14.6. This shows that there is a positive impact of the lecture on the participant. The mean difference was 4.5, with the above performance, the student were able to gain knowledge and insight into the subject matter. The mean score of pretest done by experimental group was 11.5 while posttest mean score after having demonstration done was 18.2, the demonstration teaching method has improve the cognitive status of the participant and the mean difference of the test was 6.7. There is therefore an appreciable improvement in the knowledge of among experimental group than the control group as shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Bar chart of the performance of experimental and control group

The mean performance of participants in objective skill examination

Figure 2 reveals the scores of candidates in three OSCE stations, where the skills of the candidates were tested on cardiopulmonary resuscitation, oxygen administration, and nebulisation of patients with cardiopulmonary problems. The control group has the lowest mean score in the three stations. The performance of the experimental group was better in the three stations in cardiopulmonary resuscitation control, which had a mean score of 2.43; the experimental group had a mean score of 4. 84, a difference of 2.41. In the second station, skill in oxygen administration was tested. The experimental group had the highest mean score of 5.25 and the control group mean score was 3.73 and the difference in the mean score was 1.52. In station three, the use of the AED machine in resuscitation was tested. The control group had the lowest mean score of 3.06, while the experimental group had the highest score of 5.62 and the difference in the mean score of both groups was 2.56. There was a very clear indication that the experimental group acquired better skill in performing the procedures tested because they had previously demonstrated the procedure during their student-teacher interactions.

Fig. 2.

Bar Chart of OSCE Test

Mean difference between experimental and control group

The research compare two groups of nursing students with specific emphasis to acquiring mental knowledge and transforming the same to skill in the care of patient with medical surgical conditions.

Table 6 showed the mean different in both theory and practical tests with experimental and control group, the mean difference in theory is 5.59 While practical is 2.16.

Table 6.

Mean difference between experimental and control group

Group	Theory	Practical
Experimental	26.76471	5.235294
Control	21.17143	3.071989
Mean Difference	5.59328	2.163305

Significant difference among pretest control, pretest experimental, posttest control and posttest experimental

During the study pre-intervention was carried out to know the point at which the intervention will much necessary with a view to initiate, support and sustain knowledge and skill of the subject matter.

Table 7 shows that there is a significant difference within pretest and post test score within group both in experimental and control group, the intervention makes a significant positive change in the knowledge within in order word both the experimental the control group benefited significantly from the lecture intervention.

Table 7.

Significant difference among pretest control, pretest experimental, posttest control and posttest experimental

Section		Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
Pretest Control		35	25.0	25.0	25.0
Pretest Experimental		35	25.0	25.0	50.0
Posttest Control		35	25.0	25.0	75.0
Posttest Experimental		35	25.0	25.0	100.0
Total		140	100.0	100.0

However, the table further showed that there is a Significant different between experimental and control group achievement test score after intervention, although all of them benefited in the intervention but the experimental group achievement test result showed that the demonstration has significantly greater score than the control group achievement test score post intervention.

Table 8 shows differences within pretest and posttest while Table 9 shows variable for written test.

Table 8.

Significant different within pretest and post test

(I) coding	(J) coding	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig.	Remark
Pretest Control	Pretest Experimental	−3.000	1.164	0.089	NS
	Posttest Control	−7.171*	1.164	0.000	S
	Posttest Experimental	−12.371*	1.164	0.000	S
Pretest Experimental	Pretest Control	3.000	1.164	0.089	NS
	Posttest Control	−4.171*	1.164	0.006	S
	Posttest Experimental	−9.371*	1.164	0.000	S
Posttest Control	Pretest Control	7.171*	1.164	0.000	S
	Pretest Experimental	4.171*	1.164	0.006	S
	Posttest Experimental	−5.200*	1.164	0.000	S
Posttest Experimental	Pretest Control	12.371*	1.164	0.000	S
	Pretest Experimental	9.371*	1.164	0.000	S
	Posttest Control	5.200*	1.164	0.000	S

Table 9.

Dependent variable for written marks

	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Minim	Maxim
Pretest Control	35	14.0000	4.15154	0.70174	3.00	20.00
Pretest Experimental	35	17.0000	5.07010	0.85700	6.00	30.00
Posttest Control	35	21.1714	5.11909	0.86528	12.00	33.00
Posttest Experimental	35	26.3714	5.06479	0.85611	15.00	42.00
average marks for control group	35	17.5857	3.79916	0.64218	9.50	26.00
Average mparks for experimental GROUP	35	21.6857	4.08024	0.68969	11.00	30.00
Total	210	19.6357	6.02998	0.41611	3.00	42.00

Hypothesis testing

The mean score of the experimental group at the post intervention test the mean score of experimental group is greater than the mean score of the control group that is shown in the group statistic table above experimental mean score is 5.243 > 3.071 which is the mean score of the control group. The result is obtained in Table 10.

Table 10.

Mean Difference between two groups

	Type	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean
Data	Experimental	35	5.242857200	0.4466521684	0.0754979961
	Control	35	3.071428571	0.9391500419	0.1587453307

The P value is 0.000 and the significant level is equal to 0.5; therefore, there is a significant difference between the experimental group and the control group. Experimental mean = 5.242857200, control mean = 3.071428571.

Therefore, the hypothesis is hereby rejected, and an alternate hypothesis is herewith considered.

As also established in Table 11, there is a significant difference in the mean score of the student achievements who were taught using lecture methods of teaching and demonstration methods of teaching in medical-surgical nursing.

Table 11.

Student t-test on Mean Difference between the two groups

		t-test for Equality of Means
		T	Df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	Std. Error Difference
Data	Equal variances assumed	12.353	68	0.000	2.1714286	0.1757840364
	Equal variances not assumed	12.353	48.632	0.000	2.1714286	0.1757840364

Discussion

Lecture and demonstration methods of teaching have a positive impact on the teaching of the medical-surgical-nursing course among nursing students of BUTH Ogbomoso. The study sample was 12 males and 58 females; this particularly indicates that there are more female nursing students than male nursing students in training at BUTH; most of the candidates are between the ages of 17 and 25. The mean score of the experimental group at the post-intervention test The mean score of the experimental group is greater than the mean score of the control group in both the written and OSCE exams. The experimental mean score is 26.8 > 21.17, which is the mean score of the control group in the written examination; the experimental mean score is 5.243 > 3.071, which is the mean score of the control group in the OSCE examination. There was a significant difference in the mean score between the two groups; the P value is 0.000. This assertion is supported by Okutubu (2020) [7], who discovered that, in comparison to students who were taught in the traditional lecture method, those who were taught utilising the demonstrative technique had much higher levels of achievement and retention. Additionally, Osuyi (2018) [8] showed that students who received instruction by demonstration surpassed those who received instruction through lecture. Additionally, Devi et al. (2019) [9] asserted that the ideal way for educators to enhance memory storage, retrieval, cognition, and learning is by implementing mixed teaching techniques because demonstration is more effective at enhancing skills.

Yusefi et al. (2019) [10] also found that clinical training exhibits a stronger efficacy and durability than lecture-based education, even if both can improve nurses’ knowledge and skill in caring for patients with angina. Therefore, it was recommended that in order to improve nurses’ abilities and performance, health policymakers employ clinical approaches. Ehiwario (2020) [5] asserts that the demonstration method improves students’ attention and achievement regardless of gender, while the lecture technique reduces pupils to being merely passive listeners. The study made several recommendations, including encouraging secondary school teachers to switch from the lecture method of instruction to the demonstration method. Clinical skills lab simulation training, according to Kapucu (2017) [11], increases the students’ confidence and prepares them for actual clinical situations. It is suggested that the simulated training approach be widely applied.

Lecturing method improved the knowledge of nursing students in medical-surgical nursing course; there was improvement in the score of the post-intervention exam over the pre-intervention test; the mean score of candidates before intervention was 14 < 21.2, which is the post-intervention mean score after using lecture method. The P value was 0.000, showing that there is a significant difference between the pretest score and post-score. This indicates that lecturing also has an effect on the academic performance of nursing students in medical-surgical nursing courses. To corroborate this finding Castanha et al. (2021) [12] reveal that immediately after the lecture there was improved knowledge on basic life support skills, but there was no retention of memory after one year of the lecture. Hence concluding that routine lectures may not be very good for skill acquisition.

In this study, a drastic improvement in the academic performance of candidates who were taught medical-surgical nursing using the demonstration method of teaching. The mean score before intervention was 16.9 < 26.8, which was the score post-intervention score. The P value of 0.000 indicates that there is a significant difference in the academic performance of candidates after intervention using the demonstration method of teaching. This is corroborated by Devi et al. (2019) [9], who claimed that demonstration is more successful than written instructions in the development of abilities and that academicians should use blended teaching methods to improve memory storage, retrieval, cognition, and learning. Additionally, Kapucu (2017) [11] demonstrates how simulated instruction in a clinical skills lab boosts students’ self-esteem and gets them ready for actual clinical settings. Valizadeh et al. (2021) [13], in their study, were able to infer that both role play simulation and demonstration significantly improve paediatric PVC insertion skill among nursing students. Traditional demonstration fared better than the video-assisted training approach, according to Valizadeh et al.‘s findings from 2021 [13]; as a result, demonstration is more successful at fostering skill development.

Conclusion

Medical-surgical nursing forms the basis for any other specialisation in nursing; it has wide areas of practice; therefore, it is inevitable to choose the best teaching methods for the course in the nursing institution of learning. This work reveals that the demonstration method of teaching has a greater effect on impacting medical-surgical knowledge and skill than only the classroom traditional lecture method. Although it was found out that lecturing is the commonest method being used in higher institutions, the peculiarity of nursing calls for skill acquisition. Demonstration is more individualistic in teaching and draws students’s attention better than traditional lecturing, in which students reportedly divert their attention to doing other things while the lecture is ongoing.

Abbreviations

BUTH

Bowen University Teaching Hospital

ANOVA

Analysis of Variance

AED

Automated External Defibrillator

OSCE

Objective Structured Clinical Examination

LAUTECH

Laike Akintola University of Technology

Authors’ contributions

SOO and BLA conceptualized, SOO did the data curation, SOO investigated, BLA supervised, SOO drafted the manuscript, BLA did the manuscript revision.

Funding

No funding.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during the current study are included in this published article.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Approval was obtained from the health research ethics committee of Bowen University Teaching Hospital with : “Registration number NHREC/ 12/04/2012. Approval number: BUTH/ REC-530”.

The participant were rightly informed of the purpose of the research and their consent obtained before participation.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.