Comparing the efficacy of problem-based learning vs. lectures on the academic achievement and educational motivation of nursing students: A 3-year quasi-experimental study

M. Arian, A. Kamali, Mohammad Bagher Oghazian
{"title":"Comparing the efficacy of problem-based learning vs. lectures on the academic achievement and educational motivation of nursing students: A 3-year quasi-experimental study","authors":"M. Arian, A. Kamali, Mohammad Bagher Oghazian","doi":"10.34172/rdme.2022.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The expansion of roles and the professionalization of nursing obligates instructors to use novel teaching methods, especially problem-based learning (PBL), which provides students with clinical problem-solving skills and promotes lifelong learning. Methods: In a quasi-experimental study, the effects of two teaching methods (traditional lectures and PBL) on academic achievement and educational motivation of nursing students were compared. The study participants consisted of four different classes across four academic semesters of students who had taken a \"Respiratory System Diseases and Disorders\" theoretical course. The Solomon four-group test was used to remove the sensitizing effect of the pre-test and avoid compromising the external validity of the research. Two classes used the PBL method and two classes used the lecture method. An academic achievement test and the Inventory of School Motivation (ISM) were used to compare the pre-and post-test results. Results: The pre-test indicated the same random effect on all the participants (P>0.05). Both control groups were treated as one general control group (n=52) and both experimental groups were treated as one general experimental group (n=56). The difference between the post-test mean scores of academic achievement and educational motivation was not significant between the two PBL groups (P>0.05) nor the two lecture groups (P>0.05). The PBL and lecture groups differed in their mean post-test scores of academic achievement and educational motivation (P < 0.05), wherein the PBL group showed higher scores than the control group. Conclusion: In traditional learning methods, students gain required knowledge for problem-solving before encountering problems. In PBL, however, knowledge is acquired by actually working on problems. The advantages of PBL include gaining basic knowledge for clinical use, developing effective care, developing personal learning skills, and increasing the desire to learn.","PeriodicalId":21087,"journal":{"name":"Research and Development in Medical Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research and Development in Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/rdme.2022.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The expansion of roles and the professionalization of nursing obligates instructors to use novel teaching methods, especially problem-based learning (PBL), which provides students with clinical problem-solving skills and promotes lifelong learning. Methods: In a quasi-experimental study, the effects of two teaching methods (traditional lectures and PBL) on academic achievement and educational motivation of nursing students were compared. The study participants consisted of four different classes across four academic semesters of students who had taken a "Respiratory System Diseases and Disorders" theoretical course. The Solomon four-group test was used to remove the sensitizing effect of the pre-test and avoid compromising the external validity of the research. Two classes used the PBL method and two classes used the lecture method. An academic achievement test and the Inventory of School Motivation (ISM) were used to compare the pre-and post-test results. Results: The pre-test indicated the same random effect on all the participants (P>0.05). Both control groups were treated as one general control group (n=52) and both experimental groups were treated as one general experimental group (n=56). The difference between the post-test mean scores of academic achievement and educational motivation was not significant between the two PBL groups (P>0.05) nor the two lecture groups (P>0.05). The PBL and lecture groups differed in their mean post-test scores of academic achievement and educational motivation (P < 0.05), wherein the PBL group showed higher scores than the control group. Conclusion: In traditional learning methods, students gain required knowledge for problem-solving before encountering problems. In PBL, however, knowledge is acquired by actually working on problems. The advantages of PBL include gaining basic knowledge for clinical use, developing effective care, developing personal learning skills, and increasing the desire to learn.
问题型学习与讲座型学习对护生学业成绩和学习动机的影响比较:一项为期3年的准实验研究
背景:角色的扩大和护理专业化使教师有义务使用新的教学方法,特别是基于问题的学习(PBL),它为学生提供临床解决问题的技能,并促进终身学习。方法:采用准实验研究的方法,比较两种教学方法(传统讲座和PBL)对护生学习成绩和教育动机的影响。研究参与者由四个学期的四个不同班级组成,这些学生参加了“呼吸系统疾病和障碍”理论课程。Solomon四组测试用于消除预测试的敏化效应,避免损害研究的外部有效性。两个班使用PBL方法,两个班采用讲座方法。使用学业成绩测试和学校动机量表(ISM)来比较测试前和测试后的结果。结果:预测试对所有参与者的随机影响相同(P>0.05)。两个对照组被视为一个一般对照组(n=52),两个实验组被视作为一个一般实验组(n=56)。两个PBL组和两个讲座组的学业成就和教育动机测试后平均得分差异不显著(P>0.05)。PBL和讲座组的学术成就和教育动力测试后平均分数存在差异(P<0.05),其中PBL组的得分高于对照组。结论:在传统的学习方法中,学生在遇到问题之前获得解决问题所需的知识。然而,在PBL中,知识是通过实际处理问题来获得的。PBL的优势包括获得临床使用的基本知识、发展有效的护理、发展个人学习技能和增加学习欲望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信