Pichert J W, Smeltzer C, Snyder G M, Gregory R P, Smeltzer R, Kinzer C K
Diabetes Educ. 1994 Jan-Feb;20(1):45-8. doi: 10.1177/014572179402000109.
This paper describes a nutrition education experiment in which traditional direct instruction was compared with a problem-solving method called anchored instruction (AI). Participants were 69 children ages 9 to 15 years, with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM), who attended a diabetes camp. Following pretesting, campers were assigned to AI or direct instruction control classes. Posttests involved evaluating diabetes knowledge, personal meal plan knowledge, ability to choose an appropriate meal from a buffet line, and ability to pack appropriate meals for an overnight campout. AI and direct instruction both produced significant knowledge gains in this study. However, because the scores for the two groups did not differ, this study was unsuccessful in replicating results of other studies or extending the findings to selected measures of actual behavior.
本文描述了一项营养教育实验，其中将传统的直接教学法与一种名为抛锚式教学（AI）的问题解决方法进行了比较。参与者为69名9至15岁的患有胰岛素依赖型糖尿病（IDDM）的儿童，他们参加了一个糖尿病营地。在进行预测试后，露营者被分配到AI或直接教学对照组。后测包括评估糖尿病知识、个人饮食计划知识、从自助餐队伍中选择合适餐食的能力以及为过夜露营打包合适餐食的能力。在本研究中，AI和直接教学都带来了显著的知识增长。然而，由于两组的分数没有差异，本研究未能成功复制其他研究的结果，也未能将研究结果扩展到实际行为的选定测量指标上。
