薛超, 陈启稚, 黄海怡, 胡靖超, 许左隽. 多学科合作联合以问题为基础的整合教学法在心血管内科实习教学中的运用效果[J]. 心脏杂志, 2023, 35(2): 237-239, 244. DOI: 10.12125/j.chj.202207098
    引用本文: 薛超, 陈启稚, 黄海怡, 胡靖超, 许左隽. 多学科合作联合以问题为基础的整合教学法在心血管内科实习教学中的运用效果[J]. 心脏杂志, 2023, 35(2): 237-239, 244. DOI: 10.12125/j.chj.202207098
    Chao XUE, Qi-zhi CHEN, Hai-yi HUANG, Jing-chao HU, Zuo-jun XU. Effect of multi-disciplinary team teaching method combined with problem based learning teaching method in cardiovascular clinical practice[J]. Chinese Heart Journal, 2023, 35(2): 237-239, 244. DOI: 10.12125/j.chj.202207098
    Citation: Chao XUE, Qi-zhi CHEN, Hai-yi HUANG, Jing-chao HU, Zuo-jun XU. Effect of multi-disciplinary team teaching method combined with problem based learning teaching method in cardiovascular clinical practice[J]. Chinese Heart Journal, 2023, 35(2): 237-239, 244. DOI: 10.12125/j.chj.202207098

    多学科合作联合以问题为基础的整合教学法在心血管内科实习教学中的运用效果

    Effect of multi-disciplinary team teaching method combined with problem based learning teaching method in cardiovascular clinical practice

    • 摘要:
        目的  比较多学科合作(multi-disciplinary team,MDT)联合以问题为基础的(problem based learning,PBL)的整合教学法与传统教学法(lecture based learning,LBL)在心血管内科临床实习教学中的差别。
        方法  入选2018年1月~2020年1月在上海交通大学医学院附属第九人民医院心血管内科实习的80名临床五年级本科生,随机分为研究组(MDT联合PBL教学)及对照组(LBL教学)。教学结束后对两组学生分别进行理论知识、临床病例分析以及教学满意度评价。
        结果  研究组学生理论知识、病例分析的成绩均高于对照组(P<0.05)。满意度问卷调查结果显示,研究组在增加学习兴趣、培养临床思维、教学新颖程度、提高人文素养以及整体满意度5个方面评分高于对照组。
        结论  MDT联合PBL教学模式在提升理论知识以及临床思维等方面优于LBL教学法,学生整体满意度更高。

       

      Abstract:
        AIM  To compare the difference between problem based learning (PBL) combined with multi-disciplinary team (MDT) teaching method and lecture based learning (LBL) teaching method among medical students in cardiovascular clinical practice.
        METHODS  A total of 80 clinical medical students in fifth grade in Shanghai Jiao Tong university school of medicine between January 2018 and January 2020 were selected and randomly divided into study group and control group. The study group adopted MDT combined with PBL teaching method, while the control group adopted LBL teaching method. After the end of internship, the two groups of students were tested. Questionnaires were given to the students to survey the satisfaction of teaching.
        RESULTS  The scores of theoretical knowledge and clinical case analysis were higher in study group than those in the control group (P<0.05). The questionnaire survey showed that the MDT combined with PBL teaching method could increase the interest of learning, cultivate students’ clinical thinking, increases students’ humanities and with higher teaching novelty and satisfaction when compared with LBL teaching.
        CONCLUSION  MDT combined with PBL teaching method is better than LBL teaching method in improving theoretical scores and clinical thinking, and the overall satisfaction of students is higher.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回