The sample for the study was comprised of all second year nursing students (n=60). The total valid study sample was 58 nursing students. Thirty students in the experiential-based learning group and 28 students in the lecture-based learning group completed the questionnaires in the first data collection period, and 30 students in each group completed the questionnaires in the second and third data collection periods. The two students who did not complete the questionnaires were absent at the first data collection time; as complete data sets were not available for them, their data were not included in the analysis.
The mean age of the students in the experiential-based learning group was 19.83 (SD=.99), ranging from 19 to 24 years; in the lecture-based learning group the mean age was 20.20 (SD=1.19), ranging from 19 to 23. There was no significant difference in age between the two groups (
t
(58)= 1.30, p=.20). Across both groups, the majority of nursing students were female (80%). There were five males in the lecture- based learning group and seven males in the experiential-based learning group (²(1)=.10, p=.75).The majority of students had graduated from general senior high school (73.3%). There were four who had graduated from a vocational high school in both the experiential-based and the lecture-based learning groups. One student had graduated from a nursing junior college in the experiential-based learning group and there were seven junior college students in the lecture-based learning group. As expected, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the level of
education (²(2)=.5.32, p=.07).
The majority of students (75%) said that they had contact with older people in their family: 23 students in the lecture-based learning group and 22 students in the experiential-based learning group. These students acknowledged having contact with older people at least occasionally (41.7%), and spent less than 30 minutes (30%) with older people on each contact. As expected, there was no significant difference between the students in the experiential-based and lecture-based learning groups in terms of their contact with older people, time of contact with older people, and time spent with the older person on each contact (Table 6.4).
Table 6.4
Comparison of contact with older people according to learning strategy Lecture-based learning (n=23) Experiential- based learning (n=22) ² f % f %
Contact with older people in family before commencing course
Everyday 6 20 1 3 4.38 NS
Once a week 2 7 3 10
Twice a week 3 10 5 17
Occasionally 12 40 13 43
Time spent with older person on each contact
Less than 30 min 10 33 8 27 .65 NS
30 min to 1 hour 6 20 8 27
More than 1 hour 7 23 6 20
The majority of students (65%) indicated that they had no older relative living with them and their family on a permanent basis. In terms of satisfaction with living with older relatives, those students who lived with older relatives had a mean score of 3.55 (SD = .73), with a possible range of scores of 1 to 5, in the experiential-based learning group and 3.42 (SD = .79) in the lecture-based learning group. These data indicated that the majority of students rated their satisfaction as neutral. Comparison of students in the experiential-based learning and lecture-based learning groups indicated there was no significant difference in terms of living with older relatives (²(1)=.66, p=.59) and satisfaction of living with older people (
t
(19)=-.41, p=.68).A five-point Likert scale format was used for students to indicate their intention of working with older people (definitely yes = 5; probably yes = 4; uncertain = 3; probably no = 2; definitely no = 1). The students in the experiential- based learning group had mean scores of 3.07 (SD = .58) and those in the lecture- based group had mean scores of 3.10 (SD =.71), indicating that the majority of students were uncertain about their intention to work with older people. Comparison of students in the experiential-based and lecture-based learning groups indicated there was no significant difference in their intention to work with older people (
t
(58)=.20, p=.84).In summary, the majority of students were female, with a similar mean age of 20. They had no work experience in nursing. Also, the students had contact with older people in their family at least occasionally, and spent less than 30 minutes with older people on each contact. The majority of students had no older relative living with them and their family on a permanent basis. There were no significant differences
between the two groups at the beginning of the gerontological nursing subject
regarding students’ intention to work with older people.
Attitudes
In order to check differences between the experiential-based learning group and lecture-based learning group at Time 1, a t-test was conducted. The data revealed that there was no statistically significant difference at Time 1 between the two groups (
t
(56)=.08, p=.94). To test the hypothesis that students studying a gerontological nursing course who receive an experiential-based learning will have more positive attitudes toward older people than students who receive the usual lecture-based learning strategy, a repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted for the Perception of Working with Older People (PWOP) Scale. Group was the between- subject factor and time of test was the within-subject factor (pre-test, post-test in week 16, post-test in week 20).Due to the small sample size, a check of the assumptions of the statistical test
was conducted. The Mauchly’s Test is sensitive not only to sphericity but also to
non-normality of the dependent variable as well as to heterogeneity of covariance (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001b). The Mauchly’s Test of Sphericity was not significant (p=.15), hence sphericity was acceptable. Also, Box’s M test (F=.47, p=.83) was used
to check homogeneity of variance assumptions. The conditions of Box’s M test for
homogeneity were met. The F test for the routine repeated measures ANOVA was therefore appropriate.
Table 6.5 shows the mean attitude scores for the experiential-based learning group and lecture-based learning group at the three data points as measured by the PWOP scale. Possible scores ranged from 11 to 55; therefore the data indicated
students had slightly positive attitudes toward older people over the period of the gerontological nursing subject.
The repeated measures ANOVA revealed no interaction effect for time by group (F(2,112) = 2.66, p = .07). Similarly, there was no significant main effect for time (F(2,112) = .34, p = .71) or for group (F(1,56) = 2.78, p = .10).
Table 6.5
Mean PWOP scores for experiential-based learning group and lecture-based learning group Experiential-based learning (n=30) Lecture-based learning (n=28) Meanª SD Meanª SD Pre-test (Week 1) 38.67 4.02 38.75 3.92 Post-test (Week 16) 37.17 5.04 39.46 4.07 Post-test (Week 20) 37.23 4.30 39.43 3.77 ª = Range: 11-55
These results revealed that students’ attitudes toward older people did not
differ between the two groups of students. In addition, there was no change in attitudes following the completion of a gerontological nursing subject. Therefore, the hypothesis that students who received an experiential-based learning strategy would have more positive attitudes toward older people than students who received the usual lecture-based learning strategy was not supported.
In order to test the hypotheses related to the subscale scores, two further repeated measures ANOVA analyses were conducted. Table 6.6 shows the means of
shows the means of students’ scores for the career prospects of working with older
people subscale.
The repeated measures ANOVA on intention to work with older people revealed a significant interaction effect for time by group (F(2,112) = 12.03, p = .01). A graph of the interaction is shown in Figure 6.1. There was no significant main effect for time (F(2,112) = 1.56, p = .21) or group (F(1,56) = 3.57, p = .06).
Table 6.6
Mean intention to work with older people scores for experiential-based learning group and lecture-based learning group
Experiential-based learning (n=30) Lecture-based learning (n=28) Meanª SD Meanª SD Pre-test (Week 1) 15.27 2.59 15.18 1.91 Post-test (Week 16) 14.07 2.86 15.46 2.44 Post-test (Week 20) 14.47 2.11 16.04 2.08 ª =Range: 5-25
Figure 6.1 Graph of interaction of intention to work with older people
M ea n s o f in te n ti o n t o w o rk w it h o ld er p eo p le 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Week 1 Week 16 Week 20
Experiential Šbased learning Lecture-based learning
In order to examine significant interactions, a series of t-tests was conducted to compare the means of both groups at each time point. The results showed there was no significant difference between groups at the pre-test in week 1 (
t
(58) = -.15, p = .88). However, students in the lecture-based learning group reported greater intention to work with older people than students in experiential-based learning group in the post-tests in week 16 (t
(58) = 2.01, p = .04) and week 20 (t
(58) = 2.39, p = .02).The result revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between students in the experiential-based learning group and lecture-based learning group regarding the score of intention to work with older people, so that the results of the study did not support the hypothesis that students who underwent experiential learning would report greater intention to work with older people than those who underwent the usual lecture-based learning.
So, interestingly, this result revealed a contrary position to what was expected, with students in the lecture-based learning group reporting greater intention to work with older people over the course of their gerontological nursing subject, while students in the experiential-based learning group stating a reduced intention to work with older people.
The repeated measures ANOVA conducted on the career prospects subscale revealed no interaction effect for time by group (F(2,112) = .22, p = .80). In addition, there was no significant main effect for time (F(2,112) = .71, p = .49) or a group (F(1,56) = .95, p = .33).
The results of the study therefore did not support the hypothesis that students who received an experiential learning strategy would rate the career prospects of
working with older people higher than students who received the usual lecture-based learning strategy.
Table 6.7
Mean career prospects of working with older people scores for experiential-based learning group and lecture-based learning group
Experiential-based learning (n=30) Lecture-based learning (n=28) Meanª SD Meanª SD Pre-test (Week 1) 19.50 1.76 19.86 2.19 Post-test (Week 16) 19.60 2.25 20.29 2.32 Post-test (Week 20) 19.43 2.43 19.75 2.33 ª =Range: 6-30 Knowledge
In order to check differences in gerontological knowledge between the experiential-based group and the lecture-based group at Time 1, a t-test was conducted. The data revealed that there was no statistically significant difference at Time 1 between the two groups (
t
(56)=.52, p=.60). To test the hypothesis that students studying a gerontological nursing course who receive an experiential-based learning strategy will have a higher level of gerontological knowledge than students who receive the usual lecture-based learning strategy, a repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted for the knowledge Knowledge of Situation of Older People (KSOP) Scale. Group was the between-subject factor and time of test was the within- subject factor (pre-test, post-test in week 16, post-test in week 20).was conducted. The Mauchly’s Test is sensitive not only to sphericity but also to
non-normality of the dependent variable as well as to heterogeneity of covariance (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001b). Mauchly’s Test of Sphericity was not significant (p=.52) therefore sphericity was acceptable. Also, Box’s M test (F=.1.76, p=.10) was used to check homogeneity of variance assumptions. The conditions of Box’s M test for homogeneity were met. The F test for routine repeated measures ANOVA was therefore appropriate.
Table 6.8 shows the mean knowledge scores for the experiential-based learning group and lecture-based learning group at the three data points as measured by the KSOP scale. With possible scores ranging from 0 to 13, the data indicated students from both groups had improved their knowledge about older people over the period of the gerontological nursing subject.
Table 6.8
Mean KSOP scores over time for experiential-based learning group and lecture-based learning group Experiential-based learning (n=30) Lecture-based learning (n=28) Meanª SD Meanª SD Pre-test (Week 1) 7.30 2.82 7.64 2.11 Post-test (Week 16) 10.00 3.31 9.21 2.01 Post-test (Week 20) 10.40 3.39 10.29 2.98 ª =Range: 0-13
The repeated measures ANOVA revealed no interaction effect for time by group (F(2,112) = 1.02, p = .36). There was a significant main effect for time (F(2,112) =
28.09, p < .001). The data indicated that both groups improved their knowledge following the completion of the gerontological nursing subject (see Table 6.8). There was no main effect for group (F(1,56) = .10, p = .75).
The results from the study showed no statistically significant difference in scores for the Knowledge of Situation of Older People (KSOP) for the experiential- based learning students when their scores were compared to those of the lecture-based learning group. Therefore, results of the study did not support the hypothesis that students in the experiential learning group would have a higher level of knowledge about older people than students in the usual lecture-based learning group. Contrary to expectations, both group of students improved their knowledge about older people.
In order to test the hypotheses related to the subscale scores, three further repeated measure ANOVA analyses were conducted. Table 6.9 shows the means of
students’ scores in the daily activity of older people subscale; Table 6.10 shows the means of students’ score in the demography of older people; and Table 6.11 shows the mean of students’ scores in the vulnerability of older people.
Table 6.9
Mean daily activities of older people scores for experiential-based learning group and lecture-based learning group
Experiential-based learning (n=30) Lecture-based learning (n=28) Meanª SD Meanª SD Pre-test (Week 1) 3.48 1.84 3.50 1.32 Post-test (Week 16) 5.03 1.68 4.61 1.50 Post-test (Week 20) 4.83 1.75 4.79 1.62 ª =Range: 0-6
There was no interaction effect for time by group (F(2,110) = .46, p = .63). The result for the daily activities revealed a significant main effect for time (F (2,110) = 18.24, p < .001). The data indicated that both groups improved their knowledge following their respective educational program (see table 6.9). There were no main effects for group (F(1, 55) = .22, p = .64). The results of the study did not support the hypothesis that students who received an experiential-based learning strategy would
have higher knowledge scores about older people’s daily activities than students who
received the usual lecture-based learning strategy.
Table 6.10
Mean Demography of older people scores for experiential-based learning group and lecture-based learning group
Experiential-based learning (n=30) Lecture-based learning (n=28) Meanª SD Meanª SD Pre-test (Week 1) 1.72 .65 1.89 .73 Post-test (Week 16) 2.24 .87 2.00 .82 Post-test (Week 20) 2.45 .78 2.39 .83 ª =Range: 0-3
There was no interaction effect for time by group (F(2,112) = .23, p = .79) for the demography subscale. The result revealed a significant main effect for time (F (2,112) = 13.32, p < .001). The data indicated that both groups improved their knowledge following their respective educational program (see Table 6.10). There were no main effects for group (F(1,56) = .60, p = .44).
The results of the study did not support the hypothesis that students who received an experiential-based learning strategy would have higher knowledge scores
about the demography of older people than students who received the usual lecture- based learning group.
There was no interaction effect for time by group (F(2,110) = .60, p = .32) for the vulnerability subscale. The result revealed a significant main effect for time (F(2,110) = 5.34, p < .001). The data indicated that both groups improved their knowledge following their respective educational program (see Table 6.11). There was no main effect for group (F(1,55) = .10, p = .75).
Table 6.11
Mean Vulnerability of older people scores for experiential-based learning group and lecture-based learning group
Experiential-based learning (n=30) Lecture-based learning (n=28) Meanª SD Meanª SD Pre-test (Week 1) 2.27 1.01 2.25 .97 Post-test (Week 16) 2.87 1.31 2.61 .96 Post-test (Week 20) 3.30 1.18 3.11 1.20 ª =Range: 0-4
The results of the study did not support the hypothesis that students who received an experiential-based learning strategy would have higher knowledge scores about the vulnerability of older people than students who received the usual lecture- based learning group.
The result of the overall knowledge and subscale analysis indicated that both groups of students improved their knowledge as they progressed through their respective gerontological subject. Therefore, the hypotheses related to knowledge
were not supported.
Summary of Quantitative Results
To summarise the results, the data indicated that, after their respective courses, students in the lecture-based learning had a greater intention to work with older people compared with students in the experiential-based learning group. Moreover, the students in the experiential-based group did not differ from the lecture-based group in respect to overall attitudes toward older people or career prospects of working with older people. Regardless of group, knowledge scores improved across time. Therefore, the results of the study did not support the hypotheses that students who received the experiential-based learning strategy would have improved attitudes toward and knowledge about older people than students who received the usual lecture-based learning strategy.