Evaluation of the effectiveness of student-centered teaching model in medical microbiology education

Evaluation of the effectiveness of student-centered teaching model in medical microbiology education | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Evaluation of the effectiveness of student-centered teaching model in medical microbiology education Jun Qian, Weizhen Xu, Wenping Kao, Xu Wang, Qingmeng Zhang, Min Zhuang This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4255696/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background: The student-centered teaching model involves reforms in training mode, teaching methods, assessment systems, class roles and learning behaviors, aiming to improve the teaching quality effectively, which has become an inevitable trend for maximizing teaching efficiency. Medical microbiology is the study of the pathogenic microorganisms related to human infectious diseases, playing a crucial role in the training of medical professionals. However, there is a lack of data demonstrating the effectiveness of this teaching modelin the medical microbiology education of undergraduate medical students. This study aims to evaluate it. Methods: This study focused on undergraduate clinical medicine students at Harbin Medical University from grade 2018 to 2021. The teaching team began implementing a student-centered teaching model and incorporating online content into the class from grade 2019. The effectiveness of the teaching model was evaluated by comparing the usual scores and final exam scores of different grades under different teaching models used Pearson correlation. An anonymous questionnaire survey was conducted after the course in grade 2020 and 2021 to assess students' opinions on the student-centered teaching model. Results: The final exam scores of students from grade 2019, 2020, and 2021 using the new teaching model (85.29±0.51, 76.84±0.60, 80.88±0.55) were significantly higher than those of grade 2018 under traditional teaching model (75.83±0.55). There was a significant correlation between usual scores and final exam scores(grade 2019 r =0.3936, grade 2020 r =0.2819, grade 2021 r =0.1953, P < 0.05). Results from the questionnaire showed that 61.62% students of grade 2020 (183/297) and 65.90% students of grade 2021 (201/305) believed that the new teaching model helped integrate knowledge and understand the key contents, 60.27% (179/297) and 67.87% (207/305) of the studentsfelt it increased their desire to learn clinical professional courses, 65.66% (195/297) and 71.80% (219/305) of the studentsthought it enhanced problem analysis and solving abilities, 58.59% (174/297) and 62.30% (190/305) of studentsbelieved it stimulated their interest in studying medical microbiology. Conclusions: The student-centered teaching model significantly improved student learning efficiency in medical microbiology courses, enhanced the development of higher-order skills, and promoted students' awareness of active learning through various assessments. Blended learning Online teaching Teaching model Medical microbiology Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Introduction Medical microbiology is a discipline that studies the characteristics, pathogenicity, diagnosis and prevention of pathogenic microorganisms. It is one of the essential foundational subjects in clinical medicine. In recent years, numerous newly emerging and re-emerging pathogenic microorganisms have been discovered, emphasizing the significant importance of medical microbiology in clinical medicine and social life. However, the complexity of bacteria and virus species and fragmented knowledge make it challenging to grasp [1]. Traditional medical microbiology teaching in classrooms has been teacher-centered, mainly focused on lecture-style teaching, with low enthusiasm in class participation, weak self-driven learning and interaction, leading to unclear teaching outcomes [2]. Additionally, traditional assessment methods often involve written exam that fails to authentically reflect students' abilities and drive effective teaching and learning. Therefore, exploring new teaching models in medical microbiology to stimulate students' interest in learning is important for cultivating outstanding medical talents. Inspiring students' interest in learning and encouraging their active class participation are essential tasks for teachers [3]. In recent years, medical education has undergone reforms and challenges, shifting from teacher-centered to student-centered teaching. However, the understanding of this teaching practice varies depending on each school's educational goals, course principles, diverse subjects and teaching experiences [4-6]. Student-centered teaching places students' learning, development and learning outcomes at the core. In our student-centered medical microbiology class, the focus was on defining learning objectives and fostering talent development from various perspectives, incorporating nurturing professional qualities into course learning, integrating online and offline modes and utilizing diverse assessments. It effectively empowered teachers to guide, inspire, and monitor the teaching process, emphasizing students as active participants in the learning process. This new teaching model opened new pathways for medical microbiology teaching in the new era. In this study, we reported and described the implementation of student-centered teaching reforms in medical microbiology course for undergraduate medical students. The objectives of this research were to: (1) achieve the comprehensive transformations in teaching philosophy, management philosophy, teaching methods, and assessment system; (2) stimulate students' enthusiasm for learning, empower them to become the central figures in the class, and cultivate their abilities for independent inquiry, problem-solving and lifelong learning. Methods Subjects This study included 2031 clinical medicine students in Harbin Medical University (531 of grade 2018, 518 of grade 2019, 438 of grade 2020 and 544 of grade 2021). The students came from various provinces of China, received systematic high school education under the same guideline and passed the entrance examination. All the students began their studies of medical microbiology in the third semester with a total of 48 class hours (45 min/class hour). The students in each grade were divided into 5~6 sections (about 100 students/section) and taught by four teachers. Each teacher was responsible for some of 36 chapters. All teachers had more than 5 years of teaching experience, and the teaching content and evaluation standards were unified. Grade 2018 was the control group with the traditional teaching model. In grade 2019 to 2021, a student-centered teaching model was implemented. The effectiveness of the new teaching model was evaluated by comparing the correlation between the usual scores and final exam scores among different grades using different teaching methods. At the same time, an anonymous questionnaire survey was conducted among students in the new teaching model group (grade 2020 and 2021) to assess their opinions on the new teaching model. Study design The teaching model was applied through the following contents (Fig.1) Fig.1 Course design (1) Clarify learning objectives Based on the university's educational positioning and the cultivation objectives of medical microbiology, we established learning objectives. The content of each class was structured around knowledge and skills, methods and abilities, thinking and innovation, future and development, to cultivate outstanding medical talents. (2) Integrate the idea of education In the online platform (https://icc.hep.com.cn) (ICC) and offline class, we cultivated students' interest in learning and exploring pathogenic microorganisms, scientific cognition, high-level thinking methods, lifelong growth perseverance and strength through specific cases. (3) Combine online and offline blended learning mode Incorporating the current technological developments in pathogenic microbiology, online resources, clinical case database, and research case database in the teaching platform were supplemented for application in class teaching. Online learning: teachers could release course guidance through "ICC" App installed on smartphones or by logging into the platform on computers. The contents in the platform included 68 videos (5~10 minutes/video, 1~2 videos/chapter), totaling 622 minutes, 357 exercises, 69 PPT slides and 26 clinical cases covering all content of medical microbiology. Students could learn at their own pace through reading, watching colorful images, animations, videos, PPTs, or completing exercises to acquire foundational knowledge before formal classes. Relevant open-ended questions and cutting-edge content were pushed to students. Those with extra capacity could expand knowledge by researching additional contents, maximizing understanding of related knowledge and gaining insights into the development direction of the subject. Offline class learning: students were divided into small groups and a representative was selected from each group to report the newly gained knowledge. Teachers integrate relevant contents, such as news, latest research advances, and clinical cases into the class, making use of various tools like PPT slides, image resources, videos, and web links to render teaching more visual and comprehensible. The student enthusiasm, engagement, and sense of achievement could also be enhanced by supplementing with online teaching methods such as voting, random selection, and etc. Through participatory learning, frequent assessment of learning effects with multiple-choice questions was conducted to evaluate students' comprehension levels. Finally, a summarization of course content was carried out by teachers or students. Post-class learning: teachers released after-class learning materials online, including test questions and discussion topics to help knowledge solidification. By combining online and offline teaching modes, shallow learning of conclusive knowledge, scientific thinking behind knowledge, problem-solving approaches, and higher-order content are fully integrated. (4) Conduct diversified assessments The assessment system is combined formative assessment and summative assessment in the whole process and diversely evaluates students from multiple perspectives, such as the degree of autonomous learning engagement, level of participation in learning activities, enhancement of high-order thinking, and effectiveness of expression and communication, aimed to increase students' sense of participation and achievement. According to the performance of students in video viewing, topic discussion and test on the platform, the usual score was counted, accounting for 50% of the final score. An online test paper management platform named “Tangyun” (http://210.47.245.73/ Home/Index) was used to review of final exam papers. Question types included single choice, multiple choice, short answer and essay questions. The paper consisted of 100 points, accounting for 50% of the final score. All subjective questions, including short answer questions and essay questions, were evaluated by two teachers to eliminate subjective bias in judgments. (5) Feedbacks from the students in grade 2020 and 2021 were collected using Questionnaire Star (an online tool for anonymous questionnaire surveys). A total of 297 of grade 2020 (297/438, 67.81%) and 305 of grade 2021 (305/544, 56.07%) valid questionnaires were collected and analyzed. Data analysis Scores were expressed in the form of mean ± standard error (SEM) and data were statistically analyzed using SigmaStat program (SPSS 25, Chicago, IL). Comparisons of the final scores between different grades were performed using one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett T3 test. Comparisons between rates among groups were carried out using Kruskal-Wallis test. Correlation between final exam score and usual score was analyzed by Pearson method. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Comparison of students' final exam scores In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the new teaching model, we compared the final exam scores and score distribution of students from grade 2018 to 2021. The results showed that compared with grade 2018 (75.83±0.55), the average scores of grade 2019 (85.29±0.51, P < 0.05), grade 2020 (76.84±0.60, P < 0.05) and grade 2021 (80.88±0.55, P < 0.05) significantly increased (Fig. 2A). Further analysis of the distribution of the number of students in each score segment showed that the excellent rate (90~100 points) of grade 2019 (43.24%, 224/518), grade 2020 (13.93%, 61/438) and grade 2021 (25.00%, 136/544) were higher than that of grade 2018 (11.49%, 61/531) ( P < 0.05) (Fig. 2B). In addition, the average scores of objective questions for grade 2019 (41.13±0.26) and 2021 (40.44±0.28) were significantly higher than that for grade 2018 (39.43±0.26, P < 0.05) (Fig. 2C), and the excellence rates (45~50) of grade 2019 (34.36%, 178/518) and grade 2021 (25.00%, 136/544) were higher than that of grade 2018 (22.22%, 118/531) ( P < 0.05) (Fig. 2D). Fig 2. The difference and distribution of final exam scores of students in 4 grades. Comparison of the average scores of the final exam (A) and the objective questions (C); The students' score distribution of the final exam (B) and the objective questions (D). * P < 0.05, *** P < 0.001 In addition, the correlation analysis of the usual scores and the final exam scores of the students in the different teaching groups showed that there was a weak but significant positive correlation between students' usual scores and final exam scores in grade 2019 ( r =0.3936, P < 0.05), grade 2020 ( r =0.2819, P < 0.05), grade 2021 ( r =0.1953, P < 0.05) (Fig. 3B-3D), but no correlation was shown in the traditional teaching class of grade 2018 ( r = 0.02679, P = 0.5379) (Fig. 3A). All the results suggested that the new teaching model improved students' final exam scores, which might be related to the positive impact of online learning on students' knowledge accumulation. Fig 3. Correlation analysis between usual scores and final exam scores. Correlation analysis for 2018 (A), 2019 (B), 2020 (C) and 2021 (D). Students' evaluation on the new teaching model of m edical microbiology Through the student-centered teaching practice, the aim was to break away from the curse of scores as external motivation, pay more attention to the students' engagement and the change of learning attitude and learning method, and truly tap into the awareness of students' active learning. We conducted an anonymous questionnaire survey after completing all courses in medical microbiology for grade 2020 and 2021. As shown in Fig. 4A, 56.23% (167/297) students of grade 2020 and 56.72% (173/305) students of grade 2021 were satisfied, 23.23% (69/297) and 25.50% (79/305) of the students were dissatisfied, 20.54% (61/297) and 17.38% (53/305) of the students did not give a clear answer. In the question “contents of online and offline connected smoothly and reasonably”, 65.66% (195/297) students of grade 2020 and 69.18% (211/305) students of grade 2021 thought it was smooth and reasonable , 13.80% (41/297) and 12.13% (37/305) of the students thought that it was not smooth and reasonable, and 20.54% (61/297) and 18.69% (57/305) of the students did not give a clear answer (Fig. 4B). Fig. 4 Percentage of student evaluations of grade 2020 and 2021 on the new teaching model. A: Student satisfaction survey; B: Satisfaction survey for curriculum design. In the survey on the improvement of students' learning ability, 61.62% (183/297) students of grade 2020 and 65.90% (201/305) students of grade 2021 believed that the new teaching model helped to integrate and refine the knowledge, understand and master the key contents of medical microbiology; 60.27% (179/297) and 67.87% (207/305) of the students thought that it enhanced the desire to learn clinical professional courses; 65.66% (195/297) and 71.80% (219/305) of the students thought that it helped to improve the ability to analyze and solve problems, and expand the ability of scientific thinking; 58.59% (174/297) and 62.30% (190/305) of students found that it was helpful to stimulate interest in learning about medical microbiology (Fig. 5). Fig. 5 Survey on the improvement of students' learning ability In the survey of usual online learning process, 29.63% (88/297) students of grade 2020 and 49.51% (151/305) students of grade 2021 hastily completed the online learning task before the deadline, while 53.54% (159/297) and 42.30% (129/305) of the students were able to complete it carefully in advance, which is helpful to understand and master the content of offline class teaching (Fig. 6). Fig. 6 Online learning initiative Discussion The student-centered teaching model is superior to the traditional teacher-centered teaching model mainly in cultivating students' problem-solving abilities, promoting cooperative learning and inductive learning [7-9]. It aims to open a process for students to enhance critical thinking and problem-solving skills, ultimately gaining a competitive edge [10]. Our results indicated that the student-centered teaching model in medical microbiology class effectively improved students' academic performance, study habits, autonomy and learning abilities, providing better formative assessment throughout the entire learning process. Additionally, students showed a positive attitude towards the new teaching model. The new teaching model in medical microbiology education could promote heuristic teaching, interactive communication and inquiry-based discussions, facilitating personalized learning needs. Teachers' teaching methods can influence students' learning methods, which in turn affect students' academic performance [11]. In a class where teachers focus on transmitting knowledge, students tend to engage in surface-level learning, whereas deep learning, not just memorization and replication of knowledge, is achieved in a student-centered course [12]. The concept of student-centered learning originates from the idea of child-centered learning proposed by the American child psychologist and educator Dewey, placing students at the center of the learning process, encouraging joyful and active participation in learning. Students are the center of learning, and teachers should help them unleash their initiative during learning and enable them to realize their own value [13, 14]. The content of medical microbiology, with its complexity of bacteria, viruses, and fungi and fragmented knowledge, poses challenges in studying. In traditional teaching, teachers need to follow a specific pace to deliver knowledge, but students have different cognitive speeds. It is difficult to adjust the pace in a class to cater to the different learning needs of students, resulting in varied outcomes. Through the student-centered teaching model, teachers move away from the role of being knowledge transmitters towards becoming guides. This allows students to fully exercise their subjective initiative, fosters their self-learning abilities, emphasizes the application of high-order learning such as analysis, evaluation, and creation based on memorization and understanding, and appreciates the development of students' critical-thinking skills. We provided online learning resources and interactions relevant to the course, which enabled students to engage in online learning and periodic assessments through Mobile Apps, and helped teachers to monitor students' learning progress in real-time. In offline class, teachers provided explanations and guidance on key concepts, leading students to utilize new knowledge to solve problems through discussions. This model stimulated students' enthusiasm and interest in learning, helped them grasp the practical applications of theoretical knowledge in daily life and created an enjoyable atmosphere in the class. It established links between real-life phenomena and knowledge and bridged the gap between the technology frontier and class content. Students could apply theoretical knowledge of pathogens to resolve practical clinical problems, such as infectious disease prevention and control, forming a process of knowledge development. The teacher-student interaction enhanced students' problem-solving skills, clinical thinking abilities, and other higher-order capabilities. Survey results showed that the majority of participating students believed that this teaching reform had facilitated knowledge mastery, sparked interest in learning and improved their learning abilities. The new model in medical microbiology education shifted the focus from passive learning centered around exams to active learning. Improved learning ability is a critical assessment criterion. A scientific assessment system can effectively boost learners' participation and provide essential support for talent cultivation [15]. Formative assessment can enhance students' learning outcomes [16, 17]. Traditional assessments in medical microbiology courses that involved rote memorization with a paper exam failed to authentically reflect students' abilities and did not drive effective teaching and learning. Implementing diversified assessments (combining formative and summative assessments), which involved assessments throughout the pre-class, in-class, and post-class stages, helped to break the external driving force of scores and truly tap into students' awareness of active learning. By adjusting teaching plans promptly based on students' actual learning situations, teachers could enhance teaching effectiveness. The results of this study demonstrated that the student-centered teaching model in medical microbiology class significantly improved students' performance on final exams, indicating its effectiveness in enhancing the extent of knowledge acquisition by promoting students' performance throughout the learning process. Study limitations The student-centered teaching model has greatly addressed the limitations of traditional teaching methods (such as expanding the space and time for offline teaching, broadening students' knowledge and strengthening teacher-student interactions) and thus exhibited better teaching effectiveness. However, while students at different levels expand their knowledge, effectively selecting and engaging in targeted, innovative, and challenging learning amidst vast information might increase students' workload. Teachers should monitor students' learning progress and provide appropriate guidance to help them maintain motivation. Additionally, the evaluation system assessing students' compliance during the teaching process (e.g., attendance, participation in discussions, completion of tests) needs continual improvement to ensure that scores accurately reflect students' learning outcomes. Furthermore, the reform of the student-centered undergraduate teaching paradigm is not only a reform of the class teaching model but also a reform of support systems, requiring further advancement in educational informatization. Conclusion The student-centered teaching model is the essence of university education philosophy and the core of improving educational quality. Its application in medical microbiology education has enhanced students' academic performance and promoted the cultivation of higher-order abilities. Further educational research needs to enhance the quality assessment of the teaching process to pave the way for the future direction of education. Declarations Supplementary Information Additional file 1. Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable. This study was deemed non-human-subjects research by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Harbin Medical University. As a result, the Harbin Medical University IRB waived the need for ethics approval and also waived the need for informed consent. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Consent for publication Not applicable. Availability of data and materials All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding This work was supported by the Higher Educational Teaching Reform Project of Heilongjiang Province Education Department (SJGY20220275). Author Contribution JQ, WZ X and MZ contributed to the study conception and design; JQ wrote the first draft; WZ X and MZ contributed to the revision of the paper; WP K, XW and QM Z contributed to the interpretation of data and revision of the paper. All authors have read and approved the manuscript. Acknowledgements We would like to thank all the colleagues in the Department of Microbiology, Harbin Medical University, for participating in the construction of online course, teaching and grading the students. References Venkataramana Kandi and Parimala Reddy Basireddy. Creating a Student-centered Learning Environment: Implementation of Problem-based Learning to Teach Microbiology to Undergraduate Medical Students. Cureus. 2018;10(1): e2029. Susanna M Lucieer, Jos N van der Geest, Silvana M Elói-Santos, Rosa M Delbone de Faria, Laura Jonker, Chris Visscher, Remy M J P Rikers, Axel P N Themmen. The development of self-regulated learning during the pre-clinical stage of medical school: a comparison between a lecture-based and a problem-based curriculum. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2016;21(1):93-104. Jennifer K Lyles and Monika Oli. The student-centered classroom: the new gut feeling. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2020;367(22):fnaa191. Harden RM, Laidlaw JM. Be FAIR to students: four principles that lead to more effective learning. Med Teach. 2013;35(1):27-31. Jacobs JC, van Luijk SJ, van der Vleuten CP, Kusurkar RA, Croiset G, Scheele F. Teachers’ conceptions of learning and teaching in student-centred medical curricula: the impact of context and personal characteristics. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16(1):244. Kyong-Jee Kim and Jee-Young Hwang. Characteristics of medical teachers using student-centered teaching methods. Korean J Med Educ. 2017;29(3):187-191. Rezende-Filho FM, da Fonseca LJ, Nunes-Souza V, Guedes Gda S, Rabelo LA. A student-centered approach for developing active learning: the construction of physical models as a teaching tool in medical physiology. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:189. Ross JG, Bruderle E. Effects of active, student-centered teaching strategies on nursing students' knowledge, skills, attitudes, and comfort related to patient safety. Nurse Educ. 2018;43(1):2-3. Goodman BE. An evolution in student-centered teaching. Adv Physiol Educ. 2016; 40(3):278-282. Eva Berg, Margret Lepp. The meaning and application of student-centered learning in nursing education: An integrative review of the literature. Nurse Educ Pract. 2023;69:103622. Gibbs G, Coffey M. The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Act Learn High Educ. 2004;5:87-100. Johanna C. G. Jacobs, Scheltus J. van Luijk, Cees P. M. van der Vleuten, Rashmi A. Kusurkar, Gerda Croiset, and Fedde Scheele. Teachers’ conceptions of learning and teaching in student-centred medical curricula: the impact of context and personal characteristics. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:244. Canoso JJ, Saavedra MÁ, Pascual-Ramos V, Sánchez-Valencia MA, Kalish RA. Musculoskeletal anatomy by self-examination: a learner-centered method for students and practitioners of musculoskeletal medicine. Ann Anat. 2020;228:151457. Xiumei Fu, Xueyan Wu, Donghui Liu, Chengyun Zhang, Honglin Xie, Ying Wang, and Lijun Xiao. Practice and exploration of the "student-centered" multielement fusion teaching mode in human anatomy. Surg Radiol Anat. 2022;44(1):15-23. Watling CJ, Lingard L. Toward meaningful evaluation of medical trainees: the influence of participants’ perceptions of the process. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012;17:183-194. Chunmei Lu, Jie Xu, Yang Cao, Ying Zhang, Xiaoyu Liu, Haixia Wen, Yan Yan, Jiao Wang, Minghui Cai, and Hui Zhu. Examining the effects of student-centered flipped classroom in physiology education. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23:233. McNulty JA, Espiritu BR, Hoyt AE, Ensminger DC, Chandrasekhar AJ. Associations between formative practice quizzes and summative examination outcomes in a medical anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8:37-44. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Additionalfile1.Scoresofstudents.xlsx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4255696","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":294589953,"identity":"7766bf86-6173-4b58-ae14-d125fc18896a","order_by":0,"name":"Jun Qian","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Harbin Medical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jun","middleName":"","lastName":"Qian","suffix":""},{"id":294589954,"identity":"272bc5f1-b3d8-4bd6-bb7d-19d3612d4b24","order_by":1,"name":"Weizhen Xu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Harbin Medical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Weizhen","middleName":"","lastName":"Xu","suffix":""},{"id":294589955,"identity":"b4bf189a-7991-4b57-8964-6dc6d3f505c4","order_by":2,"name":"Wenping Kao","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Harbin Medical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wenping","middleName":"","lastName":"Kao","suffix":""},{"id":294589956,"identity":"82cc51ed-e683-4dcc-aa27-5cf6d42ef9d7","order_by":3,"name":"Xu Wang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Harbin Medical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xu","middleName":"","lastName":"Wang","suffix":""},{"id":294589957,"identity":"b1159b8c-c3bb-4892-834c-485a689445a6","order_by":4,"name":"Qingmeng Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Harbin Medical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Qingmeng","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""},{"id":294589958,"identity":"c30e4a29-be04-4bcc-bcf2-fd765b0e4735","order_by":5,"name":"Min Zhuang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Harbin Medical University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Min","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhuang","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-04-12 06:17:17","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4255696/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4255696/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":55426627,"identity":"59b74bfe-74bd-4e73-8ddd-aace8f184f52","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-27 10:48:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1611345,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCourse design\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure.1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4255696/v1/bf262f839711a0e67be15d4a.jpg"},{"id":55426626,"identity":"731afe94-ae16-4262-9b5e-cd9044360d1c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-27 10:48:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1026826,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe difference and distribution of final exam scores of students in 4 grades. Comparison of the average scores of the final exam (A) and the objective questions (C); The students' score distribution of the final exam (B) and the objective questions (D). *\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05, ***\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure.2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4255696/v1/3735730b5d673f930e8683c3.jpg"},{"id":55426819,"identity":"a951853a-7250-445b-be69-f5233662da27","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-27 10:56:35","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":694497,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCorrelation analysis between usual scores and final exam scores. Correlation analysis for 2018 (A), 2019 (B), 2020 (C) and 2021 (D).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure.3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4255696/v1/ff6187838893c5516d9c2e84.jpg"},{"id":55426630,"identity":"03964830-4797-45aa-a123-1ca4d74c6da7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-27 10:48:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1196735,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePercentage of student evaluations of grade 2020 and 2021 on the new teaching model. A: Student satisfaction survey; B: Satisfaction survey for curriculum design.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure.4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4255696/v1/9e28f89d9e534414be589be1.jpg"},{"id":55426816,"identity":"f3fe926b-4689-4878-8753-e888e2602db3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-27 10:56:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":265470,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSurvey on the improvement of students' learning ability\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure.5.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4255696/v1/6fa23d0dab5157a5dcfa60f9.jpg"},{"id":55426631,"identity":"38c0e785-c14c-4f63-bb60-672bec608869","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-27 10:48:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":225815,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eOnline learning initiative\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure.6.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4255696/v1/a11195c429a788b24d816fb2.jpg"},{"id":72689612,"identity":"acad48f3-4d00-4d08-be44-1fb35ad55108","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-12-31 09:16:50","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":5455912,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4255696/v1/827eee7a-b22e-4925-9cc3-52f4d652a433.pdf"},{"id":55426632,"identity":"394e3329-cab0-4d1a-a65e-52f2ddcbb505","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-27 10:48:29","extension":"xlsx","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":101217,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Additionalfile1.Scoresofstudents.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4255696/v1/1fd4cd9c08089429167a1efd.xlsx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Evaluation of the effectiveness of student-centered teaching model in medical microbiology education","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eMedical microbiology is a discipline that studies the characteristics, pathogenicity, diagnosis and prevention of pathogenic microorganisms. It is one of the essential foundational subjects in clinical medicine. In recent years, numerous newly emerging and re-emerging pathogenic microorganisms have been discovered, emphasizing the significant importance of medical microbiology in clinical medicine and social life. However, the complexity of bacteria and virus species and fragmented knowledge make it challenging to grasp [1]. Traditional medical microbiology teaching in classrooms has been teacher-centered, mainly focused on lecture-style teaching, with low enthusiasm in class participation, weak self-driven learning and interaction, leading to unclear teaching outcomes [2]. Additionally, traditional assessment methods often involve written exam that fails to authentically reflect students\u0026apos; abilities and drive effective teaching and learning. Therefore, exploring new teaching models in medical microbiology to stimulate students\u0026apos; interest in learning is important for cultivating outstanding medical talents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInspiring students\u0026apos; interest in learning and encouraging their active class participation \u0026nbsp;are essential tasks for teachers [3]. In recent years, medical education has undergone reforms and challenges, shifting from teacher-centered to student-centered teaching. However, the understanding of this teaching practice varies depending on each school\u0026apos;s educational goals, course principles, diverse subjects and teaching experiences [4-6]. Student-centered teaching places students\u0026apos; learning, development and learning outcomes at the core. In our student-centered medical microbiology class, the focus was on defining learning objectives and fostering talent development from various perspectives, incorporating nurturing professional qualities into course learning, integrating online and offline modes and utilizing diverse assessments. It effectively empowered teachers to guide, inspire, and monitor the teaching process, emphasizing students as active participants in the learning process. This new teaching model opened new pathways for medical microbiology teaching in the new era.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this study, we reported and described the implementation of student-centered teaching reforms in medical microbiology course for undergraduate medical students. The objectives of this research were to: (1) achieve the comprehensive transformations in teaching philosophy, management philosophy, teaching methods, and assessment system; (2) stimulate students\u0026apos; enthusiasm for learning, empower them to become the central figures in the class, and cultivate their abilities for independent inquiry, problem-solving and lifelong learning.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003ch3\u003eSubjects\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study included\u0026nbsp;2031\u0026nbsp;clinical medicine\u0026nbsp;students\u0026nbsp;in Harbin Medical University\u0026nbsp;(531\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;grade\u0026nbsp;2018, 518\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;grade\u0026nbsp;2019, 438\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;grade\u0026nbsp;2020 and 544\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;grade\u0026nbsp;2021). The students\u0026nbsp;came\u0026nbsp;from various provinces of China,\u0026nbsp;received systematic\u0026nbsp;high school\u0026nbsp;education under the same guideline and passed\u0026nbsp;the entrance examination.\u0026nbsp;All the students\u0026nbsp;began their studies\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;medical microbiology in the third semester\u0026nbsp;with a total\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;48\u0026nbsp;class hours (45\u0026thinsp;min/class hour). The students in each\u0026nbsp;grade\u0026nbsp;were divided into 5~6\u0026nbsp;sections\u0026nbsp;(about\u0026thinsp;100 students/section) and\u0026nbsp;taught by\u0026nbsp;four\u0026nbsp;teachers. Each teacher was responsible for\u0026nbsp;some\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;36\u0026nbsp;chapters.\u0026nbsp;All teachers had\u0026nbsp;more than\u0026nbsp;5\u0026thinsp;years of teaching experience, and\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;teaching content and evaluation standards\u0026nbsp;were\u0026nbsp;unified.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGrade\u0026nbsp;2018\u0026nbsp;was\u0026nbsp;the control group\u0026nbsp;with\u0026nbsp;the traditional teaching model.\u0026nbsp;In\u0026nbsp;grade\u0026nbsp;2019 to 2021, a student-centered teaching model was implemented. The effectiveness of the new teaching model was evaluated by comparing the correlation between the\u0026nbsp;usual scores\u0026nbsp;and final exam\u0026nbsp;scores\u0026nbsp;among different\u0026nbsp;grades\u0026nbsp;using different teaching methods. At the same time, an anonymous questionnaire survey was conducted among students in the new teaching model group\u0026nbsp;(grade 2020 and 2021)\u0026nbsp;to assess their opinions on the new teaching model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy design\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe teaching model was applied through the following contents (Fig.1)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFig.1 Course design\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(1) Clarify learning objectives\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the university\u0026apos;s educational positioning and the cultivation objectives of medical microbiology, we established learning objectives. The content of each class was structured around knowledge and skills, methods and abilities, thinking and innovation, future and development, to cultivate outstanding medical talents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(2) Integrate the idea of education\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the online platform (https://icc.hep.com.cn) (ICC) and offline class, we cultivated students\u0026apos; interest in learning and exploring pathogenic microorganisms, scientific cognition, high-level thinking methods, lifelong growth perseverance and strength through specific cases.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(3) Combine online and offline blended learning mode\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIncorporating the current technological developments in pathogenic microbiology, online resources, clinical case database, and research case database in the teaching platform were supplemented for application in class teaching.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOnline learning: teachers could release course guidance through \u0026quot;ICC\u0026quot; App installed on smartphones or by logging into the platform on computers. The contents in the platform included 68 videos (5~10 minutes/video, 1~2 videos/chapter), totaling 622 minutes, 357 exercises, 69 PPT slides and 26 clinical cases covering all content of medical microbiology. Students could learn at their own pace through reading, watching colorful images, animations, videos, PPTs, or completing exercises to acquire foundational knowledge before formal classes. Relevant open-ended questions and cutting-edge content were pushed to students. Those with extra capacity could expand knowledge by researching additional contents, maximizing understanding of related knowledge and gaining insights into the development direction of the subject.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOffline class learning: students were divided into small groups and a representative was selected from each group to report the newly gained knowledge. Teachers integrate relevant contents, such as news, latest research advances, and clinical cases into the class, making use of various tools like PPT slides, image resources, videos, and web links to render teaching more visual and comprehensible. The student enthusiasm, engagement, and sense of achievement could also be enhanced by supplementing with online teaching methods such as voting, random selection, and etc. Through participatory learning, frequent assessment of learning effects with multiple-choice questions was conducted to evaluate students\u0026apos; comprehension levels. Finally, a summarization of course content was carried out by teachers or students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePost-class learning: teachers released after-class learning materials online, including test questions and discussion topics to help knowledge solidification.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy combining online and offline teaching modes, shallow learning of conclusive knowledge, scientific thinking behind knowledge, problem-solving approaches, and higher-order content are fully integrated.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(4) Conduct diversified assessments\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe assessment\u0026nbsp;system\u0026nbsp;is\u0026nbsp;combined\u0026nbsp;formative assessment and summative assessment in the whole process and diversely evaluates students from multiple perspectives,\u0026nbsp;such as the degree of autonomous learning engagement, level of participation in learning activities, enhancement of high-order thinking, and effectiveness of expression and communication, aimed\u0026nbsp;to increase students\u0026apos; sense of participation and achievement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to the performance of students in video viewing,\u0026nbsp;topic\u0026nbsp;discussion and test on the platform, the usual\u0026nbsp;score\u0026nbsp;was\u0026nbsp;counted, accounting for 50% of the final score.\u0026nbsp;An online test paper management platform named \u0026ldquo;Tangyun\u0026rdquo; (http://210.47.245.73/ Home/Index) was used to review of final exam papers. Question types included single choice, multiple choice, short answer and essay questions. The paper consisted of 100 points, accounting for 50% of the final score. All subjective questions, including short answer questions and essay questions, were evaluated by two teachers to eliminate subjective bias in judgments.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(5) Feedbacks\u0026nbsp;from the students\u0026nbsp;in grade 2020 and 2021\u0026nbsp;were\u0026nbsp;collected using Questionnaire Star (an online tool for anonymous questionnaire surveys). A total of\u0026nbsp;297 of grade 2020\u0026nbsp;(297/438, 67.81%) and 305 of grade 2021 (305/544, 56.07%)\u0026nbsp;valid questionnaires were collected and analyzed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData analysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eScores\u0026nbsp;were expressed in the form of mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;standard error (SEM) and data were statistically analyzed using SigmaStat program (SPSS\u0026nbsp;25, Chicago, IL). Comparisons of the final scores between different\u0026nbsp;grades\u0026nbsp;were performed using one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett T3 test. Comparisons between rates\u0026nbsp;among groups\u0026nbsp;were carried out using Kruskal-Wallis test.\u0026nbsp;Correlation between final\u0026nbsp;exam\u0026nbsp;score and\u0026nbsp;usual score\u0026nbsp;was analyzed by\u0026nbsp;Pearson method. \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 was considered statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eComparison of students\u0026apos; final exam scores\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn order to evaluate the effectiveness of the new teaching model, we compared the final exam scores and score distribution of students from grade 2018 to 2021. The results showed that compared with grade 2018 (75.83\u0026plusmn;0.55), the average scores of grade 2019 (85.29\u0026plusmn;0.51, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), grade 2020 (76.84\u0026plusmn;0.60, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) and grade 2021 (80.88\u0026plusmn;0.55, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05)\u0026nbsp;significantly\u0026nbsp;increased (Fig. 2A). Further analysis of the distribution of the number of students in each score segment showed that the excellent rate (90~100 points) of grade 2019\u0026nbsp;(43.24%,\u0026nbsp;224/518), grade 2020 (13.93%,\u0026nbsp;61/438)\u0026nbsp;and grade 2021\u0026nbsp;(25.00%,\u0026nbsp;136/544) were higher than\u0026nbsp;that\u0026nbsp;of grade\u0026nbsp;2018 (11.49%,\u0026nbsp;61/531)\u0026nbsp;(\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) (Fig. 2B). In addition, the average scores of objective questions for grade 2019 (41.13\u0026plusmn;0.26) and 2021 (40.44\u0026plusmn;0.28) were significantly higher than that for grade 2018 (39.43\u0026plusmn;0.26, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) (Fig. 2C), and the excellence rates (45~50)\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;grade 2019\u0026nbsp;(34.36%,\u0026nbsp;178/518)\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;grade 2021\u0026nbsp;(25.00%,\u0026nbsp;136/544)\u0026nbsp;were higher than that of\u0026nbsp;grade 2018\u0026nbsp;(22.22%,\u0026nbsp;118/531)\u0026nbsp;(\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) (Fig. 2D).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFig 2. The difference and distribution of final exam scores of students in 4 grades. Comparison of the average\u0026nbsp;scores of the\u0026nbsp;final\u0026nbsp;exam (A) and the objective questions (C);\u0026nbsp;The\u0026nbsp;students\u0026apos;\u0026nbsp;score\u0026nbsp;distribution\u0026nbsp;of the\u0026nbsp;final\u0026nbsp;exam\u0026nbsp;(B)\u0026nbsp;and the objective questions\u0026nbsp;(D). *\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, ***\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, the correlation analysis of the usual scores and the final exam scores of the students in the\u0026nbsp;different\u0026nbsp;teaching groups\u0026nbsp;showed that\u0026nbsp;there was a weak but significant positive correlation between students\u0026apos; usual scores and final exam scores\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;grade\u0026nbsp;2019 (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e =0.3936, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05),\u0026nbsp;grade\u0026nbsp;2020 (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e =0.2819, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05),\u0026nbsp;grade\u0026nbsp;2021 (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e =0.1953, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp; 0.05) (Fig. 3B-3D), but no correlation was shown in the traditional teaching class of\u0026nbsp;grade\u0026nbsp;2018 (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.02679, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.5379) (Fig. 3A). All the results suggested that the new teaching model improved students\u0026apos; final exam scores, which might be related to the positive impact of online learning on students\u0026apos; knowledge accumulation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFig 3. Correlation analysis between usual scores and final exam scores. Correlation analysis for 2018 (A), 2019 (B), 2020 (C) and 2021 (D).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudents\u0026apos; evaluation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eon\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ethe new\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eteaching\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003emodel\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of m\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eedical microbiology\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThrough the student-centered teaching practice, the aim was to break away from the curse of scores as external motivation, pay more attention to the students\u0026apos; engagement and the change of learning attitude and learning method, and truly tap into the awareness of students\u0026apos; active learning. We conducted an anonymous questionnaire survey after completing all courses in medical microbiology for grade 2020 and 2021. As shown in Fig. 4A, 56.23% (167/297) students of grade 2020 and 56.72% (173/305) students of grade 2021 were satisfied, 23.23% (69/297) and 25.50% (79/305) of the students were dissatisfied, 20.54% (61/297) and 17.38% (53/305) of the students did not give a clear answer. In the question \u0026ldquo;contents of online and offline connected smoothly and reasonably\u0026rdquo;, 65.66% (195/297) students of grade 2020 and 69.18% (211/305) students of grade 2021 thought it was smooth and reasonable , 13.80% (41/297) and 12.13% (37/305) of the students thought that it was not smooth and reasonable, and 20.54% (61/297) and 18.69% (57/305) of the students did not give a clear answer (Fig. 4B).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFig. 4 Percentage of student evaluations\u0026nbsp;of grade 2020 and 2021 on\u0026nbsp;the new teaching model. A: Student satisfaction survey; B: Satisfaction survey for curriculum design.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the survey on the improvement of students\u0026apos; learning ability, 61.62% (183/297) students of grade 2020 and 65.90% (201/305) students of grade 2021 believed that the new teaching model helped to integrate and refine the knowledge, understand and master the key contents of medical microbiology; 60.27% (179/297) and 67.87% (207/305) of the students thought that it enhanced the desire to learn clinical professional courses; 65.66% (195/297) and 71.80% (219/305) of the students thought that it helped to improve the ability to analyze and solve problems, and expand the ability of scientific thinking; 58.59% (174/297) and 62.30% (190/305) of students found that it was helpful to stimulate interest in learning about medical microbiology (Fig. 5).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFig.\u0026nbsp;5 Survey on the improvement of students\u0026apos; learning ability\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the survey of usual online learning process, 29.63% (88/297) students of grade 2020 and 49.51% (151/305) students of grade 2021 hastily completed the online learning task before the deadline, while 53.54% (159/297) and 42.30% (129/305) of the students were able to complete it carefully in advance, which is helpful to understand and master the content of offline class teaching (Fig. 6).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFig. 6 Online learning initiative\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe student-centered teaching model is superior to the traditional teacher-centered teaching model mainly in cultivating students\u0026apos; problem-solving abilities, promoting cooperative learning and inductive learning [7-9]. It aims to open a process for students to enhance critical thinking and problem-solving skills, ultimately gaining a competitive edge [10]. Our results indicated that the student-centered teaching model in medical microbiology class effectively improved students\u0026apos; academic performance, study habits, autonomy and learning abilities, providing better formative assessment throughout the entire learning process. Additionally, students showed a positive attitude towards the new teaching model.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe new teaching model in medical microbiology education\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;could promote heuristic teaching, interactive communication and inquiry-based discussions, facilitating personalized learning needs.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeachers\u0026apos; teaching methods can influence students\u0026apos; learning methods, which in turn affect students\u0026apos; academic performance [11]. In a class where teachers focus on transmitting knowledge, students tend to engage in surface-level learning, whereas deep learning, not just memorization and replication of knowledge, is achieved in a student-centered course [12]. The concept of student-centered learning originates from the idea of child-centered learning proposed by the American child psychologist and educator Dewey, placing students at the center of the learning process, encouraging joyful and active participation in learning. Students are the center of learning, and teachers should help them unleash their initiative during learning and enable them to realize their own value [13, 14].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe content of medical microbiology, with its complexity of bacteria, viruses, and fungi and fragmented knowledge, poses challenges in studying. In traditional teaching, teachers need to follow a specific pace to deliver knowledge, but students have different cognitive speeds. It is difficult to adjust the pace in a class to cater to the different learning needs of students, resulting in varied outcomes. Through the student-centered teaching model, teachers move away from the role of being knowledge transmitters towards becoming guides. This allows students to fully exercise their subjective initiative, fosters their self-learning abilities, emphasizes the application of high-order learning such as analysis, evaluation, and creation based on memorization and understanding, and appreciates the development of students\u0026apos; critical-thinking skills.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe provided online learning resources and interactions relevant to the course, which enabled students to engage in online learning and periodic assessments through Mobile Apps, and helped teachers to monitor students\u0026apos; learning progress in real-time. In offline class, teachers provided explanations and guidance on key concepts, leading students to utilize new knowledge to solve problems through discussions.\u0026nbsp;This model stimulated students\u0026apos; enthusiasm and interest in learning, helped them grasp the practical applications of theoretical knowledge in daily life and created an enjoyable atmosphere in the class. It established links between real-life phenomena and knowledge and bridged the gap between the technology frontier and class content. Students could apply theoretical knowledge of pathogens to resolve practical clinical problems, such as infectious disease prevention and control, forming a process of knowledge development.\u0026nbsp;The teacher-student interaction enhanced students\u0026apos; problem-solving skills, clinical thinking abilities, and other higher-order capabilities. Survey results showed that the majority of participating students believed that this teaching reform had facilitated knowledge mastery, sparked interest in learning and improved their learning abilities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe new model in medical microbiology education shifted the focus from passive learning centered around exams to active learning.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImproved learning ability is a critical assessment criterion. A scientific assessment system can effectively boost learners\u0026apos; participation and provide essential support for talent cultivation [15]. Formative assessment can enhance students\u0026apos; learning outcomes [16, 17]. Traditional assessments in medical microbiology courses that involved rote memorization with a paper exam failed to authentically reflect students\u0026apos; abilities and did not drive effective teaching and learning. Implementing diversified assessments (combining formative and summative assessments), which involved assessments throughout the pre-class, in-class, and post-class stages, helped to break the external driving force of scores and truly tap into students\u0026apos; awareness of active learning. By adjusting teaching plans promptly based on students\u0026apos; actual learning situations, teachers could enhance teaching effectiveness. The results of this study demonstrated that the student-centered teaching model in medical microbiology class significantly improved students\u0026apos; performance on final exams, indicating its effectiveness in enhancing the extent of knowledge acquisition by promoting students\u0026apos; performance throughout the learning process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy limitations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe student-centered teaching model has greatly addressed the limitations of traditional teaching methods (such as expanding the space and time for offline teaching, broadening students\u0026apos; knowledge and strengthening teacher-student interactions) and thus exhibited better teaching effectiveness. However, while students at different levels expand their knowledge, effectively selecting and engaging in targeted, innovative, and challenging learning amidst vast information might increase students\u0026apos; workload. Teachers should monitor students\u0026apos; learning progress and provide appropriate guidance to help them maintain motivation. Additionally, the evaluation system assessing students\u0026apos; compliance during the teaching process (e.g., attendance, participation in discussions, completion of tests) needs continual improvement to ensure that scores accurately reflect students\u0026apos; learning outcomes. Furthermore, the reform of the student-centered undergraduate teaching paradigm is not only a reform of the class teaching model but also a reform of support systems, requiring further advancement in educational informatization.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe student-centered teaching model is the essence of university education philosophy and the core of improving educational quality. Its application in medical microbiology education has enhanced students\u0026apos; academic performance and promoted the cultivation of higher-order abilities. Further educational research needs to enhance the quality assessment of the teaching process to pave the way for the future direction of education.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSupplementary Information\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditional file 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable. This study was deemed non-human-subjects research by the\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInstitutional Review Board (IRB) of the Harbin Medical University. As a result,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe Harbin Medical University IRB waived the need for ethics approval and\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ealso waived the need for informed consent. All methods were carried out in\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eaccordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003earticle.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by the Higher Educational Teaching Reform Project of Heilongjiang Province Education Department (SJGY20220275).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJQ, WZ X and MZ contributed to the study conception and design; JQ wrote the first draft; WZ X and MZ contributed to the revision of the paper; WP K, XW and QM Z contributed to the interpretation of data and revision of the paper. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe would like to thank all the colleagues in the Department of Microbiology, Harbin Medical University, for participating in the construction of online course, teaching and grading the students.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVenkataramana Kandi and Parimala Reddy Basireddy. Creating a Student-centered Learning Environment: Implementation of Problem-based Learning to Teach Microbiology to Undergraduate Medical Students. Cureus. 2018;10(1): e2029.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSusanna M Lucieer, Jos N van der Geest, Silvana M El\u0026oacute;i-Santos, Rosa M Delbone de Faria, Laura Jonker, Chris Visscher, Remy M J P Rikers, Axel P N Themmen. The development of self-regulated learning during the pre-clinical stage of medical school: a comparison between a lecture-based and a problem-based curriculum. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2016;21(1):93-104.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJennifer K Lyles and Monika Oli. The student-centered classroom: the new gut feeling. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2020;367(22):fnaa191.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarden RM, Laidlaw JM. Be FAIR to students: four principles that lead to more effective learning. Med Teach. 2013;35(1):27-31.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJacobs JC, van Luijk SJ, van der Vleuten CP, Kusurkar RA, Croiset G, Scheele F. Teachers\u0026rsquo; conceptions of learning and teaching in student-centred medical curricula: the impact of context and personal characteristics. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16(1):244.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKyong-Jee Kim and Jee-Young Hwang. Characteristics of medical teachers using student-centered teaching methods. Korean J Med Educ. 2017;29(3):187-191.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRezende-Filho FM, da Fonseca LJ, Nunes-Souza V, Guedes Gda S, Rabelo LA. A student-centered approach for developing active learning: the construction of physical models as a teaching tool in medical physiology. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:189.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoss JG, Bruderle E. Effects of active, student-centered teaching strategies on nursing students' knowledge, skills, attitudes, and comfort related to patient safety. Nurse Educ. 2018;43(1):2-3.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoodman BE. An evolution in student-centered teaching. Adv Physiol Educ. 2016; 40(3):278-282.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEva Berg, Margret Lepp. The meaning and application of student-centered learning in nursing education: An integrative review of the literature. Nurse Educ Pract. 2023;69:103622.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGibbs G, Coffey M. The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Act Learn High Educ. 2004;5:87-100.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohanna C. G. Jacobs, Scheltus J. van Luijk, Cees P. M. van der Vleuten, Rashmi A. Kusurkar, Gerda Croiset, and Fedde Scheele. Teachers\u0026rsquo; conceptions of learning and teaching in student-centred medical curricula: the impact of context and personal characteristics. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:244.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCanoso JJ, Saavedra M\u0026Aacute;, Pascual-Ramos V, S\u0026aacute;nchez-Valencia MA, Kalish RA. Musculoskeletal anatomy by self-examination: a learner-centered method for students and practitioners of musculoskeletal medicine. Ann Anat. 2020;228:151457.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXiumei Fu, Xueyan Wu, Donghui Liu, Chengyun Zhang, Honglin Xie, Ying Wang, and Lijun Xiao. Practice and exploration of the \"student-centered\" multielement fusion teaching mode in human anatomy. Surg Radiol Anat. 2022;44(1):15-23.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWatling CJ, Lingard L. Toward meaningful evaluation of medical trainees: the influence of participants\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the process. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012;17:183-194.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChunmei Lu, Jie Xu, Yang Cao, Ying Zhang, Xiaoyu Liu, Haixia Wen, Yan Yan, Jiao Wang, Minghui Cai, and Hui Zhu. Examining the effects of student-centered flipped classroom in physiology education. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23:233.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcNulty JA, Espiritu BR, Hoyt AE, Ensminger DC, Chandrasekhar AJ. Associations between formative practice quizzes and summative examination outcomes in a medical anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8:37-44.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Blended learning, Online teaching, Teaching model, Medical microbiology","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4255696/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4255696/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground: \u003c/strong\u003eThe student-centered teaching model involves reforms in training mode, teaching methods, assessment systems, class roles and learning behaviors, aiming to improve the teaching quality effectively, which has become an inevitable trend for maximizing teaching efficiency. Medical microbiology is the study of the pathogenic microorganisms related to human infectious diseases, playing a crucial role in the training of medical professionals. However, there is a lack of data demonstrating the effectiveness of this teaching modelin the medical microbiology education of undergraduate medical students. This study aims to evaluate it.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods: \u003c/strong\u003eThis study focused on undergraduate clinical medicine students at Harbin Medical University from grade 2018 to 2021. The teaching team began implementing a student-centered teaching model and incorporating online content into the class from grade 2019. The effectiveness of the teaching model was evaluated by comparing the usual scores and final exam scores of different grades under different teaching models used Pearson correlation. An anonymous questionnaire survey was conducted after the course in grade 2020 and 2021 to assess students' opinions on the student-centered teaching model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults: \u003c/strong\u003eThe final exam scores of students from grade 2019, 2020, and 2021 using the new teaching model (85.29±0.51, 76.84±0.60, 80.88±0.55) were significantly higher than those of grade 2018 under traditional teaching model (75.83±0.55). There was a significant correlation between usual scores and final exam scores(grade 2019 \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e =0.3936, grade 2020 \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e =0.2819, grade 2021 \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e =0.1953, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05). Results from the questionnaire showed that 61.62% students of grade 2020 (183/297) and 65.90% students of grade 2021 (201/305) believed that the new teaching model helped integrate knowledge and understand the key contents, 60.27% (179/297) and 67.87% (207/305) of the studentsfelt it increased their desire to learn clinical professional courses, 65.66% (195/297) and 71.80% (219/305) of the studentsthought it enhanced problem analysis and solving abilities, 58.59% (174/297) and 62.30% (190/305) of studentsbelieved it stimulated their interest in studying medical microbiology.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusions: \u003c/strong\u003eThe student-centered teaching model significantly improved student learning efficiency in medical microbiology courses, enhanced the development of higher-order skills, and promoted students' awareness of active learning through various assessments.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Evaluation of the effectiveness of student-centered teaching model in medical microbiology education","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-04-27 10:48:24","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4255696/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"d5b951e2-27b8-4a9a-9fa2-6fa909b276ba","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 27th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-12-31T09:08:44+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-04-27 10:48:24","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4255696","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4255696","identity":"rs-4255696","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}