Supervisor：Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of ChinaSponsor：Sichuan University Editor-in-chief：LUO Fengming Publishing period：
Monthly
ISSN：1002-0179CN：51-1356/R
Objective To explore the present national status of diagnostic teaching as well as to investigate the opinions on teaching operation such as overall course planning, so as to provide references for the formulation of national diagnostic teaching standard in the future.Methods Self-made questionnaires were adopted to carry out an anonymous survey among the teachers from 50 different medical colleges and universities who worked on diagnostic teaching throughout the country from October 2016 to September 2017.Results A total of 100 teachers were investigated. The diagnostic teaching departments where 59 respondents worked in were formed by a few fixed teachers plus teachers in rotation. The requirement of rotation time as well as the setting up of lecture-internship ratio in each school were quite various. Forty-seven respondents agreed that the ideal lecture-internship ratio should be internship more than lecture. As for the instruments of clinical skill room, only 40% of the respondents agreed that their diagnostic departments were equipped with a steady standardized patient (SP) team, which was also the reason why SP teaching was the least utilized teaching method during internship (47%). The respondents had various opinions on whether the final exam should weigh more than 50% in the subject score. Above these, the planning and expectations of the respondents on diagnostic course were mostly in consensus.Conclusions The development of diagnostic course including teaching staff, teaching content and teaching condition, etc. among each medical colleges and universities was not balanced. It’s quite necessary to formulate a unified and reasonable standard to normalize the teaching staff constitution, teaching planning and set-up as well as teaching condition so as to guarantee the teaching quality.
Citation：SHI Yunying, ZUO Chuan, WAN Xuehong, CHEN Fan. Investigation of the diagnostic teaching status and opinions among national higher medical institutions. West China Medical Journal, 2020, 35(6): 705-711. doi: 10.7507/1002-0179.202002017Copy
Copyright ? the editorial department of West China Medical Journal of West China Medical Publisher. All rights reserved
1.
Bellini LM, Kaplan B, Fischel JE, et al. The definition of faculty must evolve: a call to action. Acad Med, 2020.
2.
Bandeali S, Chiang A, Ramnanan CJ. MedTalks: developing teaching abilities and experience in undergraduate medical students. Med Educ Online, 2017, 22(1): 1264149.
3.
Liew SC, Sow CF, Sidhu J, et al. The near-peer tutoring programme: embracing the ‘doctors-to-teach’ philosophy-a comparison of the effects of participation between the senior and junior near-peer tutors. Med Educ Online, 2015, 20: 27959.
Bloom BS, Hastings JT, Madaus GF. Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971: 312-331.
7.
Torrance H. Formative assessment: some theoretical problems and empirical questions. Camb J Educ, 1993, 23(3): 333-343.
8.
Sadler DR. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instr Sci, 1989, 18(2): 119-144.
9.
Raupach T, Brown J, Anders S, et al. Summative assessments are more powerful drivers of student learning than resource intensive teaching formats. BMC Med, 2013, 11: 61.
10.
Boulet JR, De Champlain AF, McKinley DW. Setting defensible performance standards on OSCEs and standardized patient examinations. Med Teach, 2003, 25(3): 245-249.
11.
Papadakis MA. The step 2 clinical-skills examination. N Engl J Med, 2004, 350(17): 1703-1705.
1. Bellini LM, Kaplan B, Fischel JE, et al. The definition of faculty must evolve: a call to action. Acad Med, 2020.
2. Bandeali S, Chiang A, Ramnanan CJ. MedTalks: developing teaching abilities and experience in undergraduate medical students. Med Educ Online, 2017, 22(1): 1264149.
3. Liew SC, Sow CF, Sidhu J, et al. The near-peer tutoring programme: embracing the ‘doctors-to-teach’ philosophy-a comparison of the effects of participation between the senior and junior near-peer tutors. Med Educ Online, 2015, 20: 27959.
6. Bloom BS, Hastings JT, Madaus GF. Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971: 312-331.
7. Torrance H. Formative assessment: some theoretical problems and empirical questions. Camb J Educ, 1993, 23(3): 333-343.
8. Sadler DR. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instr Sci, 1989, 18(2): 119-144.
9. Raupach T, Brown J, Anders S, et al. Summative assessments are more powerful drivers of student learning than resource intensive teaching formats. BMC Med, 2013, 11: 61.
10. Boulet JR, De Champlain AF, McKinley DW. Setting defensible performance standards on OSCEs and standardized patient examinations. Med Teach, 2003, 25(3): 245-249.
11. Papadakis MA. The step 2 clinical-skills examination. N Engl J Med, 2004, 350(17): 1703-1705.
Click the content below to copy and paste a set citation format。
Citation：SHI Yunying, ZUO Chuan, WAN Xuehong, CHEN Fan. Investigation of the diagnostic teaching status and opinions among national higher medical institutions. West China Medical Journal, 2020, 35(6): 705-711. doi: 10.7507/1002-0179.202002017
1/5
WeChat