中国全科医学 ›› 2025, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (25): 3193-3199.DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2023.0933

• 论著·全科医学教育研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

全科临床诊疗思维课程引进程序性评价课程体验的质性研究——基于建构主义视角

翟佳燚1,2, 陆媛1,*(), 潘莹1, 于德华1,3,4   

  1. 1.200090 上海市,同济大学医学院全科医学系
    2.201899 上海市嘉定区嘉定镇街道社区卫生服务中心
    3.200090 上海市,同济大学附属杨浦医院全科医学科
    4.200090 上海市全科医学与社区卫生发展研究中心
  • 收稿日期:2024-12-10 修回日期:2025-06-30 出版日期:2025-09-05 发布日期:2025-07-24
  • 通讯作者: 陆媛

  • 作者贡献:

    翟佳燚负责文章构思、统计分析与撰写论文;陆媛负责研究设计和实施、英文修订、文章审校,对本文整体负责;潘莹负责研究的实施;于德华负责论文修订和质量控制。

  • 基金资助:
    全国医学专业学位研究教育指导委员会中国医药学研究生在线课程群建设项目课题(B_YXC2022-01-01_10); 中华医学会医学教育分会和中国高等教育学会医学教育专业委员会2020年医学教育研究立项课题(2020B-N08139); 上海市医药卫生发展基金会课题(SE1201933); 上海市嘉定区自然科学研究课题立项项目(JDKW-2024-0050); 同济大学"十四五"规划教材建设项目(2024JC03); 2025年同济大学本科教育研究与改革项目; 2024年度同济大学教材出版基金资助

Experience of Introducing Programmatic Assessment in General Practice Clinical Reasoning Courses from Constructivism Learning Theory

ZHAI Jiayan1,2, LU Yuan1,*(), PAN Ying1, YU Dehua1,3,4   

  1. 1. Academic Department of General Practice, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200090, China
    2. Community Health Service Center of Jiading Town in Jiading District, Shanghai 201899, China
    3. Department of General Practice, Yangpu Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200090, China
    4. Shanghai General Practice and Community Health Development Research Center, Shanghai 200090, China
  • Received:2024-12-10 Revised:2025-06-30 Published:2025-09-05 Online:2025-07-24
  • Contact: LU Yuan

摘要: 背景 全科临床诊疗思维是一种无法直接被观察的能力,目前尚缺乏客观、全面反映学员该项能力的评价工具。 目的 基于建构主义视角,对师生在《全科临床诊疗思维》课程中引进程序性评价(PA)的课程体验访谈结果进行质性研究,旨在完善全科临床诊疗思维评价体系、提高课程质量、培养高质量全科人才。 方法 采用目的抽样法选取2022年9—12月参与同济大学医学院《全科临床诊疗思维》课程实践的3名授课教师和14名学员为研究对象,基于建构主义学习理论制定访谈提纲开展半结构访谈,采用定向内容分析法对访谈结果进行分析。 结果 师生课程体验可归纳为4个主题和10个副主题,(1)情境:课程新颖度、趣味性、实用性;(2)协作:混班制协作、师生协作、学员协作;(3)会话:多元反馈、主观评价;(4)意义建构:学员全科临床诊疗思维建构、教师能力建构。 结论 本研究在建构主义视角下对全科临床诊疗思维课程引进PA的课程体验进行质性研究,认为情境设计遵循"扩充信息量,加速知识领悟"原则,协作是对传统全科教学模式与文化的突破,会话中双向交流反馈,最终实现师生能力的共同建构。

关键词: 全科医学, 程序性评价, 临床诊疗思维, 质性研究, 建构主义

Abstract:

Background

General practice clinical reasoning is an ability that cannot be directly observed. Currently, there is a lack of objective and comprehensive assessment tools to reflect the trainees' proficiency in this aspect.

Objective

Based on the constructivism learning theory, this paper maked a qualitative study on the course experience interview of teachers and students by introducing programmatic assessment (PA) into the course"General Practice Clinical Reasoning", aiming at improving the evaluation system of general practice clinical reasoning and improving the quality of the course and cultivating high-quality talents.

Methods

Using purposive sampling, three teaching faculty members and fourteen students who participated in the practical sessions of the course "General Practice Clinical Reasoning" at Tongji University School of Medicine from September to December 2022 were selected as research subjects. Based on constructivist learning theory, an interview outline was developed and semi-structured interviews were conducted. The interview results were analysed using a directed content analysis method.

Results

It could be summarized into 4 themes and 10 sub-themes: (1) Context: novelty, interest and practicality of the course. (2) Collaboration: mixed class collaboration, collaboration between teachers and students, collaboration between students. (3) Conversation: multi-source feedback and subjective evaluation. (4) Meaning construction: construct students' clinical reasoning and teachers' ability.

Conclusion

From the perspective of constructivism, this paper makes a qualitative study on the curriculum experience of PA introduction. It holds that the context design follows the principle of "expanding information and accelerating knowledge understanding", and collaboration is a breakthrough to the traditional teaching mode and culture of the whole subject, and two-way feedback exchange in the conversation can finally realize the joint construction of teachers and students' abilities.

Key words: General practice, Programmatic assessment, Clinical reasoning, Qualitative study, Constructivism