Fabius D B, Grissom E L, Fuentes A
J Nurs Staff Dev. 1994 Sep-Oct;10(5):262-8.
In this study, the authors compare knowledge scores, pass/fail rate, time spent, satisfaction, and skill retention between two teaching methods used in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) recertification. Seventy subjects were assigned randomly to either traditional or computer method of instruction. Knowledge was evaluated by written examination. Psychomotor skills were evaluated either by a Basic Cardiac Life Support certified instructor (control group) or the computer (experimental group) and reevaluated by an instructor at a 6-month interval. There was no significant difference between the groups in knowledge or performance scores. However, significant differences in time spent, learner satisfaction, and pass/fail rate all favored the traditional method of instruction. These findings conflict with the results of prior studies on the use of the computer interactive learning system.
在本研究中，作者比较了用于心肺复苏（CPR）再认证的两种教学方法在知识得分、通过/未通过率、花费时间、满意度和技能保持方面的差异。70名受试者被随机分配到传统教学法或计算机教学法。通过书面考试评估知识。由基础生命支持认证教员（对照组）或计算机（实验组）评估操作技能，并在6个月后由教员重新评估。两组在知识或操作得分上没有显著差异。然而，在花费时间、学习者满意度和通过/未通过率方面的显著差异都表明传统教学法更具优势。这些发现与之前关于使用计算机交互式学习系统的研究结果相矛盾。
