标题：TBL+PBL+CBL整合教学法在全科医学概论课程教学中的应用

      作者：王雅纯，张云波，顾申红    海南医学院第一附属医院全科医学科，海南 海口 570201

      卷次： 2020年31卷16期

      【摘要】 目的 探讨以团队为基础的教学法(TBL)、以问题为基础的教学法(PBL)和以案例为基础的教学法(CBL)整合后应用于全科医学概论教学中的效果。方法 以海南医学院2017级临床本科农村订单班的80名学生为研究对象，根据学生的学号将其随机分为实验组和对照组，每组40人。选择全国高等学校教材《全科医学概论》中的5个章节共18个学时作为授课的具体内容。实验组采用TBL+PBL+CBL整合教学法，对照组采用传统教学法(LBL)。通过比较两组学生的笔试成绩、临床案例分析成绩及调查问卷结果来评估教学效果。结果 实验组和对照组学生的笔试成绩分别为(85.27±5.88)分、(83.15±7.16)分，差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)；实验组学生的临床案例分析成绩为(87.17±4.24)分，明显高于对照组的(84.07±6.57)分，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)；问卷调查结果显示，两组学生在课程知识点的掌握方面比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)，而在激发学习兴趣、逻辑思维能力、理论联系实际，解决临床实际问题、语言表达能力和沟通能力、团队协作能力、学习的主动性、分析解决问题的能力、查阅文献资料、对教学法的满意度方面比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 TBL+PBL+CBL整合教学法在《全科医学概论》的教学中应用效果良好，它不但能够提高学生的临床技能，还能提高学生的综合能力。
      【关键词】 以团队为基础的教学法；以问题为基础的教学法；以案例为基础的教学法；教学方法；全科医学概论
      【中图分类号】 R193.8 【文献标识码】 C 【文章编号】 1003—6350（2020）16—2155—04

Application of TBL, PBL and CBL integrated teaching method in the teaching of "introduction" to generalpractice.
WANG Ya-chun, ZHANG Yun-bo, GU Shen-hong. Department of General Practice，the First Affiliated Hospital ofHainan Medical College, Haikou 570201, Hainan, CHINA
【Abstract】 Objective To explore the effect of the integrated method of team-based instruction (TBL), prob-lem-based learning (PBL) and case-based instruction (CBL) in the teaching of "Introduction to General Practice".Methods A total of 80 students of 2017 clinical undergraduate rural order class in the Hainan Medical College were se-lected and divided into the experimental group and the control group according to their ID, with 40 students in eachgroup. The five chapters and 18 class hours in the national textbook "Introduction to General Practice" were selected asthe teaching contents. The teaching method of the experimental group was TBL+ PBL+CBL, and the control group wasLBL. The teaching effect was evaluated by comparing the results of written test, clinical case analysis and questionnaire.Results There was no statistically significant difference in the scores of written test between the experimental groupand control group: (85.27±5.88) vs (83.15±7.16), P>0.05. The score of clinical case analysis of the experimental groupwas 87.17±4.24, which was significantly higher than 84.07±6.57 of the control group (P<0.05). The result of question-naire showed that there was no significant difference in the mastery of curriculum knowledge points between the two·医学教育·doi:10.3969/j.issn.1003-6350.2020.16.032基金项目：2017年度海南省高等学校教改研究项目(编号：Hnjg2017-34)