Contribution to the Literature
-
Findings of this study enlighten the professional associations as welfare organs about the existing pedagogical gaps demonstrated by the lecture-based learning approach on motivating nursing students to learn so that its alternative problem based facilitatory pedagogy be incorporated and implemented in the nursing curriculum among Tanzanian higher training institutions
-
Moreover, the findings of the study give light to program and curriculum developers about the importance of developing programs and curriculum in the nature of problem-based facilitatory pedagogy that emphasizes collaborative learning to promote nursing students’ motivation to learn. By so doing, it might ensure the production of the motivated nursing graduate who will be able to work independently in an ethical manner when providing health care services among people.
-
Findings establish a vital knowledge that informs instructors on how to design and implement nursing curriculum courses in the nature of problem-based facilitatory pedagogy to promote nursing students’ motivation to learn and be interested in nursing programs.
-
Researchers will also use the findings of this study as baseline data for further interventional studies and or projects.
Background
Methods
Study design and approach
Activity | Intervention group | Control group |
---|---|---|
Pre-test (Baseline) | √ | √ |
Intervention (Mid-line) | Problem-based Facilitatory Pedagogy | Lecture-based Learning Method |
Post-test (End-line) | √ | √ |
Data collection process
Data collection tools
Development and prototyping of the research conflict resolution material in the nature of problem-based Facilitatory pedagogy design
The intervention (problem-based Facilitatory teaching sessions)
Summary of the study activities between an intervention and the control group
Intervention group | Control group |
---|---|
134 study participants recruited | 267 study participants recruited |
Administered the AMS-HS questionnaires as a pre-test to establish baseline information | Administered the AMS-HS questionnaires as a pre-test to establish baseline information |
Participants organized in groups of 5 to 8 members | Participants were not organized into groups |
Each member of the formed group was assigned a role to play by himself or herself e.g. Chairperson, secretary, timekeeper, etc. and they exchanged the roles per each session activities | Participants were not assigned in groups and thus had no roles to play alternatively |
Participants were exposed to two sessions lasting for 90 min each per week according to the institutional schedule. 5 min were reserved for a break and 10 min for a facilitator to summarize the learned topic and respond to students’ queries per each session | Participants were exposed to two sessions lasting for 90 min each per week according to the institutional schedule. 5 min were reserved for a break per each session. No summary of the learned topic and respond to students’ queries from the facilitator per each session. “THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION” was the end sentence from the facilitator per each session |
Exposed to nursing-based conflict resolution content through problem-based facilitatory pedagogy | Exposed to nursing-based conflict resolution content through lecture-based learning pedagogy |
Participants in their respective groups were exposed to conflict scenario to study and find appropriate strategies to resolve it | Participants learned nursing-base conflicts at working place through facilitator-led PowerPoint presentations, question and answers, buzzing |
A representative from each group had to share and defend their work in front of the entire class | Participants had opportunities to ask and answer questions from the facilitator |
Participants in their respective groups were required to present and defend a homework activity of the previous session in the entire classroom before the commencement of another day’s session | Participants were required to answer questions from the facilitator about the previous session before the commencement of another day’s session |
Participants were required to note-keep (establish records) of what is learned and performed per each session so that they could develop a summary of session activities by the end of all sessions | Participants had no opportunity. They just write summaries of what they learned for their read. |
Two to three randomly selected participants had to share their experiences of the session activities, time, content dosage, and their opportunities to learn | Participants had no such opportunity. They had to disport once the session is over. |
Administered the AMS-HS questionnaires as post-test to establish baseline information | Administered the AMS-HS questionnaires as post-test to establish baseline information |
Data analysis
Results
Demographic characteristics of the study participants
Variable | Intervention | Control | P-value |
---|---|---|---|
Sex | n(%) | n(%) | |
Males | 83 (61.9%) | 181 (67.8%) | 0.244 |
Females | 51 (38.1%) | 86 (32.2%) | |
Age | |||
< 24 yrs. | 6 (4.5%) | 25 (9.4%) | |
25–29 yrs. | 100 (74.6%) | 195 (73.0%) | 0.192 |
> 30 yrs. | 28 (20.9%) | 47 (17.6%) | |
Marital status | |||
Single | 123 (91.8%) | 248 (92.9%) | |
Married | 11 (8.2%) | 19 (7.1%) | 0.695 |
In campus | |||
Yes | 43 (32.1%) | 235 (88.0%) | |
No | 91 (67.9%) | 32 (12.0%) | 0.001 |
Other important participants’ characteristics (interest, reasons, satisfaction, learning benefits, and learning difficulties), which could influence motivation to learn
Variable | Intervention | Control | χ2 P-value |
---|---|---|---|
n(%) | n(%) | ||
Interest | |||
Yes | 92 (68.7%) | 204 (76.4%) | χ2 = 2.771a |
No | 42 (31.3%) | 63 (23.6%) | 0.096 |
Reasons to choose nurse | |||
Own choice | 71 (53.0%) | 139 (52.1%) | |
Parent’s/peer pressure | 29 (21.6%) | 55 (20.6%) | χ2 = 0.430a |
Easier to get a job | 24 (17.9%) | 48 (18.0%) | 0.934 |
Entry qualifications | 10 (7.5%) | 25 (9.4%) | |
Satisfaction | |||
Yes | 78 (58.2%) | 224 (83.9%) | χ2 = 31.60a |
No | 56 (41.8%) | 43 (16.1%) | 0.001 |
Learning benefits | |||
Agreed | 104 (77.6%) | 233 (87.3%) | χ2 = 6.200a |
Disagreed | 30 (22.4%) | 34 (12.7%) | 0.013 |
Learning difficulties | |||
Difficult accessing updated learning materials | 24 (17.9%) | 56 (21.0%) | |
Complex course contents | 49 (36.6%) | 74 (27.7%) | χ2 = 9.665a |
Inadequate support from lecturers | 18 (13.4%) | 37 (13.9%) | 0.046 |
Limited time | 25 (18.7%) | 79 (29.6%) | |
No conducive environment | 18 (13.4%) | 21 (7.9%) |
Overall levels of motivation to learn and its subscales among nursing students
Variable | Pre-test | Posttest |
---|---|---|
n(%) | n(%) | |
Overall Motivation to Learn | 140 (34.9%) | 282 (70.3%) |
Intrinsic Motivation to Learn | 103 (25.7%) | 289 (74.3%) |
Extrinsic Motivation to Learn | 143 (35.7%) | 258 (64.3%) |
Amotivation to Learn | 257 (64.0%) | 144 (36.0%) |
Factors related to the effect of an intervention on the overall motivation to learn, among undergraduate nursing students between groups
Variables | Motivation to Learn | χ2 P-value | |
---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | ||
n(%) | n(%) | ||
Groups | |||
Intervention | 128 (95.5%) | 6 (0.5%) | χ2 = 7.041a |
Control | 154 (57.0%) | 116 (43.0%) | 0.008 |
Gender | |||
Males | 202 (67.6%) | 62 (60.8%) | χ2 = 1.552a |
Females | 97 (32.4%) | 40 (39.2%) | 0.213 |
Age | |||
< 24 Yrs. | 20 (6.7%) | 11 (10.8%) | |
25–30 Yrs. | 220 (73.6%) | 75 (73.5%) | χ2 = 2.316a |
> 30 Yrs. | 59 (19.7%) | 16 (15.7%) | 0.314 |
Marital status | |||
Singles | 278 (93.0%) | 93 (91.2%) | χ2 = 0.356a |
Married | 21 (7.0%) | 9 (8.8%) | 0.551 |
Accommodation status | |||
In campus | 209 (69.9%) | 69 (67.6%) | χ2 = 11.421a |
Off-campus | 90 (30.1%) | 33 (32.4%) | 0.023 |
Interest | |||
Yes | 223 (74.6%) | 73 (71.6%) | χ2 = 0.357a |
No | 76 (25.4%) | 29 (28.4%) | 0.550 |
Satisfaction | |||
Yes | 227 (75.9%) | 75 (73.5%) | χ2 = 0.234a |
No | 72 (24.1%) | 27 (26.5%) | 0.629 |
Reasons for choosing to nurse as a career | |||
Own choice | 162 (54.2%) | 48 (47.1%) | |
Parents/peer pressure | 52 (17.4%) | 32 (31.4%) | χ2 = 9.903a |
Easier to get a job | 59 (19.7%) | 13 (12.7%) | 0.019 |
Entry qualifications | 26 (8.7%) | 9 (8.8%) | |
Learning difficulties | |||
Inadequate and difficulty in accessing updated learning materials | 61 (20.4%) | 19 (18.6%) | |
Complex course contents | 92 (30.8%) | 31 (30.4%) | χ2 = 1.209a |
Inadequate support from lecturers | 43 (14.4%) | 12 (11.8%) | 0.877 |
Limited time | 76 (25.4%) | 28 (27.5%) | |
No conducive environment | 27 (9.0%) | 12 (11.8%) |
The effect of an intervention on the overall motivation to learn among undergraduate nursing students between groups
Variables | OR | 95% CI | P-value | AOR | 95% CI | P-value | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Low | Upper | Low | Upper | |||||
Groups | ||||||||
Intervention | 1.729 | 1.130 | 2.646 | 0.012 | 1.720 | 1.122 | 2.635 | 0.013 |
Control (Ref) | ||||||||
Accommodation | ||||||||
In campus | 0.472 | 0.3.4 | 0.732 | 0.001 | 0.591 | 0.349 | 1.002 | 0.051 |
Off-campus (Ref) | ||||||||
Reasons for choosing to nurse as a career | ||||||||
Own choice | 1.168 | 0.513 | 2.662 | 0.711 | 1.214 | 0.528 | 2.787 | 0.648 |
Parents/peer pressure | 0.562 | 0.234 | .1.352 | 0.198 | 0.578 | 0.239 | 1.402 | 0.225 |
Easier to get a job | 1.571 | 0.597 | 4.132 | 0.360 | 1.635 | 0.616 | 4.337 | 0.324 |
Entry qualification (Ref) | 0b | . | . | . | . | . |