背景:本研究旨在评估BOPPPS模型的有效性(桥接,学习目标,预测试,参与式学习,测试后,和摘要)在五年制本科生的耳鼻咽喉科教育中。
方法:一项非随机对照试验,以安徽医科大学167名5年制本科生为研究对象,他们被分配到实验组和对照组。实验组接受使用BOPPPS模型的指导,对照组采用传统教学方法。通过基于课程评估问卷的匿名问卷对教学效果进行评估。学生的观点和自我评估使用五点李克特量表进行量化。此外,学生对课程内容的理解是在学期末通过全面的期末考试来衡量的。
结果:实验组的学生报告的各种能力得分明显高于对照组:计划工作(4.27±0.676vs.4.03±0.581,P<0.05),解决问题的能力(4.31±0.624vs.4.03±0.559,P<0.01),团队合作能力(4.19±0.704vs.3.87±0.758,P<0.05),和分析技能(4.31±0.719vs.4.05±0.622,P<0.05)。他们还报告了更高的学习动机(4.48±0.618vs.4.09±0.582,P<0.01)。此外,实验组的学生对解决陌生问题更有信心(4.21±0.743vs.3.95±0.636,P<0.05),对教师的期望有了更清晰的了解(4.31±0.552vs.4.08±0.555,P<0.05),并感知到教师更多的努力来理解他们的困难(4.42±0.577vs.4.13±0.59,P<0.01)。他们强调理解而不是记忆(3.65±1.176vs.3.18±1.065,P<0.05),并获得了更有帮助的反馈(4.40±0.574vs.4.08±0.585,P<0.01)。讲师在解释概念方面被评为更好(4.42±0.539vs.4.08±0.619,P<0.01),使受试者感兴趣(4.50±0.546vs.4.08±0.632,P<0.01)。总的来说,实验组表示更高的课程满意度(4.56±0.542vs.4.34±0.641,P<0.05)。就考试成绩而言,实验组在期末考试中得分较高(87.7±6.7vs.84.0±7.7,P<0.01)和名词解释(27.0±1.6vs.26.1±2.4,P<0.01)。
结论:BOPPPS模式成为一种有效和创新的教学方法,特别是在提高学生耳鼻喉科教育能力方面。根据这项研究的结果,鼓励教育工作者和机构考虑将BOPPPS模式纳入其课程,以增强学生的学习经验和成果。
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the BOPPPS model (bridge-in, learning objective, pre-test, participatory learning, post-test, and summary) in otolaryngology education for five-year undergraduate students.
METHODS: A non-randomized controlled trial was conducted with 167 five-year undergraduate students from Anhui Medical University, who were allocated to an experimental group and a control group. The experimental group received instruction using the BOPPPS model, while the control group underwent traditional teaching methods. The evaluation of the teaching effectiveness was performed through an anonymous questionnaire based on the course evaluation questionnaire. Students\' perspectives and self-evaluations were quantified using a five-point Likert scale. Furthermore, students\' comprehension of the course content was measured through a comprehensive final examination at the end of the semester.
RESULTS: Students in the experimental group reported significantly higher scores in various competencies compared to the control group: planning work (4.27 ± 0.676 vs. 4.03 ± 0.581, P < 0.05), problem-solving skills (4.31 ± 0.624 vs. 4.03 ± 0.559, P < 0.01), teamwork abilities (4.19 ± 0.704 vs. 3.87 ± 0.758, P < 0.05), and analytical skills (4.31 ± 0.719 vs. 4.05 ± 0.622, P < 0.05). They also reported higher motivation for learning (4.48 ± 0.618 vs. 4.09 ± 0.582, P < 0.01). Additionally, students in the experimental group felt more confident tackling unfamiliar problems (4.21 ± 0.743 vs. 3.95 ± 0.636, P < 0.05), had a clearer understanding of teachers\' expectations (4.31 ± 0.552 vs. 4.08 ± 0.555, P < 0.05), and perceived more effort from teachers to understand their difficulties (4.42 ± 0.577 vs. 4.13 ± 0.59, P < 0.01). They emphasized comprehension over memorization (3.65 ± 1.176 vs. 3.18 ± 1.065, P < 0.05) and received more helpful feedback (4.40 ± 0.574 vs. 4.08 ± 0.585, P < 0.01). Lecturers were rated better at explaining concepts (4.42 ± 0.539 vs. 4.08 ± 0.619, P < 0.01) and making subjects interesting (4.50 ± 0.546 vs. 4.08 ± 0.632, P < 0.01). Overall, the experimental group expressed higher course satisfaction (4.56 ± 0.542 vs. 4.34 ± 0.641, P < 0.05). In terms of examination performance, the experimental group scored higher on the final examination (87.7 ± 6.7 vs. 84.0 ± 7.7, P < 0.01) and in noun-interpretation (27.0 ± 1.6 vs. 26.1 ± 2.4, P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The BOPPPS model emerged as an effective and innovative teaching method, particularly in enhancing students\' competencies in otolaryngology education. Based on the findings of this study, educators and institutions were encouraged to consider incorporating the BOPPPS model into their curricula to enhance the learning experiences and outcomes of students.