已发表论文

团队导向学习法:评估对中华人民共和国解剖学教学的影响

 

Authors Yan J, Ding X, Xiong L, Liu E, Zhang Y, Luan Y, Qin L, Zhou C, Zhang W

Received 2 April 2018

Accepted for publication 25 May 2018

Published 17 August 2018 Volume 2018:9 Pages 589—594

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S169949

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Dr Amy Norman

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Anwarul Azim Majumder

Objectives: In this study, the effects of team-based learning (TBL) method on the anatomy course for students in People’s Republic of China were assessed.
Methods: The students were randomly divided into the traditional lecture-based teaching group (traditional learning [TL] group, 99 students) and TBL teaching group (98 students). The TBL method required the students to prepare the assigned content in advance and discuss some specific topics in small groups. The test scores and questionnaire were applied to evaluate the effects of the two methods.
Results: The students in TBL group had higher examination scores (81.70±8.53 vs 74.41±8.27, [1,195] =124.6, <0.01). The ratios of students with excellent (13.27% vs 9.09%, χ 2[1] =4.00, =0.041) and good scores (25.51% vs 16.16%, χ 2[1] =4.85, =0.027) were markedly increased in the TBL than the TL group, and the ratio of students who had just managed to pass was decreased (17.34% vs 32.33% in TL group, χ 2[1] =5.91, =0.015). The students in TBL group significantly achieved some improvement in mutual communication ability (χ 2[1] =7.54, =0.006), expression ability (χ 2[1] =4.930, =0.026), generalization capacity (χ 2[1] =4.08, =0.043), cooperative ability cultivation (χ 2[1] =5.04, =0.024), knowledge extension (χ 2[1] =4.50, =0.034), and enthusiasm mobilization (χ 2[1] =4.27, =0.039).
Conclusion: TBL could improve not only the test scores of the students, but also their study enthusiasm, initiative learning ability, communication ability, and team awareness.
Keywords: anatomy, lecture-based learning, student, team-based learning



Table 1 The comparison of average score and characteristics of students in TL and TBL groups