一项关于小组教学中内容专长与过程专长的前瞻性随机试验。

A prospective randomized trial of content expertise versus process expertise in small group teaching.

机构信息

Division of Critical Care Medicine, Centre for Health Education Scholarship and Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

出版信息

BMC Med Educ. 2010 Oct 14;10:70. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-10-70.

DOI:10.1186/1472-6920-10-70

PMID:20946674

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2966459/

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Effective teaching requires an understanding of both what (content knowledge) and how (process knowledge) to teach. While previous studies involving medical students have compared preceptors with greater or lesser content knowledge, it is unclear whether process expertise can compensate for deficient content expertise. Therefore, the objective of our study was to compare the effect of preceptors with process expertise to those with content expertise on medical students' learning outcomes in a structured small group environment.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty-one first year medical students were randomized to 11 groups for the small group component of the Cardiovascular-Respiratory course at the University of Calgary. Each group was then block randomized to one of three streams for the entire course: tutoring exclusively by physicians with content expertise (n = 5), tutoring exclusively by physicians with process expertise (n = 3), and tutoring by content experts for 11 sessions and process experts for 10 sessions (n = 3). After each of the 21 small group sessions, students evaluated their preceptors' teaching with a standardized instrument. Students' knowledge acquisition was assessed by an end-of-course multiple choice (EOC-MCQ) examination.

RESULTS

Students rated the process experts significantly higher on each of the instrument's 15 items, including the overall rating. Students' mean score (±SD) on the EOC-MCQ exam was 76.1% (8.1) for groups taught by content experts, 78.2% (7.8) for the combination group and 79.5% (9.2) for process expert groups (p = 0.11). By linear regression student performance was higher if they had been taught by process experts (regression coefficient 2.7 [0.1, 5.4], p < .05), but not content experts (p = .09).

CONCLUSIONS

When preceptors are physicians, content expertise is not a prerequisite to teach first year medical students within a structured small group environment; preceptors with process expertise result in at least equivalent, if not superior, student outcomes in this setting.

摘要

背景

有效的教学需要理解教学的内容（内容知识）和方法（过程知识）。虽然之前的研究涉及医学生，比较了具有较多或较少内容知识的导师，但尚不清楚过程专长是否可以弥补内容知识的不足。因此，我们的研究目的是比较具有过程专长的导师与具有内容专长的导师对在结构化小组环境中学习的医学生学习成果的影响。

方法

151 名一年级医学生被随机分配到卡尔加里大学心血管-呼吸课程的 11 个小组中。然后，每个小组被整组随机分配到整个课程的三个流之一：仅由具有内容专长的医生（n = 5）进行辅导，仅由具有过程专长的医生（n = 3）进行辅导，以及由内容专家进行 11 次辅导和过程专家进行 10 次辅导（n = 3）。在 21 次小组会议中的每一次之后，学生使用标准化工具评估他们的导师的教学。学生的知识获取通过课程结束时的多项选择考试（EOC-MCQ）来评估。

结果

学生在仪器的 15 个项目中的每个项目上都对过程专家进行了更高的评价，包括总体评价。接受内容专家授课的小组学生的 EOC-MCQ 考试平均得分（±SD）为 76.1%（8.1），组合组为 78.2%（7.8），过程专家组为 79.5%（9.2）（p = 0.11）。通过线性回归，如果学生接受过程专家的授课，他们的表现更高（回归系数 2.7 [0.1, 5.4]，p <.05），而不是内容专家（p =.09）。