目的 探讨以课题为中心的学术工作坊(简称学术工作坊)教学方式在医学生科研能力培养中的应用效果。方法 采用问卷调查方法。2022年5月,选取2021年1至9月参加武汉大学中南医院举办的学术工作坊的101名医学生为研究对象,调查其对学术工作坊教学的满意率以及学术工作坊对提升其科研能力培养的效果,采用方差分析和t检验进行数据分析。结果 93名(92.1%)医学生对学术工作坊教学方式表示满意。在提升沟通交流能力、培养创新思维、提升实验操作水平、提高科研兴趣4个一级指标的评价方面,分别有76 名(75.2%)、62名(61.4%)、72名(71.3%)、70名(69.3%)医学生表示满意。在“与导师经常进行学术探讨”等6个二级指标的评价中,本科生、硕士研究生、博士研究生评分差异具有统计学意义[如“与导师经常学术探讨”:(2.53±0.72)分 比(3.12±0.71)分比(3.64±0.50)分,P<0.001];本科生在“与导师经常进行学术探讨”“有更高的热情与导师实现共同的科研目标”2个二级指标的评分均低于硕士研究生和博士研究生,硕士研究生和博士研究生评分差异均无统计学意义[如“有更高的热情与导师实现共同的科研目标”:本科生(2.78±0.71)分低于硕士研究生(3.27±0.60)分和博士研究生(3.55±0.65)分,均P<0.001,但硕士研究生和博士研究生评分比较,P=0.768]。结论 以课题为中心的学术工作坊教学方式得到了医学生的认可。学术工作坊教学对不同学历层次医学生科研能力的培养效果存在差异,应当关注本科生和处于科研起步阶段的硕士研究生,用更合适的方式实施学术工作坊教学。

Objective To explore the application of academic workshop centered on the cultivation of medical students′ scientific research ability. Methods A questionnaire survey was used. In May 2022, 101 medical students who participated in the academic workshop held by Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University from January to September 2021 were selected as the research participants. Questionnaires were conducted to investigate their satisfaction with the teaching of academic workshops and the effect of academic workshops on improving their scientific research ability. Variance analysis and t test were used for data analysis. Results Ninty-three (92.1%) medical students were satisfied with the teaching method of academic workshop. There were 76(75.2%), 62(61.4%), 72(71.3%) and 70(69.3%) medical students who were satisfied with the four first-level indicators of improving communication ability, cultivating innovative thinking, improving experimental operation level and improving scientific research interest, respectively. There were statistically differences between postgraduate students, doctoral students and undergraduates in six secondary indexes [for example, "regular academic discussion with tutor": (2.53±0.72) vs.(3.12±0.71)vs.(3.64±0.50), P<0.001]; In the two second-level indicators of "regular academic discussion with tutor" "having higher enthusiasm to achieve common scientific research goals with tutors", undergraduates were lower than postgraduate students and doctoral students, and the differences were statistically significant, there is no statistical difference between postgraduate students and doctoral students [for example, "having higher enthusiasm to achieve common scientific research goals with tutors": the score of undergraduate students (2.78±0.71),postgraduate students (3.27±0.60),doctoral students (3.55±0.65), all P<0.001,However, compared the scores of postgraduate students and doctoral students,P=0.768]. Conclusions The subject-centered academic workshop teaching method has been recognized by medical students. There are differences in the effect of workshop teaching on the cultivation of scientific research ability of medical students at different educational levels. Attention should be paid to undergraduate students and postgraduate students at the initial stage of scientific research, implementing academic workshop teaching in a more effective way.