Suppr超能文献

将医学生的成就与学习目标及成果相匹配:一个已实施教学模块的范式转变。

Matching medical student achievement to learning objectives and outcomes: a paradigm shift for an implemented teaching module.

作者信息

Atta Ihab Shafek, AlQahtani Fahd Nasser

机构信息

Pathology Department, Faculty of Medicine (Assuit Branch), Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.

Radiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Albaha University, Al-Aqiq, Saudi Arabia.

出版信息

Adv Med Educ Pract. 2018 Apr 9;9:227-233. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S158784. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Low student achievement in a basic imaging module was the impetus for an assessment of the module.

METHODS

A valid, reliable, and structured Likert scale was designed to measure the degree of student satisfaction with the domains of the module, including learning objectives (LO), teaching strategy and tools (TT), assessment tools (AT), and allotted credit hours (CH). Further analysis was conducted of student dissatisfaction to determine the subdomain in which module improvement was to be implemented. Statistical analysis of data among Likert scale domains was conducted.

RESULTS

Likert scale data showed the TT domain to be the major reason for low student achievement. Statistical studies revealed 57/117 students (48.6%) were dissatisfied with TT, compared with LO 16/117 (13.6%), AT 54/117 (46.1%), and CH 12/117 (10.2%). Significant -values were obtained for LO vs TT (<0.0001), LO vs AT (<0.0001), LO vs CH (<0.03), TT vs CH (<0.0001), and AT vs CH (<0.0001). No significant difference was observed between TT and AT (<0.29). Regarding TT, 41/117 (34.9%) students were dissatisfied with lectures (L) compared to hospital-based teaching (HPT) 24/117 (20%), problem-based learning (PBL) 8/117 (6.8%), self-directed learning (SDL) 3/117 (2.5%), and seminars (S) 4/117 (3.4%). Significant -values were obtained for L vs HPT (<0.0001), L vs PBL (<0.0001), L vs SDL (<0.0001), L vs S (<0.0001), HPT vs PBL (<0.002), HPT vs SDL (<0.0001), and HPT vs S (<0.0001). Regarding lecture modifications, student satisfaction was 78.3% compared to 52% before modification. A significant -value (<0.0001) was obtained between Likert scale domains before and after modification. Lecture modification resulted in a good student response and satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

The major reason for low student achievement was the teaching tools, particularly the lectures. Major modifications to lectures improved student achievement. The students and most of the teaching staff were highly satisfied with the modifications, which provided for reciprocal discussion and interaction. These results should encourage and guide other medical schools to investigate the points of weakness in their curriculum.

摘要

引言

基础影像模块中学生成绩较低是对该模块进行评估的推动力。

方法

设计了一个有效、可靠且结构化的李克特量表,以衡量学生对该模块各领域的满意度,包括学习目标(LO)、教学策略与工具(TT)、评估工具(AT)以及分配的学分时长(CH)。对学生的不满情况进行了进一步分析,以确定应在哪个子领域实施模块改进。对李克特量表各领域的数据进行了统计分析。

结果

李克特量表数据显示,教学策略与工具领域是学生成绩低的主要原因。统计研究表明,117名学生中有57名(48.6%)对教学策略与工具不满意,相比之下,对学习目标不满意的有16名(13.6%),对评估工具不满意的有54名(46.1%),对学分时长不满意的有12名(10.2%)。学习目标与教学策略与工具之间(<0.0001)、学习目标与评估工具之间(<0.0001)、学习目标与学分时长之间(<0.03)、教学策略与工具与学分时长之间(<0.0001)以及评估工具与学分时长之间(<0.0001)均获得了显著的p值。教学策略与工具和评估工具之间未观察到显著差异(<0.29)。关于教学策略与工具,117名学生中有41名(34.9%)对讲座(L)不满意,相比之下,对基于医院的教学(HPT)不满意的有24名(20%),对基于问题的学习(PBL)不满意的有8名(6.8%),对自主学习(SDL)不满意的有3名(2.5%),对研讨会(S)不满意的有4名(3.4%)。讲座与基于医院的教学之间(<0.0001)、讲座与基于问题的学习之间(<0.0001)、讲座与自主学习之间(<0.0001)、讲座与研讨会之间(<0.0001)、基于医院的教学与基于问题的学习之间(<0.002)、基于医院的教学与自主学习之间(<0.0001)以及基于医院的教学与研讨会之间(<0.0001)均获得了显著的p值。关于讲座修改,学生满意度为78.3%,而修改前为52%。修改前后李克特量表各领域之间获得了显著的p值(<0.0001)。讲座修改得到了学生良好的反应和满意度。

结论

学生成绩低的主要原因是教学工具,尤其是讲座。对讲座的重大修改提高了学生成绩。学生和大多数教师对这些修改高度满意,这些修改促进了相互讨论和互动。这些结果应鼓励并指导其他医学院校调查其课程中的薄弱环节。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e60e/5898594/2b2be0e0dd66/amep-9-227Fig1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验