临床肺科杂志
臨床肺科雜誌
림상폐과잡지
JOUNAL OF CLINICAL PULMONARY MEDICINE
2014年
11期
1941-1943
,共3页
尤青海%牛成成%朱钟鸣%胡先纬
尤青海%牛成成%硃鐘鳴%鬍先緯
우청해%우성성%주종명%호선위
问题式教学法%呼吸内科%医学生%临床实习
問題式教學法%呼吸內科%醫學生%臨床實習
문제식교학법%호흡내과%의학생%림상실습
problem-based learning%department of respiratory medicine%medical student%clinical clerk-ship
目的:探讨以问题为基础的教学法( problem-based learning, PBL)在呼吸内科临床实习中的应用价值。方法97名实习生随机分成PBL组(n=55)和对照组(n=42)进入呼吸内科实习,分别给予不同的教学方法,观察实习的总体印象和出科考试成绩。结果 PBL组总体印象优于对照组;PBL组总得分、选择题得分、填空题得分、名词解释得分以及分析题得分,分别与对照组比较(79.25±8.63 vs 67.36±13.01;13.36±3.19 vs10.40±2.44;33.58±4.66 vs 30.98±5.72;17.44±2.59 vs 14.36±4.19;14.73±3.11 vs 12.14±4.95)差异显著(P<0.05)。结论 PBL有利于提高学生的学习兴趣、积极性以及教学成绩,值得在呼吸内科临床教学中推广。
目的:探討以問題為基礎的教學法( problem-based learning, PBL)在呼吸內科臨床實習中的應用價值。方法97名實習生隨機分成PBL組(n=55)和對照組(n=42)進入呼吸內科實習,分彆給予不同的教學方法,觀察實習的總體印象和齣科攷試成績。結果 PBL組總體印象優于對照組;PBL組總得分、選擇題得分、填空題得分、名詞解釋得分以及分析題得分,分彆與對照組比較(79.25±8.63 vs 67.36±13.01;13.36±3.19 vs10.40±2.44;33.58±4.66 vs 30.98±5.72;17.44±2.59 vs 14.36±4.19;14.73±3.11 vs 12.14±4.95)差異顯著(P<0.05)。結論 PBL有利于提高學生的學習興趣、積極性以及教學成績,值得在呼吸內科臨床教學中推廣。
목적:탐토이문제위기출적교학법( problem-based learning, PBL)재호흡내과림상실습중적응용개치。방법97명실습생수궤분성PBL조(n=55)화대조조(n=42)진입호흡내과실습,분별급여불동적교학방법,관찰실습적총체인상화출과고시성적。결과 PBL조총체인상우우대조조;PBL조총득분、선택제득분、전공제득분、명사해석득분이급분석제득분,분별여대조조비교(79.25±8.63 vs 67.36±13.01;13.36±3.19 vs10.40±2.44;33.58±4.66 vs 30.98±5.72;17.44±2.59 vs 14.36±4.19;14.73±3.11 vs 12.14±4.95)차이현저(P<0.05)。결론 PBL유리우제고학생적학습흥취、적겁성이급교학성적,치득재호흡내과림상교학중추엄。
Objective To explore the value of the problem-based learning ( PBL) in the clinical clerkship in the department of respiratory medicine. Methods 97 trainees in the department of respiratory medicine were ran-domly divided into two groups and given different teaching methods in the PBL group (n=55) and the control group (n=42), respectively. The overall impression and the test scores were observed in both groups. Results The over-all impression in the PBL group was better than that in the control group. There were significant differences in the to-tal score (79. 25 ± 8. 63 vs 67. 36 ± 13. 01), the multiple-choice score (13. 36 ± 3. 19 vs 10. 40 ± 2. 44), the score of the fill-in-the-blanks test (33. 58 ± 4. 66 vs 30. 98 ± 5. 72), the score of the term explains test (17. 44 ± 2. 59 vs 14. 36 ± 4. 19) and the score of the case analysis questions (14. 73 ± 3. 11 vs 12. 14 ± 4. 95) between the PBL group and the control group (all P<0. 05). Conclusion PBL can improve the students' interest in learning, motivation and teaching achievements, and be worthy of promotion in the clinical teaching of the respiratory medicine.