PBL教学法与LBL教学法在我国临床肿瘤教学实践中的系统分析  

Meta-analysis of problem-based learning versus lecture-based learning in clinical practice teaching of oncology in China

作　　者：苏强[1] 张晨光[2] 侯艳丽[3] 曹邦伟[1] 

机构地区：[1]首都医科大学附属北京友谊医院肿瘤科,北京100050 [2]首都医科大学基础医学院生物化学与分子生物学系,北京100069 [3]首都医科大学附属北京友谊医院眼科,北京100050

出　　处：《医学教育管理》2017年第3期209-213,共5页Medical Education Management

基　　金：首都医科大学教育教学改革校长基金(2016JYY12);首都医科大学临床与基础合作课题(15JL33)

摘　　要：目的本文就以问题为导向的教学法(problem-based learning,PBL)和传统教学法(lecture-based learning,LBL)在我国临床肿瘤教学的问卷调查结果做一系统分析。方法检索国内数据库中,公开发表的PBL教学法与LBL教学法在我国临床肿瘤教学实践中应用的文献,通过文献筛选,提取数据,采用Rev Man 5.3软件对纳入文献进行Meta分析。结果最终筛选出5篇文献,PBL教学法和LBL教学法在临床能力提高的发生率差异有统计学意义(RR=1.71,95%CI(1.09-2.68),P=0.02);两组学习兴趣提高率差异有统计学意义(RR=1.40,95%CI(1.24-1.58),P<0.001)。结论在我国临床肿瘤教学中,PBL教学法优于LBL教学法,推行此种教学方法,可以收到较好的教学效果。Objective This meta review was conducted to compare problem-based learning （PBL） versus lecture-based learning （LBL） in clinical practice teaching of oncology in China. Methods Domestic scientific databases were searched for relevant documents comparing PBL with LBL. Congruous documents were selected and meta analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.3. Results After exclusion of non-eligible citations, a total of 5 documents were eligible for the meta analysis. The risk ratio （RR） and 95% Confidence interval （95%CI） for clinical ability of students of PBL were 1.71（1.09-2.68）, and 1.40 （1.24-1.58） for interests of learning compared with that of LBL in clinical practice teaching of oncology. Conclusion In our meta analysis, problem-based learning was superior to lecture-based learning in Chinese clinical practice teaching of oncology.

关 键 词：PBL教学法 LBL教学法 肿瘤 教学 META分析 

分 类 号：G642[文化科学—高等教育学] R-4[文化科学—教育学]