This study examines the effects of an AI dialogue-based scenario simulation integrated with concept mapping and post-dialogue feedback on nursing students' learning. Nursing students will participate in pediatric care scenarios using standardized AI-supported dialogues. Two feedback approaches will be compared: gamified feedback and conventional formative feedback without gamification elements. The study will examine students' flow experience and learning performance and explore how collaborative processes and interaction mechanisms may contribute to these outcomes. The findings are expected to provide evidence on how different feedback approaches influence students' engagement and learning during AI-supported scenario simulation.
Aged 18 years or older.
Willing to participate and providing informed consent.
None
Parallel
Gamified Feedback
BehavioralGamified feedback is delivered following the AI dialogue-based scenario simulation and includes game-related elements such as points, levels, progress indicators, and mission-based features.
Conventional Formative Feedback
BehavioralConventional formative feedback is delivered following the same AI dialogue-based scenario simulation without gamification elements.
Flow Experience
Flow experience will be assessed using the 8-item Flow Experience Questionnaire developed by Pearce et al. (2005). Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate a greater level of flow experience. Descriptive statistics will be used to examine the distribution and change in flow scores, missing data, and internal consistency.
Academic Learning Performance
Academic learning performance will be assessed using students' course midterm and final examination scores. Higher scores indicate better academic performance.
Intrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic motivation will be assessed using a 25-item version of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI), based on the IMI framework of McAuley et al. (1989) and the version adapted by Yin et al. (2021). Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The instrument assesses five dimensions: interest/enjoyment, pressure/tension, perceived choice, perceived competence, and perceived value. Reverse-coded items will be recoded before analysis, and each subscale score will be calculated as the mean of its constituent items.
Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.
This trial is not recruiting at the moment. You can still explore other options:
