Healthy
Conditions
Brief summary
This study is a cluster randomized controlled trial aimed at evaluating the impact of the "AI Critical Thinking Training" teaching method on the critical thinking, AI literacy, and clinical reasoning abilities of undergraduate nursing students. Random allocation methods (such as the coin-tossing method) were used to randomly assign eligible classes as a whole to either the experimental group or the control group. The experimental group received AI critical thinking training (using AI to analyze cases and annotate their errors), while the control group received the same amount of time in traditional case-based teaching. The research tools included the Chinese version of the Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory, the AI Literacy Scale, the Clinical Reasoning Scale, and a standardized case analysis scoring sheet. Data collection was conducted twice, before the experiment (pre-test) and after the experiment (post-test). The protocol was based on mature educational theories, with a clear process and extremely low risk, demonstrating good scientific and feasibility. During the research process, if the participants felt any discomfort, they could immediately request to stop the research and withdraw from the study.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALAI Critical Appraisal Training
Over 8 weeks, students complete 4 case assignments. For each case, they interact with an AI tool, screenshot the full dialogue, and then critically annotate the AI's responses: identify at least 3 errors or debatable points, provide corrected answers with evidence from textbooks, and write a brief reflection.
BEHAVIORALTraditional Case-Based Learning
Over the same 8 weeks, students analyze identical surgical nursing cases by consulting printed and electronic resources (excluding AI). They submit written answers to case questions and a personal reflection, and declare no AI use.
Sponsors
Xi Cao
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 30 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* All full-time undergraduate nursing students currently enrolled, who are willing to participate in this study
Exclusion criteria
* Did not complete the survey questionnaire and did not take the final exam.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in Critical Thinking Disposition | Baseline and Week 8 | Measured by the Chinese version of the Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CTDI-CV). The scale has 70 items, each rated on a 6-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 6=strongly agree). Total score ranges from 70 to 420. Higher scores indicate a stronger disposition toward critical thinking. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in AI Literacy | Baseline and Week 8 | Measured by the Artificial Intelligence Literacy Scale for Chinese College Students (AILS-CCS). The scale has 15 items, each rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). Total score ranges from 15 to 75. Higher scores indicate higher AI literacy. |
| Changes in clinical reasoning ability | Baseline and Week 8 | Measured by the Chinese version of the Clinical Reasoning and Reflection Self-Assessment Scale. The scale has 26 items, each rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). Total score ranges from 26 to 130. Higher scores indicate better clinical reasoning ability. |
| Case Analysis Performance | Week 8 | Assessed by a self-developed scoring rubric applied to the final case analysis report. Scores are evaluated by blinded assessors. The total score ranges from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicate better case analysis performance. |
Countries
China
Contacts
CONTACTXi Cao
Outcome results
None listed