Shi Min, Wang Qiong, Ming Jie, et al. Research on the design and application of group competitive learning teaching based on card games[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Education Research, 2026, 25(6): 718-727.
Shi Min, Wang Qiong, Ming Jie, et al. Research on the design and application of group competitive learning teaching based on card games[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Education Research, 2026, 25(6): 718-727.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn116021-20250911-02294.
Research on the design and application of group competitive learning teaching based on card games
理论考试总分试验组优于对照组,其中病例分析题总分[(25.38±2.89) vs. (22.44±3.12)]、简答题总分[(32.45±3.12) vs. (30.11±3.45)]优于对照组;临床思维总分试验组优于对照组,其中诊断思维[(7.52±0.83) vs. (6.41±1.12)]、治疗思维[(7.18±0.87) vs. (6.22±1.04)]、学习体验情况自评总分试验组优于对照组,其中在学习兴趣与参与度[(12.87±1.65) vs. (11.45±1.92)]、知识整合与应用能力[(13.05±1.58) vs. (11.55±1.95)]、整体学习体验满意度[(13.65±1.50) vs. (11.25±2.10)]优于对照组;质性访谈提取构建游戏推进学习动力,卡牌增强循证思维,竞赛促进小组互动、知识整合等主题,佐证卡牌游戏学习方案在思维训练与情感体验方面的积极影响。
To construct a group-based competitive learning teaching strategy based on card games and explore its effects on improving clinical thinking
learning engagement
and knowledge integration abilities among undergraduate interns in endocrinology.
Methods
2
A total of 100 clinical medicine interns were enrolled
divided into an experimental group (
n
=49) and a control group (
n
=51). The experimental group implemented a card game-based group competition teaching strategy
including: Designing six types of cards: disease cards
symptom/sign cards
examination cards
treatment cards
complication/situation cards
and knowledge cards
simulating the clinical process fr
om symptoms/signs → examination → treatment; Three rounds of in-class games employing a group competition mechanism with real-time scoring and ranking; Post-class completion of self-reflection forms and group case discussion reports. The control group engaged in case discussion group discussions during the same period. Teaching effectiveness was assessed using theoretical scores
clinical thinking evaluation scales
learning experience and core competency perception assessments
and focus interviews.
Results
2
The experimental group scored higher than the control group in total theoretical exam scores
including case analysis questions [(25.38±2.89) vs. (22.44±3.12)] and short-answer questions [(32.45±3.12) vs. (30.11±3.45)]. Clinical thinking total scores were also higher in the experimental group
with diagnostic thinking [(7.52±0.83) vs. (6.41±1.12)] and treatment thinking [(7.18±0.87) vs. (6.22±1.04)] outperforming the control group. Self-rated learning experience scores were higher in the experimental group
including learning interest and engagement [(12.87±1.65) vs. (11.45±1.92)]
knowledge integration and application ability [(13.05±1.58) vs. (11.55±1.95)]
and overall learning experience satisfaction [(13.65±1.50) vs. (11.25±2.10)]. Qualitative interviews identified themes such as games driving learning motivation
cards enhancing evidence-based thinking
and competition fostering group interaction and knowledge integration
supporting the positive impact of the card game learning approach on cognitive training and emotional engagement.
Conclusions
2
The card game learning approach can stimulate clinical thinking and learning motivation in endocrinology interns
enhance comprehensive knowledge analysis and application abilities
and serves as an effective supplement to clinical internship teaching models.