思维导图引入PBL与CBL双轨模式在心内科规培教学中的应用效果

王晓东; 白雪蕾; 范丽勇; 李珂; 乔林赏

doi:10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.003436

思维导图引入PBL与CBL双轨模式在心内科规培教学中的应用效果

doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.003436

1.
新乡医学院附属南阳市第二人民医院心脏生理实验室, 河南南阳 473012
2.
新乡医学院附属南阳市第二人民医院心血管内科
3.
新乡医学院附属南阳市第二人民医院神经内科

基金项目:

河南省医学教育研究项目 Wjlx2021468

详细信息

通讯作者:
白雪蕾，E-mail: 448315261@qq.com

中图分类号: R192 R54
计量
- 文章访问数: 89
- HTML全文浏览量: 27
- PDF下载量: 3
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2023-05-28
- 网络出版日期: 2024-05-27

Application effect of introducing PBL and CBL dual track models into mind mapping in cardiology training teaching

1.
Laboratory of Cardiac Physiology, the Affiliated Nanyang Second General Hospital, Xinxiang Medical University, Nanyang, Henan 473012, China

摘要

摘要: 目的探讨心内科规培教学中思维导图引入基于问题的教学(PBL)与基于案例的教学(CBL)双轨模式的应用效果。方法选取2022年1—9月在南阳市第二人民医院心内科参与住院医师规范化培训的学员65例为实验组(接受思维导图引入PBL与CBL双轨模式教学)，2021年1—12月参加培训的学员65例为对照组(接受PBL与CBL双轨模式教学，未采用思维导图引入)。闭卷考试并发放教学效果评价问卷；2组学员进行评判性思维能力评价。结果实验组学员理论考试的总分数[(79.28±7.06)分]明显高于对照组学员[(67.08±11.08)分，P<0.05]。实验组学员间交流、与教师互动、课堂气氛、学员课堂注意力、学员参与主动性、时间合理性评分均明显高于对照组(P<0.05)。实验组知识理解、知识外延、课前预习、查阅材料、学科联系、巩固复习评分均明显高于对照组(P<0.05)。实验组独立思考、主动学习、沟通能力、协作能力、解决问题能力评分均明显高于对照组(P<0.05)。实验组知识深度、带动学员思考能力、指导方法评分均明显高于对照组(P<0.05)。实验组实施思维导图引入PBL与CBL双轨模式教学后学员评判性思维能力总得分[(380.42±41.41)分]明显高于教学前[(319.65±40.22)分, t=29.715, P<0.001]。结论思维导图引入PBL与CBL双轨模式能够有效提高心内科规培的教学效果。
- 心内科 /
- 住院医师规范化培训 /
- 思维导图 /
- PBL模式 /
- CBL模式
Abstract: Objective To explore the application effect of the dual track model of problem-based learning (PBL) and case-based learning (CBL) introduced by mind mapping in cardiology training. Methods Sixty-five students from the Cardiology Department of the Second People' s Hospital of Nanyang City who participated in the standardized training for resident physicians from January to September 2022 were selected as the experimental group (receiving PBL and CBL dual track teaching with mind mapping); using 65 cases from January to December 2021 as the control group (receiving PBL and CBL dual track teaching mode, without the introduction of mind mapping). Closed-book examination and distribution of teaching effectiveness evaluation questionnaires; Two groups of students will be evaluated on their critical thinking skills. Results The total score of the students in the experimental group in the theoretical examination (79.28±7.06) was significantly higher than that of the students in the control group (67.08±11.08, P<0.05). The scores of communications among students in the experimental group, interaction with teachers, classroom atmosphere, students' attention in class, students' participation initiative, and time rationality were significantly higher than those of the control group (P<0.05). The scores of knowledge comprehension, knowledge extension, pre-class preview, material review, subject connection, and consolidation review in the experimental group were significantly higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). The scores of independent thinking, active learning, communication ability, cooperation ability, and problem solving ability in the experimental group were significantly higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). The scores of knowledge depth, thinking ability, and teaching method of the experimental group were significantly higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). The total score of students' critical thinking ability (380.42±41.41) was significantly higher in the experimental group after the introduction of PBL and CBL dual track teaching mode using mind mapping than before the teaching (319.65±40.22, t=29.715, P<0.001). Conclusion The introduction of PBL and CBL dual-mode mind mapping can effectively improve the teaching effectiveness of cardiology training, improve learning ability and critical thinking ability is conducive to mutual learning and satisfaction with the curriculum.
- Department of Cardiology /
- Standardized training for resident physicians /
- Mind mapping /
- Problem-based learning mode /
- Case-based learning mode

HTML全文

图 1 心力衰竭诊断与治疗的思维导图

Figure 1. Mind map for diagnosing and treating heart failure

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 2组学员理论考试成绩比较(x±s，分)

Table 1. Comparison of theoretical exam scores between two groups of students (x±s, points)

组别	例数	单选题(25分)	多选题(15分)	名词解释(10分)	简答题(30分)	论述题(20分)	总分(100分)
对照组	65	18.42±1.96	6.20±1.55	6.34±1.46	21.25±3.79	14.86±2.30	67.06±5.57
实验组	65	18.17±1.84	6.68±1.72	9.15±1.31	26.91±2.05	18.37±1.14	79.28±3.43
t值		0.738	1.657	11.554	10.588	11.002	15.060
P值		0.462	0.100	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 2组教学模式学员对课堂教学效果评价分析(x±s，分)

Table 2. Evaluating classroom teaching effectiveness through analysis of student feedback from two instructional modes (x±s, points)

组别	例数	学员间交流	与教师互动	课堂气氛	学员课堂注意力	学员参与主动性	时间合理性
对照组	65	2.80±0.40	3.08±0.32	3.52±0.50	3.20±0.44	2.95±0.28	3.12±0.41
实验组	65	4.78±0.45	4.60±0.52	4.8±0.47	4.98±0.54	4.60±0.52	4.32±0.50
t值		26.470	19.963	14.885	20.546	22.403	14.832
P值		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 2组教学模式对学习促进效果分析(x±s，分)

Table 3. Analysis of the learning promotion effects between two teaching modes (x±s, points)

组别	例数	知识理解	知识外延	课前预习	查阅材料	学科联系	巩固复习
对照组	65	3.60±0.49	3.29±0.49	3.06±0.35	3.20±0.40	3.17±0.38	3.46±0.50
实验组	65	4.75±0.50	4.74±0.48	4.80±0.47	4.98±0.48	4.46±0.50	4.63±0.55
t值		13.226	17.029	23.822	22.846	16.574	12.694
P值		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 2组教学模式对学习能力提高的效果分析(x±s，分)

Table 4. Evaluating the effect of two teaching modes on enhancing learning ability (x±s, points)

组别	例数	独立思考	主动学习	创新能力	沟通能力	协作能力	解决问题能力
对照组	65	3.11±0.31	2.89±0.36	3.48±0.50	3.86±0.43	3.25±0.43	3.46±0.50
实验组	65	4.55±0.50	4.71±0.52	3.63±0.49	4.88±0.52	4.77±0.49	4.66±0.54
t值		19.748	23.100	1.772	12.210	18.699	13.138
P值		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

下载: 导出CSV

表 5 2组学员对教师评价分析(x±s，分)

Table 5. Analysis of teacher evaluation between two groups of students (x±s, points)

组别	例数	知识深度	重点突出	带动学员思考能力	指导方法
对照组	65	3.37±0.49	4.23±0.46	3.06±0.39	3.37±0.49
实验组	65	4.52±0.50	4.28±0.52	4.92±0.54	4.83±0.49
t值		13.291	0.539	22.542	17.132
P值		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

下载: 导出CSV

表 6 2组学员对课程满意度分析[例(%)]

Table 6. Analysis of course satisfaction between two groups of students [cases (%)]

组别	例数	非常满意	满意	一般	不满意
对照组	65	12(18.46)	29(44.62)	19(29.23)	5(7.69)
实验组	65	28(43.08)	30(46.15)	6(9.23)	1(1.54)
注：2组满意度比较，Z=3.913，P<0.001。

下载: 导出CSV

表 7 实验组实施思维导图引入PBL与CBL双规模式前后学员评判性思维能力比较(x±s，分)

Table 7. Comparing the critical thinking abilities of students in the experimental group before and after the implementation of PBL and CBL dual-track modes using mind mapping (x±s, points)

组别	时间	例数	分析能力	求知欲	开放思想	系统化能力	寻求真相	认知成熟度	评判思维的自信心	总得分
对照组	教学前	65	41.69±4.52	39.25±5.04	42.60±6.82	36.95±5.60	36.54±6.85	40.20±5.41	31.77±5.03	269.00±16.14
	教学后	65	50.06±4.22	47.18±5.37	48.52±6.26	40.38±5.25	45.72±7.34	47.95±6.11	39.82±5.63	319.65±12.17
t值			10.464	8.207	4.976	3.724	6.804	8.037	8.653	10.464
P值			<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
实验组	教学前	65	41.31±4.48	39.08±5.10	42.85±6.75	36.80±5.82	36.72±6.95	40.08±5.25	31.95±5.11	268.78±12.98
	教学后	65	57.28±4.77^a	59.45±5.82^a	56.40±6.70^a	46.72±6.08^a	58.11±7.85^a	54.35±5.08^a	48.09±5.11^a	380.40±12.27^a
t值			18.786	22.641	12.058	8.911	16.374	16.008	18.565	18.786
P值			<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
注：与对照组教学后比较，^aP<0.01。

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(15)

[1]	于丽丽, 茹国庆, 吴建宇, 等. PBL结合CBL教学在临床病理学住院医师规范化培训中的应用与初探[J]. 浙江临床医学, 2022, 24(10): 1576-1578. YU L L, RU G Q, WU J Y, et al. Application and preliminary study of PBL combined with CBL teaching in standardized training of clinical pathology residents[J]. Zhejiang Clinical Medical Journal, 2022, 24(10): 1576-1578.
[2]	彭涛, 汤镇海, 邹川, 等. 全科医师规范化培训中医患沟通现状调查[J]. 中华全科医学, 2022, 20(1): 134-137, 168. PENG T, TANG Z H, ZOU C, et al. Investigate on status quo of doctor-patient communication skills in standardized training of general practice[J]. Chinese Journal of General Practice, 2022, 20(1): 134-137, 168.
[3]	张萍. 建立专科医师培训考核制度的思考[J]. 中华实用诊断与治疗杂志, 2019, 33(5): 510-511. ZHANG P. Reflections on establishing a training and assessment system for specialized physicians[J]. Journal of Chinese Practical Diagnosis and Therapy, 2019, 33(5): 510-511.
[4]	陈晓铭, 支李金, 符彩燕. CBL联合Sandwich教学法在内分泌科住院医师规范化培训中的应用研究[J]. 现代医药卫生, 2023, 39(6): 1050-1052. CHEN X M, ZHI L J, FU C Y. The application of CBL combined with Sandwich teaching method in standardized training of endocrine resident physicians[J]. Journal of Modern Medicine&Health, 2023, 39(6): 1050-1052.
[5]	BALADSSERONI S, BARI M D, STEFANO P, et al. Lower extremity performance predicts length of hospital stay in older candidates to elective cardiac surgery[J]. Exp Gerontol, 2022, 164(8): 111-115.
[6]	RIFAI M A, VAUGHAN E M, ABUSHAMAT L A, et al. Correlates of glucagon-Like peptide-1 receptor agonist use among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus (from the department of veterans affairs)[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2022, 172(9): 7-10.
[7]	汪婷, 周卫凤, 丁红梅, 等. "全科-专科"联合教学并过程评估对住院医师规范化培训工作的效果[J]. 安徽医学, 2023, 44(5): 607-610. WANG T, ZHOU W F, DING H M, et al. The effect of "general practitioner specialist" joint teaching and process evaluation on standardized training of resident physicians[J]. Anhui Medical Journal, 2023, 44(5): 607-610.
[8]	MEZRICH J L, JIN G, LYE C, et al. Patient electronic access to final radiology reports: what is the current standard of practice, and Is an embargo period appropriate?[J]. Radiology, 2021, 56(7): 382-386.
[9]	JOHNSON A G, BLACK P J, HUGHES R T, et al. "Brachy-mergency response training course[J]. Int J Radiat Oncol, 2021(3S): 111-115.
[10]	DOLLAT M, BELLANGER A P, MILLON L, et al. Knowledge and vaccination practices among family physicians in northeastern France regarding tick-borne encephalitis virus[J]. Ticks Tick-Borne, 2022, 95(7): 1420-1425.
[11]	BOYDE M, TUCJETT A, TY J. Teacher-as-actor: investigating the barriers and facilitators of patient education among hospitalised patients in a cardiology clinical unit[J]. Nurs Health Sci, 2021, 72(10): 371-374.
[12]	NATHAN J, MCCRAY L, FELDMAN N. The text effect: stress management and resiliency training pilot for resident physicians[J]. Fam Med, 2021, 53(2): 139-143.
[13]	MATHARSA S, SELVAMANI D, THAKUR R, et al. A multidisciplinary early mobility model for cardiac patients in coronary intensive care unit[J]. Eur J Cardiovasc Nur, 2021, 75(6): 271-275.
[14]	ZHAO S, DUAN X, CHEN L, et al. Perspective and experience of newly graduated registered nurses with standardized training in the emergency department: a qualitative study in Shanghai, China[J]. Nurs Educ Today, 2021, 105(11): 104-109.
[15]	孙美娜, 董美娟, 黄巧云, 等. 云南省住院医师规范化培训公共理论培训满意度现状及影响因素分析[J]. 中华全科医学, 2022, 20(2): 320-323. SUN M N, DONG M J, HUANG Q Y, et al. Analysis on the current status and influential factors of job satisfaction amongst the primary subject lectures of the standardised training of residents in Yunnan[J]. Chinese Journal of General Practice, 2022, 20(2): 320-323.