Scholarlink

Objective <p>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.</p> Results <p>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 (<i>p</i> &gt; 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 &gt; 0.9).</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

An exploratory within-cohort paired comparison study of learner-centered and traditional teaching in medical endocrinology education

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月2日

查看全文
  • Fang Yu,
  • Chaoxun Wang,
  • Jiawei Ren,
  • Weiping Yu,
  • Dongxiang Xu,
  • Xiaoxue Ni

摘要

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).