中华医学教育杂志
中華醫學教育雜誌
중화의학교육잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
2010年
6期
885-886,938
,共3页
田作军%奉俊敏%吴宜娟%董亚贤%李少明
田作軍%奉俊敏%吳宜娟%董亞賢%李少明
전작군%봉준민%오의연%동아현%리소명
以问题为基础学习%床边学习%神经病学%临床见习%教学方法
以問題為基礎學習%床邊學習%神經病學%臨床見習%教學方法
이문제위기출학습%상변학습%신경병학%림상견습%교학방법
Problem-based learning%Bedside-based learning%Neurology%Clinical probation%Teaching method
目的 比较以问题为基础学习(problem-based learning,PBL)和床边学习(bedsidebased learning,BBL)两种教学方法在神经病学见习中培养医学生临床思维能力的效果.方法 选择2009年9月~2009年10月在广州医学院第一附属医院见习神经病学并由专人带教的2006级临床医学专业70名本科学生为研究对象,将其随机分为PBL组(34人)和BBL组(36人),分别采用PBL教学方法和BBL教学方法进行带教,并在1个月后进行临床思维能力和理论知识的考核.结果 PBL组和BBL组学生见习时答题正确率的差异无统计学意义;见习1个月后,PBL组学生临床思维能力考核成绩(t=2.346,P=0.022)及总成绩(t:2.329,P=0.023)均高于BBL组学生,其差异均具有统计学意义;两组学生理论考试成绩之间的差异无统计学意义(t=1.164,P=0.248).结论 本研究发现,PBL教学方法对于学生神经病学临床思维能力培养的效果优于BBL教学方法,能够从多方面提高学生的素质,是一种值得推广的教学方法.
目的 比較以問題為基礎學習(problem-based learning,PBL)和床邊學習(bedsidebased learning,BBL)兩種教學方法在神經病學見習中培養醫學生臨床思維能力的效果.方法 選擇2009年9月~2009年10月在廣州醫學院第一附屬醫院見習神經病學併由專人帶教的2006級臨床醫學專業70名本科學生為研究對象,將其隨機分為PBL組(34人)和BBL組(36人),分彆採用PBL教學方法和BBL教學方法進行帶教,併在1箇月後進行臨床思維能力和理論知識的攷覈.結果 PBL組和BBL組學生見習時答題正確率的差異無統計學意義;見習1箇月後,PBL組學生臨床思維能力攷覈成績(t=2.346,P=0.022)及總成績(t:2.329,P=0.023)均高于BBL組學生,其差異均具有統計學意義;兩組學生理論攷試成績之間的差異無統計學意義(t=1.164,P=0.248).結論 本研究髮現,PBL教學方法對于學生神經病學臨床思維能力培養的效果優于BBL教學方法,能夠從多方麵提高學生的素質,是一種值得推廣的教學方法.
목적 비교이문제위기출학습(problem-based learning,PBL)화상변학습(bedsidebased learning,BBL)량충교학방법재신경병학견습중배양의학생림상사유능력적효과.방법 선택2009년9월~2009년10월재엄주의학원제일부속의원견습신경병학병유전인대교적2006급림상의학전업70명본과학생위연구대상,장기수궤분위PBL조(34인)화BBL조(36인),분별채용PBL교학방법화BBL교학방법진행대교,병재1개월후진행림상사유능력화이론지식적고핵.결과 PBL조화BBL조학생견습시답제정학솔적차이무통계학의의;견습1개월후,PBL조학생림상사유능력고핵성적(t=2.346,P=0.022)급총성적(t:2.329,P=0.023)균고우BBL조학생,기차이균구유통계학의의;량조학생이론고시성적지간적차이무통계학의의(t=1.164,P=0.248).결론 본연구발현,PBL교학방법대우학생신경병학림상사유능력배양적효과우우BBL교학방법,능구종다방면제고학생적소질,시일충치득추엄적교학방법.
Objective To compare the effect of clinical neurologic thinking training between the problem-based learning (PBL) and the bedside-based learning (BBL) during neurologic probation. Methods From September 2009 to October 2009, 70 forth-year medical probation undergraduates of Guangzhou Medical College undergoing the neruologic teaching of a special doctor were randomly divided into PBL group (34 students) and BBL group (36 students). The PBL and BBL approachs were respectively used to teach the students. A month later, the clinical and theoretic examinations were performed to compare the effect Results No statistically significance about the answers' accuracy was found during probation between PBL and BBL groups. A month after probation, both clinical exam record and total record of PBL group were higher than those of BBL group. However, no statistically difference was found in the theoretic examinartion record between PBL and BBL groups. Conclusions Our study suggests that the effect of clinical neurologic thinking training of PBL approach is more effective than that of BBL approach during neurologic probation. The PBL approach can also improve the students' quality in many aspects, and deserves to be popularized.