PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of team-, case-, lecture-, and evidence-based learning (TCLEBL) methods in cultivating students\' clinical and research abilities, as compared to traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) approaches.
METHODS: Forty-one medical postgraduates were divided into two groups, a TCLEBL group and an LBL group. Teaching effectiveness was evaluated through student- and teacher-feedback questionnaires, scores from theoretical examinations and written literature reviews, and student learning burdens.
RESULTS: Compared to the LBL approach, both teachers and students were more satisfied with the TCLEBL model (p < 0.001 for both teachers and students). The TCLEBL group performed significantly higher on the theory test compared to the LBL group (p = 0.009). There were significant differences between the LBL and TCLEBL groups, respectively, in terms of literature review and citations (12.683 ± 2.207 vs. 16.302 ± 1.095, p < 0.001), argument and perspective (12.55 ± 1.572 vs. 16.333 ± 1.354, p < 0.001), comprehensiveness of content (13.3 ± 2.268 vs. 16.683 ± 1.344, p < 0.001), and scientific rigor and accuracy (10.317 ± 1.167 vs. 12.746 ± 0.706, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the total extracurricular time expended between the two groups (323.75 ± 30.987 min vs. 322.619 ± 24.679 min, respectively for LBL vs. TCLEBL groups, p = 0.898).
CONCLUSIONS: TCLEBL is an effective teaching method that cultivates students\' clinical and research abilities.
METHODS: Forty-one medical postgraduates were divided into two groups, a TCLEBL group and an LBL group. Teaching effectiveness was evaluated through student- and teacher-feedback questionnaires, scores from theoretical examinations and written literature reviews, and student learning burdens.
RESULTS: Compared to the LBL approach, both teachers and students were more satisfied with the TCLEBL model (p < 0.001 for both teachers and students). The TCLEBL group performed significantly higher on the theory test compared to the LBL group (p = 0.009). There were significant differences between the LBL and TCLEBL groups, respectively, in terms of literature review and citations (12.683 ± 2.207 vs. 16.302 ± 1.095, p < 0.001), argument and perspective (12.55 ± 1.572 vs. 16.333 ± 1.354, p < 0.001), comprehensiveness of content (13.3 ± 2.268 vs. 16.683 ± 1.344, p < 0.001), and scientific rigor and accuracy (10.317 ± 1.167 vs. 12.746 ± 0.706, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the total extracurricular time expended between the two groups (323.75 ± 30.987 min vs. 322.619 ± 24.679 min, respectively for LBL vs. TCLEBL groups, p = 0.898).
CONCLUSIONS: TCLEBL is an effective teaching method that cultivates students\' clinical and research abilities.
摘要：
背景：这项研究的目的是评估团队的有效性-案例-,讲师-，和循证学习(TCLEBL)方法在培养学生的临床和研究能力，与传统的基于讲座的学习(LBL)方法相比。
方法：将41名医学研究生分为两组，TCLEBL组和LBL组。通过学生和教师反馈问卷评估教学效果，理论考试和书面文献综述的分数，和学生学习负担。
结果：与LBL方法相比，教师和学生对TCLEBL模型更满意(教师和学生均p<0.001)。与LBL组相比，TCLEBL组在理论检验上的表现显着高于LBL组（p=0.009）。LBL组和TCLEBL组之间存在显著差异,分别,在文献综述和引文方面(12.683±2.207vs.16.302±1.095，p<0.001)，论证和观点(12.55±1.572vs.16.333±1.354，p<0.001），内容的全面性(13.3±2.268vs.16.683±1.344，p<0.001），和科学的严谨性和准确性(10.317±1.167vs.12.746±0.706，p<0.001）。两组之间的总课外时间没有显着差异（323.75±30.987minvs.322.619±24.679min,分别为LBL与TCLEBL组,p=0.898)。
结论：TCLEBL是培养学生临床和研究能力的有效教学方法。
方法：将41名医学研究生分为两组，TCLEBL组和LBL组。通过学生和教师反馈问卷评估教学效果，理论考试和书面文献综述的分数，和学生学习负担。
结果：与LBL方法相比，教师和学生对TCLEBL模型更满意(教师和学生均p<0.001)。与LBL组相比，TCLEBL组在理论检验上的表现显着高于LBL组（p=0.009）。LBL组和TCLEBL组之间存在显著差异,分别,在文献综述和引文方面(12.683±2.207vs.16.302±1.095，p<0.001)，论证和观点(12.55±1.572vs.16.333±1.354，p<0.001），内容的全面性(13.3±2.268vs.16.683±1.344，p<0.001），和科学的严谨性和准确性(10.317±1.167vs.12.746±0.706，p<0.001）。两组之间的总课外时间没有显着差异（323.75±30.987minvs.322.619±24.679min,分别为LBL与TCLEBL组,p=0.898)。
结论：TCLEBL是培养学生临床和研究能力的有效教学方法。
