BMC research notes · 2026
An exploratory within-cohort paired comparison study of learner-centered and traditional teaching in medical endocrinology education.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yu Fang, Wang Chaoxun, Ren Jiawei, Yu Weiping, Xu Dongxiang, Ni Xiaoxue
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This exploratory within-cohort paired comparison study aimed to compare the outcomes of a learner-centered learning (LCL) approach and Traditional Teaching (TT) in medical endocrinology education, using an unbalanced self-controlled design adapted to real-world teaching contexts.
RESULTS: Sixteen undergraduates from the same cohort at Wenzhou Medical University were taught two endocrine topics (hyperuricemia and hyperthyroidism) by two associate chief physicians of equal qualification. Each topic was delivered using either LCL or TT. Although the LCL group achieved higher mean scores on knowledge tests and across all satisfaction survey dimensions, these differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Qualitative analysis of student feedback revealed a strong preference for LCL elements, with students reporting enhanced deep understanding and clinical thinking. The knowledge test exhibited a ceiling effect, and the small sample size limited the analysis of structural validity; content validity was established, and internal consistency estimates were high (Cronbach's α > 0.9).
RESULTS: Sixteen undergraduates from the same cohort at Wenzhou Medical University were taught two endocrine topics (hyperuricemia and hyperthyroidism) by two associate chief physicians of equal qualification. Each topic was delivered using either LCL or TT. Although the LCL group achieved higher mean scores on knowledge tests and across all satisfaction survey dimensions, these differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Qualitative analysis of student feedback revealed a strong preference for LCL elements, with students reporting enhanced deep understanding and clinical thinking. The knowledge test exhibited a ceiling effect, and the small sample size limited the analysis of structural validity; content validity was established, and internal consistency estimates were high (Cronbach's α > 0.9).