LBL联合CBL、PBL在解剖学教学中的应用

Application of LBL incorporated with CBL and PBL methods in anatomy study

目的探讨传统教学（1ecture—based learning，LBL）结合案例教学（ease—based learning，CBL）和以问题为基础的学习（problem—based learning，PBL）在解剖教学中的应用效果。方法以2012级、2013级临床医学专业学生740人为研究对象，随机分对照组、实验组。对照组644人采用LBL教学（2012级271人，2013级373人），实验组96人（2012级48人，2013级48人）采用LBL＋PBL＋CBL教学。课程结束后，对学生进行问卷调查、标本考核、理论考核。应用SPSS17．0作数据分析，两样本行嘴验，t检验，轶和检验。结果对照组学生每周用于解剖学课外学习时间为（105±25）min。实验组为（190±25）min，差异有统计学意义（t=31．08，P=0．000）。两组学生总的课外学习时间比较差异有统计学意义（t=27．42，P=-0．000）。对照组学生教学满意度分别为87．5％、87％，实验组教学满意度分别为98％、100％。对两组学生教学满意度进行秩和检验，2012级实验组与对照组相比，差异有统计学意义（x^2=31．19，P=0．000）；2013级实验组与对照组相比，差异有统计学意义（x^2=40．35，P=0．000）。理论考核成绩中，学生选择题、论述题、案例分析题及总体得分，对照组与实验组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论采用LBL结合PBL、CBL教学，学生学习积极性得到提高，教学效果明显，值得推广。

Objective To explore the teaching effects of Lecture Based Learning （LBL） incorporated with Case Based Learning （CBL） and Problem Based Learning （PBL） methods in the teach-ing of anatomy. Methods 740 students of Grades 2012 and 2013 from clinical medical major were chosen as the subjects, randomly divided into experimental and control groups. LBL was conducted in the control group of 644 students, while LBL＋PBL＋CBL method was applied in the experimental group of 96 students. After completion of the course, all students were surveyed with the questionnaire and tested with specimen and theoretical examinations. The data was collected and analyzed with SPSS 17.0 and two sample U tests. Results The students＇ time of learning anatomy in the control group outside classroom teaching was （105 ± 25） minutes per week, while the students＇ time of learning anatomy in the experimental group was （190 ± 25） minutes per week. The difference was statistically significant （t=31.08, P=0.000）. The difference of after-class total learn-ing time was also statistically significant between two groups（t=27.42, P=0.000）. Percentages of satisfaction with teaching methods for control group were 87.5% and 87%, while for the experimental group 98% and 100%. Kruskal-Wallis test showed there were significant differences in experimental groups of grades 2012（x^2=31.19, P=0.000） and 2013 （x^2=40.35,P=0.000） compared with control group. Comparison of both groups＇ results of the examinations was statistically significant concerning multiple choices, essays and case analysis questions （P〈0.05）. Conclusion Teaching method of LBL incorporated with PBL and CBL was significantly effective than that of the sole traditional LBL method, which indicated its practice value.