三种教学方法在实验针灸推拿学课程教学中的对比研究  

Comparison of three teaching methods applied in experimental acupuncture-moxibustion and tuina science

作　　者：汪丽娜[1] 毛慧娟[1] 刘胜[1] 秦梦 魏建子[1] Wang Lina;Mao Huijuan;Liu Sheng;Qin Meng;Wei Jianzi(Teaching and Research Section of Experimental Acupuncture-moxibustion and Tuina,School of Acupuncture-Moxibustion and Tuina,Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine,Shanghai 201203,China)

机构地区：[1]上海中医药大学针灸推拿学院实验针灸推拿教研室,201203

出　　处：《中华医学教育杂志》2019年第11期827-830,共4页Chinese Journal of Medical Education

基　　金：上海中医药大学第16期课程建设项目(HUTCMKCJSYB2017011);上海中医药大学高水平大学建设外籍研究生科研辅导基地(2018YJSKYJD001)。

摘　　要：目的 比较基于问题学习(problem-based learning,PBL)教学、三明治(Sandwich)教学和传统教学这3种不同教学方法在实验针灸推拿学课程中的应用效果.方法 采用问卷调查方法.2014年11月~2015年5月,选择上海中医药大学针灸推拿学院针灸推拿专业44名学生为研究对象.在实验针灸推拿学课程中,选取了探索性较强的2个章节分别实施PBL教学和Sandwich教学,其余章节仍然采用传统教学.课程结束后对学生进行问卷调查,用研究型教学特征观察量表、教学质量评估量表、学生参与度量表对教学效果进行评估.组间比较采用单因素方差分析.结果 研究型教学特征观察量表评分结果显示,PBL教学评分为(85.5±9.3)分,Sandwich教学评分为(88.8±11.1)分,均明显高于传统教学评分(73.7±13.9)分,差异均具有统计学意义(均P<0.05).在教学质量评估量表中,"拓展知识"方面,PBL教学评分为(84.4±12.0)分,Sandwich教学评分为(85.3±12.7)分,也均高于传统教学评分(72.7±18.4)分,差异均具有统计学意义(均P<0.05);在"能力"上,PBL教学评分为(84.2±12.5)分,Sandwich教学评分(86.5±12.4)分,高于传统教学评分(65.9±12.2)分,差异均具有统计学意义(均P<0.05).学生课程参与度量表评分结果显示,PBL教学评分(83.2±9.7)分,Sandwich教学评分(87.0±11.0)分,均高于传统教学评分(63.4±13.0)分(均P<0.05)."基础知识"方面,传统教学评分(83.1±13.5)分却明显高于PBL教学评分(76.9±13.6)分,差异具有统计学意义(t=-2.15,P=0.03).结论 在实验针灸推拿学课程中,PBL教学方法和Sandwich教学方法比传统教学方法具有更多优势,但传统教学方法在基础知识传授方面依然具有优势.Objective To compare the learning outcome of PBL and Sandwich and traditional teaching methods applied in experimental acupuncture-moxibustion and tuina science. Methods The questionnaire surveys were used to evaluate these three methods applied in the course of experimental acupuncture science. The evaluation involved three aspects: score of research-based teaching, outcome of learning, and participation of students in course. The survey subjects 44 students who majored in acupuncture-moxibustion and tuina in Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine. This study was exencuted from November 2014 to May 2015. Among the 10 chapters, 2 chapters that were featured by strong exploration were selected to implement PBL and Sandwich teaching respectively, and the rest were carried out in traditional teaching. One-way ANOVA was used to test the significant difference among groups. Results In terms of the conformity of research-based course scores, PBL (85. 5 ±9. 3) and Sandwich teachings (88. 8±11. 1) were higher than that of traditional teaching (73. 7±13. 9) (all P<0. 05). Regarding with knowledge expansion, the scores of PBL (84. 4 ±12. 0) and Sandwich teaching (85. 3 ±12. 7) were higher than traditional teaching (72. 7± 18. 4) ( all P< 0. 05) . About " ability", PBL (84. 2± 12. 5) and Sandwich teaching (86. 5 ± 12. 4) were also higher than traditional teaching (65. 9 ± 12. 2) ( all P< 0. 05) . Concerning with student participation , score from PBL group (83. 2± 9. 7) and Sandwich teaching group (87. 0± 11. 0) were higher than traditional teaching group (63. 4 ±13. 0) (all P<0. 05) . However, it is interesting that the the score from traditional teaching (83. 1 ±13. 5) was higher than that from PBL group (76. 9 ±13. 6) (t= -2. 15, P=0. 03) in terms of the "basic knowledge". Conclusions In experimental acupuncture-moxibustion and tuina science, PBL and Sandwich teaching gain many advantages over traditional teaching, but the latter still cannot be completely replaced.

关 键 词：传统教学 基于问题学习 三明治教学 教学方法 比较 

分 类 号：G63[文化科学—教育学]