INTRODUCTION: Learning technology is increasingly being implemented for programmes of blended learning within nurse education. With a growing emphasis on self-directed study particularly in post-basic education, there is a need for learners to be guided in their learning away from practice and limited classroom time. Technology-enabled (TE) tools which engage learners actively can play a part in this. The effectiveness and value of interactive TE learning strategies within healthcare is the focus of this paper.

OBJECTIVES: To identify literature that explores the effectiveness of interactive, TE tools on knowledge acquisition and learner satisfaction within healthcare with a view to evaluating their use for post-basic nurse education.

DESIGN: A Literature Review was performed focusing on papers exploring the comparative value and perceived benefit of TE tools compared to traditional modes of learning within healthcare.

DATA SOURCES: The Databases identified as most suitable due to their relevance to healthcare were accessed through EBSCOhost.

REVIEW METHODS: Primary, Boolean and advanced searches on key terms were undertaken. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied which resulted in a final selection of 11 studies for critique.

FINDINGS: Analysis of the literature found that knowledge acquisition in most cases was enhanced and measured learner satisfaction was generally positive for interactive, self-regulated TE tools. However, TE education may not suit all learners and this is critiqued in the light of the identified limitations.

CONCLUSIONS: Interactive self regulation and/or testing can be a valuable learning strategy that can be incorporated into self-directed programmes of study for post-registration learners. Whilst acknowledging the learning styles not suited to such tools, the concurrent use of self-directed TE tools with those learning strategies necessitating a more social presence can work together to support enhancement of knowledge required to deliver rationale for nursing practice.

Problemstillingene og inklusjonskriteriene forfatteren jobber ut fra er ganske vide, noe som påvirker oversiktens metode. Litteratursøket er svakt dokumentert med mange avgrensninger, og det er gjort et strategisk utvalg av artikler for inklusjon. Artikkelen har kun en forfatter og det later til at det kun er en person som velger ut artikler og vurderer kvaliteten med et generelt verktøy. Det gjøres ingen syntetisering av resultatene fra de inkluderte studiene. Det vil antakelig finnes relevante artikler som ikke er inkludert i denne oversikten, noe som vil begrense bruken, og konklusjonen bør tolkes deretter. De 11 inkluderte studiene er imidlertid ryddig og oversiktlig presentert i tekst og tabell der også metode og svakheter ved disse er presentert. Dette trekkes og inn i diskusjon og konklusjon.