0
Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

ÀÏ °£È£´ëÇÐÀÇ ¹®Á¦Áß½ÉÇнÀ ¼ö¾÷°úÁ¤ ¹× ÇнÀ¼º°ú ºÐ¼®

Process and Outcome Evaluation of PBL Class in a College of Nursing

°è¸í°£È£°úÇÐ 2006³â 10±Ç 1È£ p.109 ~ 120
KMID : 0948220060100010109
±Ç¿µ¼÷ ( Kwon Young-Sook ) - °è¸í´ëÇб³ °£È£´ëÇÐ

À̺´¼÷ ( Lee Byoung-Sook ) - °è¸í´ëÇб³ °£È£ÇкÎ
¹Ú¸íÈ­ ( Park Myong-Hwa ) - °è¸í´ëÇб³ °£È£´ëÇÐ
±èÇ⵿ (  ) - °è¸í´ëÇб³ °£È£°úÇבּ¸¼Ò

Abstract

Purpose: The purposes of this study were to evaluate and compare the process and outcome of PBL classes for junior nursing students of BSN and RN-BSN students in a college of nursing.

Method: The process of PBL was evaluated with the instruments for class evaluation, and outcomes of PBL were evaluated with the instruments for students¡¯ learning motives and grades in the PBL classes. The class evaluation and learning motives were measured by students, while students¡¯ grades were scored with peer evaluation, self evaluation, and tutor evaluation for each student¡¯s participation in group activities, reports, and presentations.

Results: The scores for the process of PBL showed significant differences between junior nursing students and RN-BSN students(t=-2.378, p=0.019). RN-BSN students(63.70) showed higher scores than the junior nursing students(61.17). Among the three dimensions of class evaluation, the scores for learning environment(t=-2.854, p=0.005) and tutor(t=-2.706, p=0.008) showed significant differences. The scores for the class evaluation and learning motives showed strong positive relationship in junior nursing students(r=0.670, p£¼0.001), however, there were no relationships between process evaluation and students¡¯ grades in both junior nursing students and RN-BSN students.

Conclusions: More effective education methods of PBL proper to the students¡¯ specific learning needs are required.
KeyWords
¹®Á¦Áß½ÉÇнÀ, ¼ö¾÷°úÁ¤, ÇнÀ¼º°ú
Problem based learning, Class process, Class outcomes
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸