A Literature Review of Research on Action Learning-based Nursing Education in South Korea

Yun-Hee Kim; Hyo-Youn Kim

doi:10.11111/jkana.2018.24.1.73

Journal List > J Korean Acad Nurs Adm > v.24(1) > 1051963

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim and Kim: A Literature Review of Research on Action Learning-based Nursing Education in South Korea

Original Article

J Korean Acad Nurs Adm 2018;24(1):73-84.

Published online: 15 January 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2018.24.1.73

A Literature Review of Research on Action Learning-based Nursing Education in South Korea

Yun-Hee Kim¹, Hyo-Youn Kim^2,

¹Department of Nursing, Mokpo National University

²Mokpo Christian Hospital

Corresponding author: Kim, Hyo-Youn Mokpo Christian Hospital, 303 Baenknyeon-daero, Mokpo 58666, Korea. Tel: +82-61-280-7155, Fax: +82-61-280-7170, E-mail: bomul50@naver.com

Received 13 November 2017 Revised 31 December 2017 Accepted 31 December 2017

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to identify trends of action learning based nursing education research from 2006 to 2016 and suggest directions for advancing action learning based nursing education.

Methods

A review was made of 18 studies in nursing education reported in domestic journals. RISS 4U, KISS, DBpia, NDSL databases were searched using analysis criteria developed by the researchers. General and methodological characteristics and outcomes of action learning based nursing education were analyzed.

Results

Of 18 papers, in 14 (77.8%) quantitative design was used, 16 (88.9%) were conducted in university settings, and virtual problem approach was used in 13 studies (72.2%). Writing task description was conducted in 8 studies (44.4%). Norminal group technique and logic tree were used in 6 studies (33.3%). The number of team members was 6-8 in 10 (55.6%) studies. Reflection journaling was used in 16 (88.9%) studies. Action learning was effective in improving core competency of nurses and nursing students such as problem solving ability and communication skill.

Conclusion

Findings indicate that action learning is a useful teaching method in nursing education even though action learning for nurses has not been actively applied. Therefore strategies to activate action learning for nurses are needed.

Keywords: Students, Nursing education, Learning

References

1. Hyun HH, Lee MS, Hong YH. The effect of action learning teaching-learning method applied to nursing students in U city. Journal of Korean Society for School & Community Health Education. 2016; 17(2):17–30.

2. Choi SE, Kim EA. Effects of learning activities on application of learning portfolio in nursing management course. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2016; 46(1):90–99. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2016.46.1.90.

3. Kim YH, Choi BY. Study of the experience process in action learning for fostering essential competency of university students - Grounded theory approach. Journal of the Korea Contents Association. 2013; 13(11):477–491. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2013.13.11.477.

4. Bong HC. Key success factors of action learning programs in Korean companies: Contents and relationships. Korean Journal of Economics and Management. 2007; 25(3):1–34.

5. Chung KH. Application of action learning teaching-learning method to improve creativity an problem solving capability. Journal of Nambu University. 2010; 10(1):1–12.

6. Park YI, Kim JA, Ko JK, Chung MS, Bang KS, Choe MA, et al. An identification study on core nursing competency. Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education. 2013; 19(4):663–674. https://doi.org/10.5977/jkasne.2013.19.4.663.

7. Kim MW, Park JM, Han AK. Analysis of curriculum of 4-year nursing schools. Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education. 2011; 17(3):416–425.

8. Ko SI, Chang KW. Case study on interpersonal relationship class by action learning. Korea Association of Business Education. 2014; 88:256–581.

9. Chang KW, Koh EH, Ko SI. Analysis of the research trend of action learning in school. The Korean Association for Educational Methodology Studies. 2015; 27(3):429–455. https://doi.org/10.17927/tkjems.2015.27.3.429.

10. Chang HS. A comparative study on action learning programs: Focusing on Korean corporations [master's thesis]. Seoul: Konkuk University;2003. p. 1–79.

11. Choi MM, Kim SY. An exploratory study of action learning in social work education. Korea Journal of Social Welfare Education. 2005; 1(2):81–103.

12. Kim YM, Kim YH. Development and evaluation of action learning in clinical practice of nursing management. Journal of the Korea Contents Association. 2010; 10(6):313–322.

13. Lee IH, Kwon SC. A case study of the action learning-based general arts education. The Korean Association of General Education. 2013; 1(6):145–171.

14. Jang KS, Baek MY, Choi YJ, Ahn SH, Lee SJ, Sim JY, et al. An analysis of nurse managers's common fundamental competencies changes and responses to the application of the action learning. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration. 2006; 12(3):424–433.

15. Kim JH, Park MK. Comparative study on self-leadership, team efficacy, problem solving process and task satisfaction of nursing students in response to clinical training. The Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education. 2014; 20(4):482–490. https://doi.org/10.5977/jkasne.2014.20.4.482.

16. Marquardt MJ. Action learning in action: Transforming problems and people for world class organizational learning. California: Davis Black Publishing;1999. p. 1–259.

17. Jang KS, Chung KH, Baek M, Park HY, Choi O. Action learning and creative problem solving for nursing leadership. Seoul: Hyunmoonsa;2016. p. 3–57.

18. Kwon SC, Kim SB. Study of the self-management competencies program development: Focused on a formative research method. The Korean Association Education. 2014; 8(2):83–127.

19. Jang KS, Park SJ. Effects of action learning approaches on learning outcomes in nursing management courses. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration. 2012; 18(4):442–451. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2012.18.4.442.

20. Chung KH. Study on reflection in project-based action learning. Journal of Nambu University. 2013; 13(1):127–140.

21. Kim YM, Jang KS. An action research study on the effects of an action learning-based nursing professionalism course for nursing students. The Journal of Korean Education. 2014; 41(4):123–147.

22. Kim SM, Park SY. The effects of lessons using action learning on nursing students. Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education. 2016; 22(1):42–60. https://doi.org/10.5977/jkasne.2016.22.1.42.

23. Park JH. Study of abilities required to develop for student in nursing education. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration. 2011; 17(1):74–87. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2011.17.1.74.

Figure 1.

Literature selection process in this study.

Table 1.

General Characteristics of the Literature (N=18)

Characteristics	Categories	n (%)
Year of publication	2016	5 (27.8)
	2015	3 (16.7)
	2014	5 (27.8)
	2013	1 (5.6)
	2012	1 (5.6)
	2010	2 (11.1)
	2006	1 (5.6)
Title of journal	Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education	3 (16.7)
	Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration Journal of the Korea Contents Association	3 (16.7) 3 (16.7)
	The Research and Information Service Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society	2 (11.1) 2 (11.1)
	Korean Journal of Health Service Management Journal of the Korea Convergence Society	1 (5.6) 1 (5.6)
	Korean Society for Holistic Convergence Education Journal of Korean Society for School & Community Health Education	1 (5.6) 1 (5.6)
	Journal of Korean education	1 (5.6)
Research design	Quantitative design	14 (77.8)
	Nonequivalent control group pretest-posttest design	9 (64.3)
	One group pretest-posttest design	4 (28.6)
	One group repeated measure design	1 (7.1)
	Qualitative	2 (11.1)
	Triangulation	2 (11.1)
Study on the place	University	16 (88.9)
	Lectures	12 (75.0)
	Creative thinking and problem solving skill	3 (25.1)
	Nursing process	2 (16.8)
	Multi cultural nursing	1 (8.3)
	Simulation	1 (8.3)
	Teaching profession course	1 (8.3)
	Spiritual nursing education	1 (8.3)
	Mental health nursing	1 (8.3)
	Nursing professionalism course	1 (8.3)
	Evidence-based nursing	1 (8.3)
	Clinical practice	3 (18.8)
	Gerontological nursing	1 (33.3)
	Women health nursing	1 (33.3)
	Nursing management	1 (33.3)
	Lectures & Clinical Practice : Nursing management	1 (6.2)
	University hospital	2 (11.1)
Participant	Nursing student	16 (88.9)
	Freshman	2 (12.5)
	Sophomore	6 (37.5)
	Junior	4 (25.0)
	Senior	4 (25.0)
	Nurse	2 (11.1)
	Staff nurse	1 (50.0)
	Nurse manager	1 (50.0)

Table 2.

Methodological Characteristics of the Research (N=18)

Characteristics	Categories		n (%)
Type of problem	Virtual problem		13 (72.2)
	Real problem		5 (27.8)
Type of action learning model	Marquardt step 3		3 (16.7)
	Rothwell action learning model		1 (5.6)
	Not stated		14 (77.7)
Project process method	Single group program		9 (50.0)
	Open group program		2 (11.1)
	Not stated		7 (38.9)
Task description	Yes		8 (44.4)
	No		10 (55.6)
Task signing ceremony	Yes		3 (16.7)
	No		15 (83.3)
Learning method	Norminal group technique		6 (11.7)
	Logic tree		6 (11.7)
	Brainstorming		5 (9.7)
	Decision grid		5 (9.7)
	Ice breaking		3 (5.8)
	Portfolio		2 (3.9)
	Window panning		2 (3.9)
	Interview		2 (3.9)
	Brain writing		1 (2.0)
	Idea relay		1 (2.0)
	Associative method		1 (2.0)
	SCAMPER technique		1 (2.0)
	SWOT analysis		1 (2.0)
	ALU analysis		1 (2.0)
	Role play		1 (2.0)
	Interview		1 (2.0)
	Building a window frame		1 (2.0)
	Simulation		1 (2.0)
	ASIT		1 (2.0)
	Situation analysis table		1 (2.0)
	Storyboard		1 (2.0)
	Multiple voting		1 (2.0)
	Fish bone chart		1 (2.0)
	Not stated		5 (9.7)
Learning tools	Flip chart		6 (21.4)
	Post it		4 (14.3)
	Action learning forms		4 (14.3)
	White board		2 (7.2)
	Sticker		2 (7.2)
	Logical thinking statement		2 (7.2)
	Picture card		1 (3.5)
	Hourglass		1 (3.5)
	Not stated		6 (21.4)
Number of team members	≤5		4 (22.2)
	6~7		10 (55.6)
	≥8		1 (5.6)
	Not stated		3 (16.6)
Learning coach	Personnel	Professor	12 (66.6)
		Professor & clinical practice preceptor	3 (16.7)
		Professor & research team	2 (11.1)
		Professor & graduate student	1 (5.6)
		Professor & graduate student	1 (5.6)
	Teaching method	Face to face	11 (36.7)
		E-mail	6 (20)
		Telephone	4 (13.3)
		Reflection analysis	4 (13.3)
		In-depth interview	2 (6.7)
		SNS	2 (6.7)
		Not stated	1 (3.3)
	Frequency of project guidance	At every meeting	9 (50)
		Whenever necessary	6 (33.3)
		Twice a week	1 (5.6)
		Not stated	2 (11.1)
Reflection journal	Yes		16 (88.9)
	No		2 (11.1)
Researcher readiness	Certification as action learning coach		7 (38.9)
	Action learning training & project experience		2 (11.1)
	Completion of action learning methodology		2 (11.1)
	Not stated		7 (38.9)
Final outcome	Final action plan		2 (11.1)
	Team learning portfolio		2 (11.1)
	Guide book		2 (11.1)
	Final report		2 (11.1)
	Instructional material development		1 (5.6)
	Career planing		1 (5.6)
	Nursing care program		1 (5.6)
	Not stated		7 (38.9)

ALU=Advantage, Limitation, Unique qualities; ASIT=Advanced Systemic Inventive Thinking; SNS=Social Network Service.

SNS=Social Network Service.

Table 3.

Identification of the Quantitative Research Outcome (N=16)

Participant	Dependent variables	n (%)	Intervention period	Outcomes
Nurse (n=2)	Problem solving ability	2 (100.0)	8 weeks	Improvement in IG (p=.020)
			5 weeks	Improvement in posttest group (p＜.001)
	Communication	2 (100.0)	8 weeks	Improvement in IG (p=.002)
	Communication	2 (100.0)	5 weeks	Improvement in posttest group (p=.009)
	Emotional creativity	1 (50.0)	8 weeks	Improvement in IG (p=.028)
	Innovation behavior	1 (50.0)	8 weeks	No difference between two groups (p=.094)
	Decision making	1 (50.0)	5 weeks	Improvement in posttest group (p＜.001)
	Presentation skill	1 (50.0)	5 weeks	Improvement in posttest group (p＜.001)
	Individual change^*	1 (50.0)	5 weeks	3.93±0.69 (p value was not described)
	Team member recognition^*	1 (50.0)	5 weeks	4.21±0.52 (p value was not described)
Nursing student (n=14)	Problem solving ability	7 (50.0)	16 weeks	Improvement in IG (p=.012)
			14 weeks	Improvement in IG (p＜.001)
			13 weeks	Improvement in IG (p=.020)
			8 weeks	Improvement in IG (p＜.001)
				Improvement in posttest group (p＜.001)
			4 weeks	Improvement in IG (p＜.001)
			2 weeks	Improvement in IG (p＜.001)
	Communication	4 (28.6)	13 weeks	LDG: No difference between pretest and posttest groups (p=.756)
				HDG: Improvement in posttest group (p＜.001)
			8 weeks	Improvement in IG (p＜.001)
				Improvement in IG (p＜.001)
			2 weeks	Improvement in IG (p＜.001)
	Creativity	3 (21.4)	16 weeks	Improvement in IG (p=.047)
			14 weeks	No difference between pretest and posttest groups (p=.110)
			13 weeks	Improvement in IG (p＜.001)
	Team efficacy	3 (21.4)	8 weeks	Improvement in posttest group (p=.012)
			8 weeks	No difference between two groups (p=.883)
			2 weeks	No difference between two groups (p=.640)
	Critical thinking disposition	2 (14.3)	13 weeks	Improvement in IG (p=.003)
			13 weeks	Improvement in IG (p＜.001)
	Problem solving process	2 (14.3)	8 weeks	Improvement in IG (p=.005)
			2 weeks	Improvement in posttest group (p＜.001)
	Self-directed learning skill	2 (14.3)	8 weeks	Improvement in IG (p=.003)
			4 weeks	Improvement in IG (p＜.001)
	Leadership	2 (14.3)	13 weeks	Improvement in IG (p=.025)
			8 weeks	No difference between two groups (p=.161)
	Class satisfaction	2 (14.3)	14 weeks	Great satisfaction (p value was not described)
			8 weeks	Great satisfaction (p value was not described)
	Task satisfaction	1 (7.1)	8 weeks	Improvement in IG (p=.013)
	Proactivity in problem solving	1 (7.1)	7 weeks	Improvement in IG (p=.026)
	Team member exchange relationship	1 (7.1)	16 weeks	Improvement in IG (p＜.001)
	Culture competency	1 (7.1)	13 weeks	Improvement in IG (p＜.001)
	Nursing expert instinct	1 (7.1)	13 weeks	LDG: Improvement in posttest group (p＜.001)
				HDG: Improvement in posttest group (p=.002)
	Professional self concept	1 (7.1)	8 weeks	No difference between two groups (p=.187)
	Evidence-based nursing competency	1 (7.1)	7 weeks	Improvement in IG (p＜.001)
	Information literacy	1 (7.1)	7 weeks	Improvement in IG (p＜.001)
	Spiritual need	1 (7.1)	16 hours	Improvement in posttest group (p＜.001)
	Spiritual well-being	1 (7.1)	16 hours	Improvement in posttest group (p＜.001)
	Spiritual care competence	1 (7.1)	16 hours	Improvement in posttest group (p＜.001)

^* Maximum score five points, LDG=Low Dynamic Group; HDG=High Dynamic Group; IG=Intervention Group.

Table 4.

Identification of the Qualitative Research Outcome (N=4)

Participant	Categories	Investigation method	n (%)	Response
Nurse (1)	Analysis of individual reflection	Reflection analysis	1 (100.0)	․ My confidence has improved.
				․ I was pleasantly satisfied during my education
Nursing student (3)	Individual reflection analysis	Interview	3 (100.0)	․ I am able to understand myself
				․ Drawing yourself into the future
				․ Consideration and understanding have improved
				․ Active participation is important
				․ The start is half
				․ Do not ride free
				․ Let's respect each other
				․ Knowing the importance of goals
				․ Let's have an open mind
				․ I learned presentation technology
				․ Carrying out the assignment
				․ I learned how to satisfy the needs of others
				․ I learned how to brainstorm
				․ I learned how to improve interpersonal relationships
				․ I showed creativity
				․ The burden of learning has been reduced: Isn't it too easy?, Is this study?
				․ The perception of learning methods has changed: Study at any time, Good to study together, Study of various materials, The master of learning
				․ There was a learning transfer effect: I want to study other subjects like this, All you see is evaluations
	Team reflection analysis	Surface contact		․ Be able to communicate effectively
				․ It helped build interpersonal relationships
				․ Recognizing responsibility as a member
				․ Learning cooperation
				․ Learn how to listen
				․ Learn the importance of sharing roles
				․ The importance of teamwork
				․ Time is gold
				․ Knowing the wrong and the different
				․ Learn the importance of community
				․ Learning how to care
				․ Learn how to break the ice
				․ Data collection and analysis method
				․ Let's keep our promise well
				․ Learned how to solve a problem
	Learning dimension	Reflection analysis		․ The outlook for learning has changed
	Researcher reflection analysis	Reflection analysis		․ The action execution guide book has been developed
				․ It is necessary to develop structured and correct questions
				․ There needs to be a facilitator
				․ We need to obtain support from clinicians
				․ We need to cooperate with fellow collaborators
				․ We need support and attention from the university authorities

TOOLS

Similar articles