教学策略与知识保留。

R S Schlomer, M A Anderson, R Shaw
{"title":"教学策略与知识保留。","authors":"R S Schlomer,&nbsp;M A Anderson,&nbsp;R Shaw","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This project compared nurses' knowledge retention after completion of either a competency-based, written self-learning module or a competency-based, didactic lecture module. Using a pretest/posttest quasiexperimental design, a convenient sample was selected from a group of registered nurses who attended a mandatory yearly review of standards from the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) and the Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA). The 67 subjects were given pretests, the same content material using the two types of presentations, and posttests. An analysis of covariance was used to determine posttest differences between the groups, controlling for pretest scores. Results indicated no significant differences among posttest scores of the treatment group and the control group; alpha level was 0.05. Knowledge retention essentially was the same, regardless of the antecedent teaching methodology. The advantages of one teaching method versus another may be in the flexibility afforded the staff educator. After desired outcomes are identified, a teaching method can be determined based on the staff educators' requirements, the resources available, and the learners' needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":77218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of nursing staff development : JNSD","volume":"13 5","pages":"249-53"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Teaching strategies and knowledge retention.\",\"authors\":\"R S Schlomer,&nbsp;M A Anderson,&nbsp;R Shaw\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This project compared nurses' knowledge retention after completion of either a competency-based, written self-learning module or a competency-based, didactic lecture module. Using a pretest/posttest quasiexperimental design, a convenient sample was selected from a group of registered nurses who attended a mandatory yearly review of standards from the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) and the Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA). The 67 subjects were given pretests, the same content material using the two types of presentations, and posttests. An analysis of covariance was used to determine posttest differences between the groups, controlling for pretest scores. Results indicated no significant differences among posttest scores of the treatment group and the control group; alpha level was 0.05. Knowledge retention essentially was the same, regardless of the antecedent teaching methodology. The advantages of one teaching method versus another may be in the flexibility afforded the staff educator. After desired outcomes are identified, a teaching method can be determined based on the staff educators' requirements, the resources available, and the learners' needs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":77218,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of nursing staff development : JNSD\",\"volume\":\"13 5\",\"pages\":\"249-53\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of nursing staff development : JNSD\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of nursing staff development : JNSD","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本项目比较了护士在完成以能力为基础的书面自学模块和以能力为基础的教学讲座模块后的知识保留情况。采用测试前/测试后准实验设计,从一组参加医疗机构认证联合委员会(JCAHO)和职业安全与健康协会(OSHA)强制性年度标准审查的注册护士中选择了一个方便的样本。这67名受试者分别接受了前测和后测,前测使用了两种类型的演讲,内容相同。协方差分析用于确定组间的后测差异,控制前测分数。结果显示,治疗组与对照组的后测得分差异无统计学意义;α水平为0.05。无论先前的教学方法如何,知识保留基本上是相同的。一种教学方法相对于另一种教学方法的优点可能在于为教职员提供的灵活性。在确定期望的结果之后,可以根据工作人员、教育者的要求、可用资源和学习者的需要确定教学方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Teaching strategies and knowledge retention.

This project compared nurses' knowledge retention after completion of either a competency-based, written self-learning module or a competency-based, didactic lecture module. Using a pretest/posttest quasiexperimental design, a convenient sample was selected from a group of registered nurses who attended a mandatory yearly review of standards from the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) and the Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA). The 67 subjects were given pretests, the same content material using the two types of presentations, and posttests. An analysis of covariance was used to determine posttest differences between the groups, controlling for pretest scores. Results indicated no significant differences among posttest scores of the treatment group and the control group; alpha level was 0.05. Knowledge retention essentially was the same, regardless of the antecedent teaching methodology. The advantages of one teaching method versus another may be in the flexibility afforded the staff educator. After desired outcomes are identified, a teaching method can be determined based on the staff educators' requirements, the resources available, and the learners' needs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信