岭南急诊医学杂志
嶺南急診醫學雜誌
령남급진의학잡지
LINGNAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
2014年
6期
482-484
,共3页
心肺复苏术%多媒体%医学教育
心肺複囌術%多媒體%醫學教育
심폐복소술%다매체%의학교육
cardiac pulmonary resuscitation%multimedia technology%medical education
目的:探讨多媒体结合传统教学方法在心肺复苏(CPR)技能教学中应用的教学效果。方法:将113名医学本科见习生分为A组(n=38)、B组(n=39)和 C 组(n=36),分别采用边看视频边练习结合传统教学方法、边看视频边练习方法、传统教学方法,对三组学生进行CPR 技能培训,比较三组学生培训结束后的心肺复苏 CPR 考核成绩及对教学方法的满意度。结果:A 组考核成绩优于 B 组(87.44±2.20 vs 82.72±2.77,P<0.05)和 C 组(87.44±2.20 vs 86.19±2.25,P<0.05),A 组学生对教学满意度优于 B 组(85.47±1.72 vs 75.21±2.81,P<0.05)和 C 组(85.47±1.72 vs 83.47±2.69,P<0.05),C 组的考核成绩和教学满意度优于 B 组(P<0.05)。结论:多媒体结合传统教学方法在 CPR 技能教学中效果好,值得推广。
目的:探討多媒體結閤傳統教學方法在心肺複囌(CPR)技能教學中應用的教學效果。方法:將113名醫學本科見習生分為A組(n=38)、B組(n=39)和 C 組(n=36),分彆採用邊看視頻邊練習結閤傳統教學方法、邊看視頻邊練習方法、傳統教學方法,對三組學生進行CPR 技能培訓,比較三組學生培訓結束後的心肺複囌 CPR 攷覈成績及對教學方法的滿意度。結果:A 組攷覈成績優于 B 組(87.44±2.20 vs 82.72±2.77,P<0.05)和 C 組(87.44±2.20 vs 86.19±2.25,P<0.05),A 組學生對教學滿意度優于 B 組(85.47±1.72 vs 75.21±2.81,P<0.05)和 C 組(85.47±1.72 vs 83.47±2.69,P<0.05),C 組的攷覈成績和教學滿意度優于 B 組(P<0.05)。結論:多媒體結閤傳統教學方法在 CPR 技能教學中效果好,值得推廣。
목적:탐토다매체결합전통교학방법재심폐복소(CPR)기능교학중응용적교학효과。방법:장113명의학본과견습생분위A조(n=38)、B조(n=39)화 C 조(n=36),분별채용변간시빈변연습결합전통교학방법、변간시빈변연습방법、전통교학방법,대삼조학생진행CPR 기능배훈,비교삼조학생배훈결속후적심폐복소 CPR 고핵성적급대교학방법적만의도。결과:A 조고핵성적우우 B 조(87.44±2.20 vs 82.72±2.77,P<0.05)화 C 조(87.44±2.20 vs 86.19±2.25,P<0.05),A 조학생대교학만의도우우 B 조(85.47±1.72 vs 75.21±2.81,P<0.05)화 C 조(85.47±1.72 vs 83.47±2.69,P<0.05),C 조적고핵성적화교학만의도우우 B 조(P<0.05)。결론:다매체결합전통교학방법재 CPR 기능교학중효과호,치득추엄。
Objective: To explore the effectiveness of CPR training with video-based instruction combined with traditional classroom instruction. Methods:113 medical undergraduates were randomly divided into group A (n=38),group B (n=39)and group C (n=36). The 3 groups then were trained with CPR by multimedia technology combined with traditional classroom lecture, multimedia technology and traditional classroom lecture, respectively. Finally, 3 groups’ scores and questionnaire survey were statistically analyzed. Results: The scores in group A were respectively significantly higher than those in group B(87.44±2.20 vs 82.72±2.77,P < 0.05) and group C(87.44±2.20 vs 86.19±2.25,P < 0.05). The students' satisfaction in group A were respectively significantly higher than those in group B ((85.47±1.72 vs 75.21± 2.81,P < 0.05)and group C(85.47±1.72 vs 83.47±2.69,P < 0.05). The students' scores and satisfaction of group C were significantly higher than those in group B. Conclusion: Video-based-instruction combined with traditional-classroom-instruction is effective in CPR training.