基于翻转课堂的混合式学习在免疫学理论教学中的实践

王茉琳; 宋汉君; 桂士良; 张金波; 徐晓杰

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

基于翻转课堂的混合式学习在免疫学理论教学中的实践

南方医科大学教学改革 | 更新时间：2024-09-19

- 基于翻转课堂的混合式学习在免疫学理论教学中的实践
- An Integration of Flipped Classroom Mode with Traditional Mode and its Application in the Teaching of Medical Immunology
- 中华医学教育探索杂志 2016年15卷第9期
- 作者机构：
  
  1. 佳木斯大学基础医学院
  2. 佳木斯大学
  3. 佳木斯大学附属第一医院
  4. 佳木斯大学人文学院
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
  
  黑龙江省高等学校教改工程项目（JG2014011131），佳木斯大学教学研究重点项目（JYYA2013-05,2016JY1028），佳木斯大学百门课程改革工程项目
- DOI：
  中图分类号：
- 纸质出版日期：2016，
- 稿件说明：
移动端阅览
王茉琳, 宋汉君, 桂士良, 等. 基于翻转课堂的混合式学习在免疫学理论教学中的实践[J]. 中华医学教育探索杂志, 2016,15(9).

An Integration of Flipped Classroom Mode with Traditional Mode and its Application in the Teaching of Medical Immunology[J]. 2016,15(9).
王茉琳, 宋汉君, 桂士良, 等. 基于翻转课堂的混合式学习在免疫学理论教学中的实践[J]. 中华医学教育探索杂志, 2016,15(9). DOI：

An Integration of Flipped Classroom Mode with Traditional Mode and its Application in the Teaching of Medical Immunology[J]. 2016,15(9). DOI：

摘要

目的为了提高免疫学理论教学效果，改善课堂环境，创新课堂教学模式。方法以2012级（对照组60人）和2013级（实验组69人）口腔专业学生作为研究对象，对照组采用传统讲授式教学，实验组采用基于翻转课堂的混合式教学。通过对比分析两组期末考试成绩和问卷调查结果，比较教学效果的差异。应用SPSS16.0软件进行统计分析，实验结果用率和 ±s表示，两样本均数比较采用t检验，等级资料比较采用秩和检验。结果两组采用了不同的教学方法其教学评价体系也有所区别，对照组综合成绩构成比为课堂表现（20%），实验成绩（20%），期末考试成绩（60%），实验组综合成绩构成比为课内外表现（30%），实验成绩（10%），期末考试成绩（60%）。对照组课堂表现成绩为14.78±4.27，实验成绩为14.49±4.49；实验组课内外表现成绩为22.19±7.21，实验成绩为7.12±1.33；两组免疫学期末考试成绩[实验组(49.01±7.28);对照组(46.32±7.44)]具有显著差异(P<0.05)，实验组优于对照组，表明混合式教学模式对于提高学习成绩更具优势。问卷调查显示翻转课堂教学对于提高学生自学能力(68.18%

45人)、分析和解决问题能力(68.18%

45人)、团队协作和沟通能力(56.06%

37人)、对知识的掌握(46.97%

31人)等方面优于传统教学，但喜欢并接受翻转课堂教学的学生仅占三成。结论基于翻转课堂理念的混合式教学有利于提高学习效果，有利于促进学生能力的培养

Abstract

Objective To improve the classroom environment and students' learning effect

innovation of classroom teaching mode. Method We took stomatology students of grade 2012(control group

60 people) and grade 2013(experimental group

69 people) as research subjects

in the control group

the traditional teaching method was used

and the experimental group was based on the mixed mode of the flipped classroom. Comparison the result of questionnaire survey and final examination between the experimental group and control group

we made clear the difference between Blended Classroom teaching and Traditional Classroom teaching. SPSS16.0 was used for statistical analysis and the data was made t test and rank sum test

the result was showed by rate and ±s. Result Different teaching methods have different evaluation system

Compared with the experimental group

the overall score of the control group was classroom performance (20%)

the result of the experiment (20%)

the final score (60%)

the comprehensive score of the experimental group was internal and external performance (30%)

the experimental results (10%)

the final examination scores (60%) . The classroom performance of the control group was 14.78±4.27

and the experimental results were 14.49±4.49

in the experimental group

the internal and external performance of the experimental group was 22.19± 7.21

the experimental result was 7.12±1.33 .Comparison the result of examination between the experimental group (49.01±7.28)and control group(46.32±7.44)

medical immunology test scores were significantly different (P<0.05)

the experimental group was better than the control group. It showed that the mixed teaching model had more advantages in improving the academic performance. The results of questionnaire survey showed that Flipped Classroom teaching was better than Traditional Classroom teaching in ability training which including self learning ability (68.18%

45 people)

analysis and problem solving skills (68.18%

45people)

team work and communication skills (56.06%

37 people)

ability of retain knowledge (46.97%

31 people)

however students who liked and accepted this new teaching model only account for 30% nearly. Conclusion Integration of Flipped Classroom Mode with Traditional Mode would enhance the students’ learning efficiency and achievements

as well as promote students’ ability.

关键词

Keywords

references

浏览量

下载量

CSCD

文章被引用时，请邮件提醒。

提交

工具集

关联资源

暂无数据