醫(yī)高專文理科學生學習能力差異性調(diào)查及對策研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-09-01 09:35
【摘要】：培養(yǎng)學生學習能力及樹立終身學習觀念已成為學校教育改革的一個重要目標。本文以尋求本校部分專業(yè)文理兼招學生的學習能力的差異性，探討文理科學生的學習能力問卷調(diào)查各項的差異性和文理科學生在基礎醫(yī)學主干課學習效果的差異性。結合文、理學生的特點，在教學方式、培養(yǎng)方式等方面提出研究對策。能夠給醫(yī)學院校促進學生學習能力建設工作提供重要的參考，對提高醫(yī)學院校文理科學生終身學習的意識，提高學習質(zhì)量具有重要意義。實現(xiàn)醫(yī)護人員自身可持續(xù)發(fā)展，實現(xiàn)整個社會的可持續(xù)發(fā)展。 對象與方法： 對象：長春醫(yī)學高等�？茖W校(以下簡稱為醫(yī)高專)全日制文理兼招專業(yè)的學生。 方法： 1.本研究以問卷的方式進行現(xiàn)況調(diào)查，，采用林國耀編制的“大學生學習能力量表”，結合本校的實際情況及研究范疇對此問卷第一部分基本情況進行改編，第二部分的問卷部分無變化。 2.文理科學生基礎醫(yī)學主干課學習效果分析。 結果： 1.文理科學生學習能力的性別、年級差異無統(tǒng)計學意義（P0.05）。文理科學生的知識獲得與應用能力差異、學習過程自我監(jiān)控學習能力差異、學習資源管理與應用能力差異、學習能力總分差異無統(tǒng)計學意義（P0.05）。 2.不同專業(yè)的文科生和理科生的學習能力差異顯著（P 0.05）。醫(yī)學專業(yè)的文科生和理科生的學習能力差異顯著（P 0.05）。護理專業(yè)的文科生和理科生的學習能力差異不顯著（P0.05）。 3.非學生干部及學生干部的文理科學生學習能力差異不顯著（P0.05）。不同地區(qū)來源的的文理科學生的學習能力差異不顯著（P0.05）。高出錄取分數(shù)線的文理科學生的學習能力及剛過錄取分數(shù)線的文理科學生的學習能力差異不顯著（P0.05）。補錄的文理科學生的學習能力差異顯著（P 0.05）。家長不同的文化程度對文理科學生的學習能力影響差異不顯著（P0.05）。 4.文科生非學生干部與學生干部的學習能力無統(tǒng)計學意義（P0.05）。文科生的地區(qū)來源不同對學習能力無統(tǒng)計學意義（P0.05）。 5.理科生的非學生干部與學生干部的學習能力有統(tǒng)計學意義（P 0.05）。地區(qū)來源不同的理科生學習能力有統(tǒng)計學意義（P 0.05），來自市城區(qū)與郊區(qū)的城鎮(zhèn)及來自郊區(qū)的城鎮(zhèn)與郊區(qū)的農(nóng)村的理科生學習能力均差異顯著（P0.05），而來自市城區(qū)與郊區(qū)的農(nóng)村的理科生學習能力差異不顯著（P0.05）。對入學成績不同的理科生學習能力分析結果有統(tǒng)計學意義（P 0.05），高出錄取分數(shù)線很多與剛過錄取分數(shù)線及剛過與補錄生均差異顯著（P 0.05），而高出錄取分數(shù)線與補錄生中的理科生學習能力差異不顯著（P0.05） 6.不同專業(yè)文理科學生基礎醫(yī)學主干課成績分析。護理、護理（英語加強）專業(yè)，文理科學生之間各科基礎醫(yī)學主干課成績差異均沒有統(tǒng)計學意義（P0.05）。醫(yī)學專業(yè)，文理科學生之間各科基礎醫(yī)學主干課成績中組織胚胎學成績、病原生物學與免疫學成績差異具有統(tǒng)計學意義（P 0.05）。 7.不同年級文理科學生基礎醫(yī)學主干課成績分析。大一文理科學生之間的基礎醫(yī)學主干課中的組織胚胎學成績差異具有統(tǒng)計學意義（P 0.05）其他五科文理科學生之間各科成績差異均沒有統(tǒng)計學意義（P0.05）。大二文理科學生之間的基礎醫(yī)學主干課各科成績差異均沒有統(tǒng)計學意義（P0.05）。 8.不同課程文理科學生成績分析。文理科學生之間各科基礎醫(yī)學主干課成績差異均沒有統(tǒng)計學意義（P0.05）。 結論： 1.醫(yī)高專文理科學生的學習能力在性別、學生干部與否、不同地區(qū)來源、父母文化程度、年級、入學成績高出錄取分數(shù)線很多、入學成績剛過錄取分數(shù)線、知識獲得與應用能力、學習過程自我監(jiān)控學習能力、學習資源管理與應用能力、學習能力的總分上均無差異。 2.醫(yī)高專文科生與理科生的學習能力普遍不高，處于中等偏下水平。 3.醫(yī)高專醫(yī)學專業(yè)理科生的學習能力比文科生高；醫(yī)學專業(yè)理科生的學習成績一定程度上比文科生高。 4.醫(yī)高專補錄生中，理科生的學習能力比文科生的學習能力高。 5.醫(yī)高專理科生的學習能力與擔任學生干部呈正相關；理科生的學習能力與其來源地呈正相關；理科生的學習能力與高考成績呈正相關。
[Abstract]:To cultivate students'learning ability and establish the concept of lifelong learning has become an important goal of school education reform. This paper aims to explore the differences in the learning ability of some students majoring in Arts and science and to explore the differences in the questionnaire survey of students' learning ability and the learning effect of students majoring in Arts and Science in the main courses of basic medicine. Combining with the characteristics of students of Arts and sciences, this paper puts forward some research countermeasures in the aspects of teaching methods and training methods. It can provide important reference for promoting students'learning ability construction in medical colleges and universities. It is of great significance to enhance the awareness of life-long learning of students of Arts and Sciences in medical colleges and improve the quality of learning. Sustained development to achieve sustainable development of the whole society.
Objects and methods:
PARTICIPANTS: Full-time students majoring in both arts and Science in Changchun Medical College (hereinafter referred to as Medical College).
Method:
1. The present study conducted a questionnaire survey, using the "College Students'Learning Ability Scale" compiled by Lin Guoyao, combined with the actual situation of the University and the scope of the study, the first part of the questionnaire was adapted, the second part of the questionnaire was unchanged.
2. analysis of the learning effect of basic medicine major courses for arts students.
Result:
1. There was no significant difference between genders and grades in the learning ability of liberal arts and sciences students (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in the total score of learning ability between liberal arts and sciences students (P 0.05).
2. There was significant difference in learning ability between liberal arts students and science students of different majors (P 0.05). There was significant difference in learning ability between medical liberal arts students and science students (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in learning ability between nursing liberal arts students and science students (P 0.05).
3. There was no significant difference in learning ability between non-student cadres and student cadres (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in learning ability between liberal arts and sciences students from different regions (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in learning ability between liberal arts and sciences students who were higher than the admission score line and those who had just passed the admission score line (P 0.05). There was a significant difference in the learning ability of the recorded liberal arts students (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in the influence of parents'different educational levels on the learning ability of liberal arts students (P 0.05).
4. There was no significant difference in learning ability between non-student cadres and student cadres of liberal arts students (P 0.05).
5. The learning ability of non-student cadres and student cadres of science students was statistically significant (P 0.05). The learning ability of science students from different regions was statistically significant (P 0.05). The learning ability of science students from urban and suburban towns and from suburban towns and rural areas was significantly different (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in learning ability between rural science students in suburban areas (P 0.05). There was statistical significance in the analysis of learning ability of science students with different entrance grades (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in ability (P0.05).
6. Analysis of the scores of the main courses of basic medicine for students majoring in Arts and sciences. There was no significant difference in the scores of the main courses of basic medicine among students majoring in nursing, nursing and arts and Sciences (P 0.05). The difference in immunology scores was statistically significant (P 0.05).
7. Analysis of the results of the main courses of basic medicine for liberal arts and sciences students of different grades. The difference of histology and Embryology scores between liberal arts and Sciences freshmen was statistically significant (P 0.05). There was no significant difference among the other five arts and sciences students (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in the scores of major subjects in all subjects (P0.05).
8. Analysis of the scores of liberal arts and sciences students in different courses. There was no significant difference between liberal arts and sciences students in the main courses of basic medicine (P 0.05).
Conclusion:
1. The study ability of medical college students in Arts and Sciences is in gender, student cadres or not, different regional sources, parents'educational level, grade, entrance scores are much higher than the admission score line, entrance scores have just passed the admission score line, knowledge acquisition and application ability, learning process self-monitoring learning ability, learning resource management and application ability, learning ability. There is no difference in the total score of force.
2. the learning ability of liberal arts students and science students is generally not high, and it is below the middle level.
3. The study ability of medical science students is higher than that of liberal arts students, and the academic achievement of medical science students is higher than that of liberal arts students to some extent.
4. in medical college students, the learning ability of science students is higher than that of liberal arts students.
5. The learning ability of science students in medical colleges is positively correlated with their cadres; the learning ability of science students is positively correlated with their places of origin; and the learning ability of science students is positively correlated with the scores of college entrance examination.
【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：G642.4;R-4
本文編號：2216789
[Abstract]:To cultivate students'learning ability and establish the concept of lifelong learning has become an important goal of school education reform. This paper aims to explore the differences in the learning ability of some students majoring in Arts and science and to explore the differences in the questionnaire survey of students' learning ability and the learning effect of students majoring in Arts and Science in the main courses of basic medicine. Combining with the characteristics of students of Arts and sciences, this paper puts forward some research countermeasures in the aspects of teaching methods and training methods. It can provide important reference for promoting students'learning ability construction in medical colleges and universities. It is of great significance to enhance the awareness of life-long learning of students of Arts and Sciences in medical colleges and improve the quality of learning. Sustained development to achieve sustainable development of the whole society.
Objects and methods:
PARTICIPANTS: Full-time students majoring in both arts and Science in Changchun Medical College (hereinafter referred to as Medical College).
Method:
1. The present study conducted a questionnaire survey, using the "College Students'Learning Ability Scale" compiled by Lin Guoyao, combined with the actual situation of the University and the scope of the study, the first part of the questionnaire was adapted, the second part of the questionnaire was unchanged.
2. analysis of the learning effect of basic medicine major courses for arts students.
Result:
1. There was no significant difference between genders and grades in the learning ability of liberal arts and sciences students (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in the total score of learning ability between liberal arts and sciences students (P 0.05).
2. There was significant difference in learning ability between liberal arts students and science students of different majors (P 0.05). There was significant difference in learning ability between medical liberal arts students and science students (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in learning ability between nursing liberal arts students and science students (P 0.05).
3. There was no significant difference in learning ability between non-student cadres and student cadres (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in learning ability between liberal arts and sciences students from different regions (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in learning ability between liberal arts and sciences students who were higher than the admission score line and those who had just passed the admission score line (P 0.05). There was a significant difference in the learning ability of the recorded liberal arts students (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in the influence of parents'different educational levels on the learning ability of liberal arts students (P 0.05).
4. There was no significant difference in learning ability between non-student cadres and student cadres of liberal arts students (P 0.05).
5. The learning ability of non-student cadres and student cadres of science students was statistically significant (P 0.05). The learning ability of science students from different regions was statistically significant (P 0.05). The learning ability of science students from urban and suburban towns and from suburban towns and rural areas was significantly different (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in learning ability between rural science students in suburban areas (P 0.05). There was statistical significance in the analysis of learning ability of science students with different entrance grades (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in ability (P0.05).
6. Analysis of the scores of the main courses of basic medicine for students majoring in Arts and sciences. There was no significant difference in the scores of the main courses of basic medicine among students majoring in nursing, nursing and arts and Sciences (P 0.05). The difference in immunology scores was statistically significant (P 0.05).
7. Analysis of the results of the main courses of basic medicine for liberal arts and sciences students of different grades. The difference of histology and Embryology scores between liberal arts and Sciences freshmen was statistically significant (P 0.05). There was no significant difference among the other five arts and sciences students (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in the scores of major subjects in all subjects (P0.05).
8. Analysis of the scores of liberal arts and sciences students in different courses. There was no significant difference between liberal arts and sciences students in the main courses of basic medicine (P 0.05).
Conclusion:
1. The study ability of medical college students in Arts and Sciences is in gender, student cadres or not, different regional sources, parents'educational level, grade, entrance scores are much higher than the admission score line, entrance scores have just passed the admission score line, knowledge acquisition and application ability, learning process self-monitoring learning ability, learning resource management and application ability, learning ability. There is no difference in the total score of force.
2. the learning ability of liberal arts students and science students is generally not high, and it is below the middle level.
3. The study ability of medical science students is higher than that of liberal arts students, and the academic achievement of medical science students is higher than that of liberal arts students to some extent.
4. in medical college students, the learning ability of science students is higher than that of liberal arts students.
5. The learning ability of science students in medical colleges is positively correlated with their cadres; the learning ability of science students is positively correlated with their places of origin; and the learning ability of science students is positively correlated with the scores of college entrance examination.
【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：G642.4;R-4
【參考文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 鄭超美;;本科教育按大類招生及培養(yǎng)模式探析[J];重慶科技學院學報;2006年05期
2 桑新民;李淑霞;孟紅娟;;遠程學習者學習能力培養(yǎng)的整體思考[J];中國遠程教育;2007年05期
3 李清平;;試論信息時代大學生學習能力的構成及其影響因素[J];法制與社會;2008年33期
4 香紅麗;羅淑云;;探討高考成績和大學階段學習能力的關系[J];中國科教創(chuàng)新導刊;2010年28期
5 朱小根;論高校學生干部隊伍建設[J];廣西政法管理干部學院學報;2005年01期
6 廖春;熊坤林;朱永山;張偉國;;醫(yī)學影像專業(yè)實習學員自主學習能力培養(yǎng)模式的構建[J];重慶醫(yī)學;2012年36期
7 賈金才;王蔚宇;;加強和改進高校學生干部選拔培養(yǎng)工作的對策[J];河北農(nóng)業(yè)大學學報(農(nóng)林教育版);2008年01期
8 王若梅;中美兩國大學生學習能力之比較[J];理工高教研究;2002年06期
9 彭希林;周軍鐵;;論大學生的學習與學習能力[J];繼續(xù)教育研究;2007年03期
10 劉海華;辛偉;李建英;;職業(yè)院校大學生學習能力培養(yǎng)策略[J];教育與職業(yè);2008年23期
本文編號：2216789
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/jiaoyulunwen/shifanjiaoyulunwen/2216789.html
最近更新
教材專著
