Chen Hsiu-Fang, Ho Lun-Hui, Lee Hsiang-Chun, Chiu Hsiao-Feng, Tsai Yun-Fang
Department of Nursing, Chang Gung University of Science and Technology, No. 261, Wenhua 1st Rd., Taoyuan City 33303, Taiwan, Republic of China; Department of Nursing, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, No. 5, Fu-Hsien St., Taoyuan City 33305, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Department of Nursing Management of the Administration Center, Chang Gung Medical Foundation, No. 5, Fu-Hsien St., Taoyuan City 33305, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Nurse Educ Today. 2025 Sep;152:106766. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2025.106766. Epub 2025 May 2.
Few studies have evaluated the comparative effectiveness of team-based learning (TBL) and problem-based learning (PBL) combined with simulation in nursing education.
This study aimed to compare the learning outcomes of TBL versus PBL, incorporating high-fidelity simulation (HFS) in a critical care nursing course.
This study used a mixed-methods design with convenience sampling. Senior baccalaureate nursing students from a university of science and technology were recruited. Participants were randomly assigned to the TBL or PBL group by class, each receiving their respective teaching strategies combined with HFS. Course outcomes were assessed using a variety of instruments, including a learning assessment (shock knowledge, Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support knowledge, and a final test), the Satisfaction with Simulation Experience Scale (SSES), the Confidence Scale, the Emergency Preparedness Simulation Learning Experience Scale (EPSLES), the Learning Experience Questionnaire, and a demographic questionnaire.
A total of 173 senior nursing students were included. A One-way ANCOVA was utilized to control for pre-test and midterm test scores when comparing the learning effects. The analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in post-test shock knowledge scores between the two groups (F = 4.51, p = 0.04). The TBL group achieved significantly higher post-test scores compared to the PBL group. In contrast, following the HFS program, the PBL group showed significantly higher mean scores on the SSES and EPSLES than the TBL group (t = 2.09, p = 0.04; t = 2.59, p = 0.01, respectively).
Our study evaluated the effectiveness of mixed teaching strategies in a critical care nursing course. Findings indicate that both TBL and PBL enhance learning outcomes. The TBL group demonstrated superior performance on the learning outcomes test, while the PBL group excelled in simulation satisfaction and emergency simulation learning experiences. These results provide insights for selecting appropriate teaching strategies in intensive care education for nursing students.
很少有研究评估基于团队的学习（TBL）和基于问题的学习（PBL）结合模拟在护理教育中的相对有效性。
本研究旨在比较在重症护理课程中，TBL与PBL结合高保真模拟（HFS）的学习成果。
本研究采用便利抽样的混合方法设计。招募了某科技大学的高年级护理学学士学生。参与者按班级随机分配到TBL组或PBL组，每组都接受各自的教学策略并结合HFS。使用多种工具评估课程成果，包括学习评估（休克知识、高级心血管生命支持知识和期末考试）、模拟体验满意度量表（SSES）、信心量表、应急准备模拟学习体验量表（EPSLES）、学习体验问卷和人口统计学问卷。
共纳入173名高年级护理学生。在比较学习效果时，采用单因素协方差分析来控制预测试和中期测试成绩。分析显示，两组之间的测试后休克知识得分存在统计学显著差异（F = 4.51，p = 0.04）。与PBL组相比，TBL组的测试后得分显著更高。相比之下，在HFS课程之后，PBL组在SSES和EPSLES上的平均得分显著高于TBL组（分别为t = 2.09，p = 0.04；t = 2.59，p = 0.01）。
我们的研究评估了重症护理课程中混合教学策略的有效性。结果表明，TBL和PBL都能提高学习成果。TBL组在学习成果测试中表现更优，而PBL组在模拟满意度和应急模拟学习体验方面表现出色。这些结果为护理专业学生重症护理教育中选择合适的教学策略提供了参考。
