动态教学调整策略对外科临床教学量化评分的影响

  目的  探讨动态教学调整策略对外科临床教学量化评分的影响。  方法  以北京协和医院乳腺外科临床教学师资团队为研究对象，于2020年1—6月将课程解构、重组、模块化，并根据学员基础知识水平、课程类型、时间安排、新型冠状病毒防疫要求实施动态教学调整策略，增加线上教学课程比例。对比分析2020年与2019年同期教师总体量化评分、不同年资授课教师教学量化评分、不同类别学员教学量化评分差异。  结果  共20名教师及181名学员参与本研究。实施动态教学调整策略后，教师总体量化评分显著降低(1.76±0.84)分比(4.91±1.15)分，t=4.85，P=0.005]；不同年资教师教学量化评分均显著降低高年资组:(0.85±0.40)分比(2.12±0.44)分，t=4.98, P=0.004；中年资组:(0.85±0.29)分比(2.06±0.53)分，t=4.51，P=0.006；低年资组:(0.10±0.16)分比(0.44±0.22)分，t=2.62，P=0.047]；住院医/研究生(0.18±0.34)分比(0.97±0.14)分，t=4.35, P=0.007]、本科生(1.57±0.55)分比(3.77±1.24)分，t=3.62, P=0.015]教学量化评分均显著降低，但临床医学博士后的教学量化评分无显著变化(0.00±0.00)分比(0.17±0.41)分，t=1.00，P=0.363]。  结论  动态教学调整策略对临床医学博士后的教学量化评分影响最小。该策略为节约教学资源、开展个体化高效教学提供了有效途径。

The Impact of Dynamic Adaptive Teaching Model on Surgical Education

  Objective  To investigate the impact of dynamic adaptive teaching model on surgical education.  Methods  Due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, we adopted dynamic adaptive teaching model in the Department of Breast Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, which divided the whole curriculum into several individual modules and recombined different modules to accommodate to student's levels and schedules. Meanwhile, adaptive strategy also increased the proportion of online teaching and fully utilized electronic medical resources. The present study included quantitative teaching score (QTS) recorded from January 2020 to June 2020, and used the corresponding data from 2019 as control. The main endpoint was to explore the impact of dynamic adaptive teaching model on overall QTS and its interaction effect with trainer's experience and student category.  Results  Totally, 20 trainers and 181 trainees were enrolled in the present study. With implementation of dynamic adaptive strategy, the overall QTS decreased dramatically (1.76±0.84 vs. 4.91±1.15, t=4.85, P=0.005). The impact was consistent irrespective of trainers' experience (high experience trainers: 0.85±0.40 vs. 2.12±0.44, t=4.98, P=0.004; medium experience trainers: 0.85±0.29 vs. 2.06±0.53, t=4.51, P=0.006; and low experience trainers: 0.10±0.16 vs. 0.44±0.22, t=2.62, P=0.047). For resident (including graduate) and undergraduate student teaching, both QTS was lower with dynamic strategy (residents: 0.18±0.34 vs. 0.97±0.14, t=4.35, P=0.007; undergraduate students 1.57±0.55 vs. 3.77±1.24, t=3.62, P=0.015), but dynamic strategy was effective for post-doc student subgroup and reached comparable QTS as traditional model (0.00±0.00 vs. 0.17±0.41, t=1.00, P=0.363).   Conclusions  Dynamic adaptive teaching strategy could be a useful alternative to traditional teaching model for post-doc students. It could be a novel effective solution for saving teaching resources and providing individualized surgical teaching modality.