Salopek Daniela, Lovrić Jasna, Hren Darko, Marusić Ana
Department of Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, Sisters of Mercy University Hospital, Zagreb, Croatia.
Croat Med J. 2009 Feb;50(1):61-8. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2009.50.61.
To evaluate students' academic success at delivered in a traditional continual course, spread over the two semesters, or in alternating course blocks.
We analyzed the data on exam grades for Anatomy and Chemistry courses in the first year of the curriculum for academic year 2001/02, with the traditional continual delivery of the courses (n=253 for chemistry and n=243 for anatomy), and academic year 2003/04, with block delivery of the courses (n=255 for Chemistry and n=260 for Anatomy). Grades from the final examination were analyzed only for students who sat the exam at the first available exam term and passed the course. For the Anatomy block course, grades at 2 interim written tests and 2 parts of the final exam (practical stage exam and oral exam) in each block were analyzed for students who passed all interim tests and the final exam.
There were no differences between two types of course delivery in the number of students passing the final examination at first attempt. There was a decrease in passing percentage for the two Anatomy block course student groups in 2003/04 (56% passing students in block 1 vs 40% in block 2, P=0.014). There was an increase in the average grades from 2001/02 to 2003/04 academic year due to an increase in Chemistry grades (F1,399=18.4, P<0.001, 2 x 2 ANOVA). There was no effect of the sequence of their delivery (F1,206=1.8, P=0.182, 2 x 2 ANOVA). There was also a significant difference in grades on interim assessments of Anatomy when it was delivered in the block format (F3,85=28.8, P<0.001, between-within subjects 2 x 4 ANOVA).
The type of course delivery was not associated with significant differences in student academic success in Anatomy and Chemistry courses in the medical curriculum. Students can successfully pass these courses when they are delivered either in a continual, whole year format or in a condensed time format of a course block, regardless of the number and type of courses preceding the block course.
评估以传统连续课程形式（分布在两个学期）或交替课程模块形式授课时学生的学业成绩。
我们分析了2001/02学年课程第一年解剖学和化学课程的考试成绩数据，该学年课程采用传统连续授课方式（化学课n = 253，解剖学课n = 243），以及2003/04学年课程采用模块授课方式（化学课n = 255，解剖学课n = 260）的数据。仅对在首个可用考试学期参加考试并通过课程的学生的期末考试成绩进行分析。对于解剖学模块课程，对通过所有中期测试和期末考试的学生，分析每个模块中2次中期笔试成绩以及期末考试的2部分成绩（实践阶段考试和口试）。
两种授课方式下首次尝试通过期末考试的学生人数没有差异。2003/04学年两个解剖学模块课程学生组的及格率有所下降（模块1中及格学生为56%，模块2中为40%，P = 0.014）。由于化学成绩提高，2001/02学年至2003/04学年平均成绩有所上升（F1,399 = 18.4，P < 0.001，2×2方差分析）。授课顺序没有影响（F1,206 = 1.8，P = 0.182，2×2方差分析）。当解剖学以模块形式授课时，中期评估成绩也存在显著差异（F3,85 = 28.8，P < 0.001，组间 - 组内2×4方差分析）。
授课方式类型与医学课程中解剖学和化学课程学生学业成绩的显著差异无关。无论模块课程之前的课程数量和类型如何，当课程以全年连续形式或课程模块的浓缩时间形式授课时，学生都能成功通过这些课程。
