Objective To compare the effect between problem-based learning and lecture-based learning for clinical teaching in the department of cardiovascular medicine. Methods Totally 110 five-year-program cardiovascular interns from June 2011 and June 2012 were selected. They were randomly divided into the PBL group(n=55) and LBL group(n=55). PBL and LBL teach-ing methods were applied in the two groups respectively. Teaching effects were evaluated by exam and questionnaire investigation. SPSS 15.0 was used to do data processing; t test was used to compare the average score of two groups;chi-square test was used to process the results of the questionnaire. P<0.05 signifies sta-tistically significant differences. Results There were statistical differences in examinational average score between PBL group and LBL group ((87.89 ±5.39) vs. (82.63 ±5.26), P<0.05). PBL group had significantly higher satisfaction rate in motivating study interests , deepening understanding of theoretical knowledge, cultivating self-learning ability, training verbal expression and developing clin-ical thinking, etc(P<0.05). Conclusions PBL teaching method demonstrates advantages in teaching of cardiovascular medicine and enhances the teaching effect. But the PBL teaching method should be improved in basic knowledge teaching, cultivation of teachers' ability and case selection.%目的：对以问题为基础的学习（problem-based learning， PBL）与以授课为基础的学习（lecture-based learning， LBL）在心血管内科临床教学中的效果进行对比。方法选择2011年6月至2012年6月在武警后勤学院附属医院实习的110名五年制临床医学专业本科生，按随机数字法分为PBL教学组（n=55）和LBL教学组（n=55）；分别采用PBL与LBL进行心血管内科临床教学。教学结束后通过专业考试及问卷调查，对两种教学方法的效果进行比较。应用SPSS 15.0进行数据处理，对两组学生专业考试的平均成绩行t检验，对两组学生问卷调查结果行χ2检验，以P<0.05表示差异有统计学意义。结果 PBL教学组学生的考试平均成绩（87.89±5.39）分优于LBL教学组学生的（82.63±5.26）分，差异有统计学意义（P=0.000）。 PBL教学组学生在授课方法能“激发学习兴趣、加深理论理解、培养自学能力、锻炼语言表达、培养临床思维”等9个方面的满意度高于LBL教学组，差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论与LBL相比，PBL在心血管内科临床教学中能取得较好效果，但在基础知识点的强化、教师能力的培养及病例选择等方面有待完善。
展开▼
