Predictors of declarative and procedural knowledge in nursing students using computer mediated instruction

Abstract

This study focused on use of the cognitive strategy, elaborative learning by nursing students and whether level of use predicted declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge when the information was presented via computer mediated instruction (CMI) at the expository level. The "Interactive cognitive complexity learning model" (Tennyson & Morrison, in press), was used as a framework for the study with a focus on variables in the cognitive strategies, affects, and knowledge base components of the model. Elaborative learning and motivation were measured by the Inventory of Learning Processes-Revised (Schmeck & Geisler-Brenstein, 1995). The Attitude Toward CAI Semantic Differential Scale (Allen, 1986) measured attitude toward CMI. Declarative and procedural level knowledge were measured with researcher developed instruments. Sixty-six junior level nursing students at a Mid-Atlantic state university voluntarily completed a demographic survey, and the instruments identified above. Immediately after individual completion of the CMI, The Anatomy of a Chest Tube, students completed declarative and procedural knowledge measures. Multiple regression procedures revealed that level of use of elaborative strategies explained none of the variability in the knowledge measures. Significant relationships were found between use of elaborative episodic strategies and all three motivation subscales, Academic Interest (r =.47, p<.01), Effort (r =.50, p<.01), and Personal Responsibility (r =.29, p<.05). No significant correlations were identified between level of use of elaborative strategies and attitude toward CMI, age, gender, previous academic degree or previous clinical experience. Issues of particular concern in this study included measurement issues with the declarative and procedural knowledge measures. Reliability indices for these measures were substantially lower for the study as compared to the pilot study. One possible explanation for this difference was that pilot study participants were enrolled in a course that the researcher taught, whereas, the study participants were unknown to the researcher. Future research in learning from CMI may need to explore other means of evaluating knowledge outcomes, particularly at the procedural level and take into consideration the context or external environment of the learning, such as the impact of the relationship between the researcher and the participants.