目的 研究不同特征的学生在流行病学对分课堂(presentation-assimilation-discussion class,PAD)教学中的参与度及其对教学效果的影响,为进一步优化对分课堂教学,提高流行病学教学效果提供参考。方法 2021年10月至2022年1月,选取上海健康医学院2019级卫生检验与检疫专业的144名学生为研究对象,在流行病学课程的部分章节采用对分课堂教学方法,设计问卷调查学生的学习态度、习惯、目标、对分课堂的参与度和教学效果自评,教师对学生的能力和基础知识进行评分,通过多元线性回归分析教学效果的影响因素。结果 学生对分课堂参与度评分为27.0(6.0)分,课堂效果自评分为30.0(8.0)分,学生的能力评价得分为70.0(20.0)分,基础知识得分为(81.02±5.84)分。课后复习时长不同的学生对分课堂参与度评分不同,从不复习者24.0(5.0)分,复习0.5至1小时者27.0(6.0)分,复习1小时以上者28.0(6.0)分;尝试新的学习方法意愿不同的学生对分课堂参与度评分不同,意愿较弱者24.0(7.0)分,意愿中等者27.0(5.8)分,意愿较强者30.0(6.0)分;学习目的不同的学生对分课堂参与度评分不同,为了获得学分者24.0(2.0)分,为了获得学分和升学考研者27.0(6.0)分,为了获得学分和提高能力者28.0(7.0)分。以上不同特征学生的差异均具有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。多元线性回归分析结果显示,对分课堂参与度对教学效果的回归系数β=0.989(P<0.001),对分课堂参与度对学生能力的回归系数β=0.552(P=0.010)。结论 不同特征的学生在流行病学对分课堂中的参与度不同,而对分课堂的参与度是教学效果的影响因素,教师在对分课堂的教学中应针对不同特征的学生加以引导,提高参与度,才能真正提升对分课堂的教学效果。

Objective To investigate the participation of students with different characteristics in presentation-assimilation-discussion class (PAD) teaching and the influence of participation on the effectiveness of PAD teaching, and to provide references for further optimizing PAD and improving the teaching effect in Epidemiology. Methods From October 2021 to January 2022, a total of 144 students majoring health inspection and quarantine enrolled in 2019 of Shanghai University of Medicine & Health Sciences were selected as the research participants and PAD method was used in several chapters of Epidemiology course. Information including learning attitudes, learning habits and learning goals, as well as the participation and evaluation of PAD were collected through an online questionnaire. The teaching effects were evaluated by student′s ability score and basic knowledge score. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to study the independent influencing factors of PAD on teaching effect. Results The scores of students′ participation and teaching effect in PAD were 27.0(6.0) and 30.0(8.0), respectively, while the scores of students′ ability evaluation and basic knowledge were 70.0(20.0) and (81.02±5.84), respectively.Students with different review duration had different scores of PAD participation. The score of those who never reviewed, reviewed 0.5 to 1 hour, and reviewed more than 1 hour were 24.0(5.0), 27.0(6.0), and 28.0(6.0), respectively; students with different willingness to try new learning methods had different scores of PAD participation. The score of those with weak, medium, and strong desire were 24.0(7.0), 27.0(5.8), and 30.0(6.0), respectively; students with different learning objectives had different scores of PAD participation. The score of those who learning for credits, admission to graduate school, and ability improvement were 24.0(2.0), 27.0(6.0) and 28.0(7.0), respectively. There were statistical differences (all P<0.05). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that the regression coefficient of PAD participation on teaching effect score was β=0.989 (P<0.001), and the regression coefficient of PAD participation on students′ ability score was β=0.552 (P=0.010). Conclusions Students differently due to their different characteristics had different levels of participation in Epidemiology PAD course, which is the major influencing factor of the teaching effect. Teachers should guide students differently due to their different characteristics in PAD teaching, thus to improve student participation and the teaching effect.