背景　在職教育直接影響癌症照護品質，但大量的工作負荷及輪班的工作特性，影響護理人員參與在職教育的動機與成效，使課室教學方式的在職教育面臨困境。目的　比較不同教學方式之癌症照護課程學習成效及滿意度。方法　採類實驗研究設計，研究對象為北區某醫學中心癌症病房護理人員。實驗組介入數位教學方式；對照組介入課室教學方式。以癌症照護知識及態度量表，進行前後測評量；以教學方式滿意度量表，進行後測評量。結果　（一）教學介入後，癌症照護知識，兩組後測均顯著高於前測；癌症照護態度，實驗組前後測未達顯著，而對照組則後測顯著高於前測。（二）兩組前測經共變分析後，癌症照護知識方面，實驗組後測顯著低於對照組；癌症照護態度方面，兩組後測無顯著差異。（三）教學介入後，兩組對教學之滿意度，總分未達顯著。但於配合輪班的作息時間方面，實驗組得分顯著高於對照組。結論／實務應用　研究顯示臨床護理人員需要多樣的教學方式，以應付繁忙及輪班的工作並得到進修之目的，建議未來安排癌症照護課程，數位教學可增加互動及更多元之課程設計，與課室教學並行。

Background: In-service education affects the quality of cancer care directly. Using classroom teaching to deliver inservice education is often ineffective due to participants' large workload and shift requirements.Purpose: This study evaluated the learning effectiveness of different teaching methods in the dimensions of knowledge, attitude, and learning satisfaction.Methods: This study used a quasi-experimental study design. Participants were cancer ward nurses working at one medical center in northern Taiwan. Participants were divided into an experimental group and control group. The experimental group took an e-learning course and the control group took a standard classroom course using the same basic course material. Researchers evaluated the learning efficacy of each group using a questionnaire based on the quality of cancer nursing care learning effectiveness scale. All participants answered the questionnaire once before and once after completing the course.Results: (1) Post-test "knowledge" scores for both groups were significantly higher than pre-test scores for both groups. Post-test "attitude" scores were significantly higher for the control group, while the experimental group reported no significant change. (2) after a covariance analysis of the pre-test scores for both groups, the post-test score for the experimental group was significantly lower than the control group in the knowledge dimension. Post-test scores did not differ significantly from pre-test scores for either group in the attitude dimension. (3) Post-test satisfaction scores between the two groups did not differ significantly with regard to teaching methods. The e-learning method, however, was demonstrated as more flexible than the classroom teaching method.Conclusions / Implications for Practice: Study results demonstrate the importance of employing a variety of teaching methods to instruct clinical nursing staff. We suggest that both classroom teaching and e-learning instruction methods be used to enhance the quality of cancer nursing care education programs. We also encourage that interactivity between student and instructor be incorporated into e-learning course designs to enhance effectiveness.