Transforming postgraduate education in reproductive medicine: outcomes of a blended teaching reform focused on research thinking and innovation

Transforming postgraduate education in reproductive medicine: outcomes of a blended teaching reform focused on research thinking and innovation | 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 Transforming postgraduate education in reproductive medicine: outcomes of a blended teaching reform focused on research thinking and innovation Yunchuan Tian, Xiang Wang, Xinyao Tang, Gan Shen, Ying Shen This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7855498/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 5 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Reproductive medicine, as an interdisciplinary field bridging basic medicine, clinical medicine, genetics, and biotechnology, places unique demands on postgraduate medicine education. Unlike traditional specialties such as nephrology or neurology, it integrates elements of obstetrics and gynecology, andrology, pediatrics, internal medicine, surgery, and molecular genetics. Postgraduate students must therefore not only acquire theoretical knowledge but also master experimental and clinical skills related to gametogenesis, fertilization, embryonic development, and assisted reproductive technologies (ART). However, current training remains largely theory-heavy, with insufficient emphasis on research design, laboratory practice, and interdisciplinary integration. Methods This study was conducted at West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, using its reproductive medicine education and research platform. A blended teaching reform model was implemented, combining problem-based learning (PBL) and case-based learning (CBL) with structured training in research design, experimental skills, academic writing, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Effectiveness was evaluated by comparing the performance of students in research design, data analysis, scientific writing, and academic communication before and after implementation. Results This reformed teaching model significantly improved the research design ability, academic thinking, and professional competence of students. They demonstrated greater innovation in research topics, deeper engagement with reproductive science literature, stronger data analysis, and more effective academic writing. This curriculum also enhanced experimental–clinical integration and fostered collaboration across reproductive medicine, genetics, embryology, and obstetrics. Conclusions This study developed a discipline-specific framework for postgraduate education in reproductive medicine that integrates research thinking, hands-on experimentation, and academic communication. This model effectively enhances both scientific and clinical competency and offers a replicable pathway for advancing postgraduate medical education in reproductive health. Reproductive medicine Postgraduate medical education Curriculum reform Research capacity Scholarly thinking Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Background Reproductive disorders have become pressing global public health challenges, with declining fertility rates and increasing birth defect prevalence posing long-term demographic and social implications [1]. In China, reproductive health has been recognized as a national priority under the “Healthy China” strategy, which emphasizes fertility protection, genetic disease prevention, and population optimization [2–4]. Within this context, reproductive medicine has emerged as a rapidly evolving interdisciplinary field that bridges clinical and experimental domains by integrating internal medicine, surgery, molecular research, genetics, embryology, and modern biotechnology to address complex issues such as gametogenesis, fertilization, embryonic development, and assisted reproductive technologies (ART). In contrast, traditional medical subspecialties such as nephrology or neurology are characterized by a more narrowly defined organ-specific focus. Given the unique disciplinary characteristics of reproductive medicine, postgraduate training in this field requires a distinctive integration of theoretical depth and practical research competence. Beyond mastering the physiological and pathological foundations of human reproduction, trainees are expected to design rigorous experimental and clinical studies, integrate molecular, genetic, and endocrine perspectives, and apply quantitative analytical tools to solve complex reproductive problems [5, 6]. Developing academic thinking in this field entails the ability to formulate meaningful research questions grounded in reproductive pathophysiology, construct hypothesis-driven experimental designs, interpret multidimensional biological data, and communicate research outcomes effectively in international scientific contexts [7, 8]. However, current reproductive medicine postgraduate education remains fragmented and theoretically disconnected. Training often focuses narrowly on male and female reproductive systems, without adequately linking knowledge from genetics, molecular biology, developmental biology, and bioinformatics. As a result, the capacity to investigate mechanisms underlying infertility, reproductive aging, and hereditary reproductive disorders remains underdeveloped. Many students still rely on imitative research design rather than independent hypothesis formulation, and their proficiency in experimental techniques, data analysis, and scientific writing is limited [9]. Furthermore, insufficient interdisciplinary collaboration between laboratory and clinical departments constrains innovation and translational outcomes in reproductive medicine research [10, 11]. To address these challenges, we implemented a comprehensive, discipline-specific teaching reform aimed at strengthening the academic thinking and research capacity of reproductive medicine postgraduates. Building upon the educational and research platform of West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, the reform integrates problem-based learning (PBL) and case-based learning (CBL) with structured training in research design, experimental practice, data analysis, academic writing, and interdisciplinary collaboration [12, 13]. This restructured curriculum emphasizes the integration of laboratory and clinical perspectives to cultivate postgraduates capable of independent innovation, critical reasoning, and international academic communication. This present study evaluates the effectiveness of this reform and provides empirical evidence and a scalable framework for advancing postgraduate education in reproductive medicine. Methods Study design and overall framework This study adopted a mixed-methods educational research design combining quantitative evaluation and qualitative exploration to assess the effectiveness of an academic thinking–oriented teaching reform for postgraduate students in reproductive medicine. This reform was implemented over two academic years (2023–2025) at the Department of Reproductive Medicine, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University. This project aimed to construct, apply, and evaluate an integrated curriculum model emphasizing scientific reasoning, critical inquiry, and research competence. This study employed a pre-intervention and post-intervention comparative design. Baseline data were collected from students enrolled in the 2022 academic cohort, representing the traditional teaching model, while post-reform data were obtained from cohorts trained under the restructured curriculum. A concurrent qualitative study was conducted through focus group discussions and faculty interviews to capture experiential and perceptual dimensions of the reform. Participants and recruitment Participants included full-time postgraduate students (master’s and doctoral levels) specializing in reproductive medicine and related disciplines, including maternal and child health, stress biology, obstetrics and gynecology, and pediatrics. A total of 74 students were included in the baseline cohort and 81 in the post-reform cohort. Eligibility criteria included enrollment in at least one of the core reproductive medicine courses, participation in at least one research project, and willingness to complete both pre- and post-training assessments. Students with incomplete participation or missing evaluation data were excluded from the final analysis. Additionally, 16 faculty members were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews, representing diverse teaching roles in laboratory sciences, clinical practice, and medical education. Structure of the reformed curriculum This restructured curriculum was designed around three interconnected modules— Scientific Thinking Development , Research Design and Data Analysis , and Academic Communication and Scholarly Practice . Each module integrated classroom instruction, problem-based learning (PBL), case discussions, and research mentorship. Firstly, the Scientific Thinking Development focused on nurturing the capacity to identify research problems, formulate hypotheses, and employ logical reasoning. Weekly “inquiry workshops” required students to analyze real reproductive medicine cases, propose mechanistic questions, and discuss possible experimental strategies under faculty guidance. Next, the Research Design and Data Analysis introduced advanced methods of experimental design, data interpretation, and bioinformatics tools relevant to reproductive medicine. Training included practical sessions on SPSS, R, and GraphPad Prism, emphasizing statistical validity and reproducibility. Students worked with authentic datasets from laboratory and clinical research projects. Finally, the Academic Communication and Scholarly Practice aimed to enhance English academic writing, literature synthesis, and oral presentation skills. Students practiced preparing abstracts, manuscripts, and posters aligned with international journal standards. Peer review and formative feedback were embedded throughout the semester. Implementation process This reform was implemented through a stepwise and iterative process. During the first semester, course content was reorganized around research-driven learning objectives. Faculty received professional development workshops on innovative pedagogy, including flipped classrooms and competency-based assessment. In the second semester, students engaged in interdisciplinary projects that linked laboratory experiments with clinical applications, supervised jointly by mentors from basic and clinical departments. Throughout the reform period, periodic teaching evaluations and reflective meetings ensured continuous improvement of teaching quality. To ensure consistency, all teaching sessions were documented and reviewed by the educational committee of the project. Feedback from both students and faculty was integrated after each term to refine teaching activities and evaluation rubrics. Evaluation framework To comprehensively evaluate the outcomes, this research adopted the Kirkpatrick Four-Level Model of Educational Evaluation [14], encompassing reaction, learning, behavior, and results. At the reaction level, student satisfaction and perceived learning experiences were evaluated using standardized questionnaires and anonymous feedback forms. The learning level assessed knowledge and skill acquisition through pre- and post-course tests, written assignments, and performance in practical research tasks. The behavior level examined changes in academic engagement, including improvements in research design, participation in interdisciplinary projects, and involvement in manuscript preparation. Finally, the results level focused on long-term academic outcomes, such as publication records, conference presentations, and research awards, to gauge the sustained impact of the reformed teaching model on scholarly productivity. Quantitative assessment tools Several validated instruments were employed to quantitatively evaluate the educational impact of the reformed curriculum. Research Design Competency Scale (RDCS) [15] Using the Postgraduate Research Innovation Ability Scale [15] developed for Chinese postgraduate education evaluates the capacity of students to generate hypotheses, construct experimental designs, and select appropriate analytical methods relevant to reproductive medicine research. The RDCS consists of 11 items across three dimensions: (1) creativity-relevant processes, which assess the ability to identify research gaps and formulate innovative questions; (2) domain-relevant skills, which measure proficiency in experimental design, methodological selection, and variable control; and (3) intrinsic motivation, which evaluates scientific curiosity and sustained engagement in research. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater competence in research design. The original instrument demonstrated good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.89). For the present study, total scores were converted to a standardized 100-point scale for comparative analysis. Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CTDI) [16] Critical and analytical thinking dispositions were evaluated using the Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory for Chinese Medical College Students (CTDI-M), developed and validated by Luo et al. (2016) [16]. This instrument contains 18 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), covering three core dimensions: Open-mindedness, Truth Seeking, and Systematicity/Analyticity. Total scores range from 18 to 90, with higher values representing stronger critical thinking disposition. The reported internal consistency of the CTDI-M was Cronbach’s α = 0.924. Scientific Writing Rubric (Supplementary file 1) To evaluate academic writing competence, the Scientific Writing Rubric was developed by the teaching committee of the Department of Reproductive Medicine. This rubric assesses the quality of written work of students—including research proposals, reports, and manuscripts—across four domains: (1) structure and organization, (2) logical reasoning and argument clarity, (3) integration of evidence and literature, and (4) language accuracy and visual presentation. Each domain is rated on a 5-point scale (1 = poor, 5 = excellent), yielding a total score of 20. Scores were standardized to a 100-point scale for analysis. Higher scores indicate more proficient academic writing performance and alignment with international reproductive medicine publication standards. For interpretative consistency, total scores greater than 16 were defined as “well-organized and concise,” scores between 12 and 16 were considered adequate, and scores below 12 were categorized as needing improvement. Data Analysis Proficiency Test (DAPT) [17] The Postgraduate Data Literacy Evaluation Scale [17] was used to assess the competency in handling, analyzing, and interpreting data in reproductive medicine research among students. The instrument consists of 48 items distributed across six dimensions: (1) data awareness, (2) data collection and evaluation, (3) data organization and management, (4) data processing and analysis, (5) data utilization and archiving, and (6) data ethics. Each item is scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Higher total scores reflect stronger proficiency in data literacy and analytical reasoning. Reported reliability coefficients for the subscales range from 0.814 to 0.924, with an overall Cronbach’s α of 0.959, indicating excellent internal consistency. Scores were standardized to a 100-point scale for comparison. Quantitative data were analyzed using paired t -tests or independent-sample t -tests, depending on the study design. Categorical variables were compared using χ² tests. A p -value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Ethical approval This study was granted by the Ethics Committee of West China Second University Hospital (2024017). Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Data confidentiality and anonymity were maintained throughout. All procedures were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and institutional research ethics guidelines. Statistical analysis Quantitative data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Pre- and post-intervention comparisons used paired t -tests, while comparisons between independent cohorts used independent-sample t -tests. For categorical variables, χ² or Fisher’s exact tests were applied. Correlation analyses explored relationships between research design ability, critical thinking, and publication output. Qualitative coding frequencies were quantified to identify dominant themes across participant groups. Results Improvement in research design ability Following the implementation of the reform-oriented curriculum, the research design ability of reproductive medicine postgraduates improved markedly, particularly in formulating questions grounded in reproductive physiology and infertility pathogenesis. Quantitative assessment using the Research Design Competency Scale (RDCS) revealed a significant enhancement, with the mean score increasing from 62.3 ± 9.1 to 85.4 ± 6.5 ( p < 0.001) (Figure 1). The improvement was reflected in the ability of students to construct hypothesis-driven reproductive research, integrating molecular, cellular, and clinical perspectives. Prior to the reform, experimental proposals often lacked clarity in variable control or failed to consider biological mechanisms such as gametogenesis, embryo implantation, or hormonal regulation. After two semesters of iterative training, over 80% of students could independently articulate scientifically sound objectives, justify methodological choices, and evaluate potential biases. Faculty feedback also noted increased originality in topic selection, with projects shifting from replication of previous work to novel exploration in areas such as oocyte maturation, spermatogenic impairment, and mechanisms of reproductive aging. Enhancement of literature analysis and academic writing Substantial progress was observed in the ability to critically analyze literature and compose scholarly manuscripts related to reproductive medicine among students. The average literature critique score, assessed through structured peer review, rose from 50.2 ± 8.0 to 71.5 ± 7.2 ( p < 0.001) (Figure 2). Students developed greater competence in identifying knowledge gaps across reproductive endocrinology, ART outcomes, and infertility research, as well as in synthesizing evidence from both clinical and laboratory studies. Journal club discussions and guided literature analyses transformed reading habits from passive to critical engagement. Students learned to evaluate study design validity in clinical trials of in vitro fertilization (IVF) or polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) management and to compare mechanistic findings from molecular or animal models of gametogenesis. English academic writing workshops further strengthened their ability to structure manuscripts and describe experimental findings. The proportion of manuscripts rated as “well-organized and concise” in internal reviews increased from 28.3% to 56.8%, while 41% of students completed their first full draft within one semester compared with 19% previously. Strengthening of data analysis and presentation skills This reform emphasized rigorous training in quantitative and statistical analysis tailored to reproductive research. Prior to implementation, few students had experience handling complex datasets such as hormonal profiles, embryo development metrics, or genetic sequencing results. Post-reform, data analytical competency significantly improved: approximately 68% of students achieved independent proficiency in SPSS, and 54% could conduct analysis in R, compared to less than 20% at baseline. Students were trained to select appropriate tests for comparing fertilization rates or hormonal responses, conduct ANOVA and regression modeling for reproductive outcome data, and interpret p-values and confidence intervals in biologically meaningful ways. Performance in data analysis exercises improved from 59.2 ± 10.3 to 84.1 ± 7.5 ( p < 0.001) (Figure 3). Their visual presentation of findings using GraphPad Prism and Adobe Illustrator also improved, producing figures consistent with publication standards in reproductive biology journals, particularly in displaying gene expression and hormonal correlation data. Increased interdisciplinary integration and collaborative learning This reform strongly promoted cross-disciplinary collaboration, aligning reproductive medicine with genetics, endocrinology, bioinformatics, and developmental biology. The number of interdisciplinary joint projects increased from 7 to 21 within two academic years. Students participated in collaborative workshops simulating translational research between clinicians, embryologists, and molecular biologists. Survey data indicated that 82.7% of students believed these experiences deepened their understanding of the translational value of reproductive medicine. For example, in one case-based module, students collaborated with bioinformatics experts to analyze multi-omics datasets of male infertility, identifying potential biomarkers for impaired spermatogenesis. Another group integrated single-cell transcriptomic data with clinical IVF outcomes to explore embryo developmental potential. Such experiences enhanced both research depth and collaborative awareness, preparing students for team-based reproductive research environments. Boost in scholarly productivity and research dissemination Quantitative indicators of scholarly productivity improved significantly, particularly in reproductive medicine–related research output. The mean number of manuscripts prepared or published per student increased from 1.1 to 1.8 within two academic years, a relative growth of 63.6%. In parallel, 38.2% of students presented their work at domestic or international reproductive medicine meetings, compared with 12.1% before the reform. Furthermore, the proportion of students serving as first authors on indexed publications rose from 17.6% to 35.8%, and the mean journal impact factor increased from 3.2 ± 1.6 to 5.1 ± 2.0. These improvements reflect not only increased academic productivity but also a more mature understanding of reproductive medicine as a translational and multidisciplinary field. Positive feedback from students and faculty Analysis of qualitative feedback obtained through anonymous questionnaires and semi-structured interviews revealed strong satisfaction among both students and faculty members. A total of 86.4% of students reported improved logical reasoning, problem-solving, and confidence in research communication specific to reproductive medicine. Faculty members highlighted that the integration of authentic clinical and experimental cases, ranging from ovulation induction to embryo transfer, greatly enhanced engagement and initiative of students. Moreover, 80.2% of students reported improved confidence in English writing and presentation for reproductive medicine journals and conferences. Faculty respondents observed that the new curriculum cultivated a research-driven academic atmosphere, characterized by critical discussion, mentorship, and teamwork. Students emphasized that formative assessments and constructive feedback throughout the training cycle contributed significantly to their scientific reasoning, laboratory proficiency, and motivation for academic advancement. Discussion This present study provides compelling evidence that a systematic, inquiry-oriented teaching reform can substantially enhance the academic thinking and research capacity of postgraduate students in reproductive medicine. Grounded in constructivist learning theory and research-based pedagogy, the restructured curriculum enhanced the ability of students to conceptualize and design scientifically rigorous reproductive studies, critically interpret data from both laboratory and clinical sources, and communicate research findings in an academically precise manner. Quantitative findings demonstrated consistent gains across all competency domains, while qualitative insights underscored a parallel transformation in confidence, motivation, and engagement of students. Taken together, these outcomes confirmed that fostering academic thinking through an integrated, student-centered curriculum is both feasible and effective in reproductive medicine postgraduate education. These observed improvements in research design and critical analysis align with educational theories emphasizing the role of active inquiry and contextual learning in higher-order cognitive development. Previous studies have shown that traditional didactic instruction often fails to cultivate independent scientific reasoning in complex reproductive medicine fields [18-20]. In contrast, our findings align with evidence from Chen et al. [21] and Yin et al. [22], demonstrating that experiential and problem-based learning substantially enhance analytical thinking in medical postgraduates. Within the context of reproductive medicine, embedding really experimental and clinical cases—such as assisted reproductive technology procedures and genetic diagnosis workflows—enabled students to integrate molecular, cellular, and physiological perspectives when formulating research questions. This linkage between theory and translational application deepened their understanding of reproductive mechanisms and improved their capacity for hypothesis-driven investigation. From a pedagogical standpoint, this study extends current evidence supporting competency-oriented and integrative teaching models in medical postgraduate education [23, 24]. The inclusion of data analysis, biostatistics, and bioinformatics of reform not only improved technical proficiency of students but also elevated their ability to interpret multi-omics datasets, assess embryo development outcomes, and evaluate clinical trial data with scientific rigor [25]. Moreover, by fostering collaboration across genetics, molecular biology, and clinical reproductive medicine, the program mirrored the interdisciplinary nature of contemporary reproductive research. The enhanced ability of students to co-develop translational research proposals and communicate effectively within multidisciplinary teams reflects the global trend toward collaborative, precision-oriented reproductive medicine [26]. Faculty feedback further indicated that the reform fostered a shift from instructor-centered delivery toward a culture of interactive mentorship and reflective learning, thereby enhancing the academic ecosystem of the institution. Nevertheless, several limitations should be acknowledged. This study was conducted within a single institution, and thus the generalizability of findings to other academic or cultural contexts may be limited [27, 28]. Institutional resources and faculty expertise could influence implementation outcomes. In addition, although mixed-methods evaluation provided comprehensive insight, the qualitative data relied on self-reported measures, which may introduce subjective bias [29]. Long-term tracking of research productivity, publication impact, and contribution to clinical reproductive research among graduates would yield stronger evidence of sustained benefits [8]. Finally, while improvements in academic thinking were clearly demonstrated, future studies should explore whether these competencies translate into independent grant acquisition, laboratory leadership, or innovations in reproductive technologies [30]. In the broader context of global medical education reform, these findings have important implications [8]. As reproductive medicine rapidly advances with technologies such as CRISPR-based gene editing, single-cell sequencing, preimplantation genetic testing, and AI-assisted embryo selection, postgraduate training must evolve to prepare students for research at this scientific frontier [12, 13]. The demonstrated success of this program suggests that systematic academic thinking training can equip reproductive medicine postgraduates with the integrative, analytical, and ethical competencies required to drive innovation in reproductive health and fertility preservation. Furthermore, the integration of English academic writing and presentation practice supports the development of globally competent scholars, aligning with the internationalization goals of higher medical education. Conclusion This study establishes an evidence-based, discipline-specific educational framework for cultivating academic thinking and research competence among reproductive medicine postgraduates. Through its multidimensional structure that combines inquiry-driven learning, interdisciplinary mentorship, and systematic skill development, this reform effectively bridged the gap between theoretical instruction and practical research application in key areas including gametogenesis, embryonic development, and assisted reproduction. The demonstrated improvements in research design, data interpretation, and scholarly productivity highlight the potential of this model to train reflective, innovative, and globally competitive reproductive scientists. Continued refinement and dissemination of this framework may contribute to elevating postgraduate education standards and advancing both reproductive medicine research and clinical excellence in China and worldwide. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was granted by the Ethics Committee of West China Second University Hospital (2024017). The survey contents and analysis protocol satisfied the relevant guidelines. All participants within the study approved the written informed consent and were maintained for their privacy. Clinical trial number Not applicable. Consent for publication Not applicable. Data availability The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Funding This work was supported by the Teaching Reform Project of Higher Education at Sichuan University (Grant No. SCU11346). Authors’ contributions Y.S. designed and supervised the study experiments. Y.T., X.T., and G.S. performed the study, analyzed the data, and prepared the figures. Y.T. and X.W. wrote the first article draft. Y.S. reviewed the final manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision and approved the submitted version. Acknowledgements We are grateful to all participants within the study, and the reviewers and editors who provided value suggestions, which contributed to the completion of the paper. References Addressing Social and Structural Determinants of Health in the Delivery of Reproductive Health Care: ACOG Committee Statement No. 11. Obstet Gynecol 2024, 144: e113-e120. Kong F, Wang Y, Li R, Qiao J: Assisted reproductive technology in China: introduction to the special issue. Hum Reprod 2023, 38: ii1-ii2. Gao C, Xu J, Liu Y, Yang Y: Nutrition Policy and Healthy China 2030 Building. Eur J Clin Nutr 2021, 75: 238-246. Liang Y, Huang J, Zhao Q, Mo H, Su Z, Feng S, Li S, Ruan X: Global, regional, and national prevalence and trends of infertility among individuals of reproductive age (15-49 years) from 1990 to 2021, with projections to 2040. Hum Reprod 2025, 40: 529-544. Ten Cate O: Competency-Based Postgraduate Medical Education: Past, Present and Future. GMS J Med Educ 2017, 34: Doc69. Liu F, Qu S, Fan Y, Chen F, He B: Scientific creativity and innovation ability and its determinants among medical postgraduate students in Fujian province of China: a cross sectional study. BMC Med Educ 2023, 23: 444. O'Flaherty J, Costabile M: Using a science simulation-based learning tool to develop students' active learning, self-confidence and critical thinking in academic writing. Nurse Educ Pract 2020, 47: 102839. Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, Evans T, Fineberg H, Garcia P, Ke Y, Kelley P, et al: Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet 2010, 376: 1923-1958. Gao L, Lu Q, Hou X, Ou J, Wang M: Effectiveness of a nursing innovation workshop at enhancing nurses' innovation abilities: A quasi-experimental study. Nurs Open 2022, 9: 418-427. Specht A, Crowston K: Interdisciplinary collaboration from diverse science teams can produce significant outcomes. PLoS One 2022, 17: e0278043. Iqbal S, Willis I, T HA, Aldahmash A, Rastam S: Outcome-based education: evaluation, implementation and faculty development. MedEdPublish (2016) 2020, 9: 121. Doudna JA, Charpentier E: Genome editing. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science 2014, 346: 1258096. Chen G, Ning B, Shi T: Single-Cell RNA-Seq Technologies and Related Computational Data Analysis. Front Genet 2019, 10: 317. Johnston S, Coyer FM, Nash R: Kirkpatrick's Evaluation of Simulation and Debriefing in Health Care Education: A Systematic Review. J Nurs Educ 2018, 57: 393-398. Xu JB, Tian M, Wang J, Lin GB, Lei QL, Lin XH, Jiang Q: Construction and Validation of the Postgraduate Research Innovation Ability Scale (PRIAS): A Three-Dimensional Structural Model Based on Componential Theory of Creativity. Psychol Res Behav Manag 2023, 16: 2425-2436. Wang X, Sun X, Huang T, He R, Hao W, Zhang L: Development and validation of the critical thinking disposition inventory for Chinese medical college students (CTDI-M). BMC Med Educ 2019, 19: 200. Li M: Construction and application of the Postgraduate Data Literacy Evaluation Scale. Master’s thesis. Jiangsu University, 2017. Kantrowitz B: The science of learning. Sci Am 2014, 311: 68-73. Koedinger KR, Corbett AT, Perfetti C: The knowledge-learning-instruction framework: bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cogn Sci 2012, 36: 757-798. Coil D, Wenderoth MP, Cunningham M, Dirks C: Teaching the process of science: faculty perceptions and an effective methodology. CBE Life Sci Educ 2010, 9: 524-535. Chen S: Exploration on the reform of the postgraduate course Reproductive Biology and Medicine. Advances in Education 2024, 14(2):1447–1452. Yin NL, Liu XR, Xu HB: Exploration of postgraduate teaching models in reproductive medicine in the new era. Modern Medical and Health 2021, 37:2842–2844. Şenyuva E, Görügen Ü, Yalniz N: The Opinions of Graduates, Nurse Educators and Nurses on the Competencies Gained by Graduate Education in Nursing: A Qualitative Study. Nurs Health Sci 2025, 27: e70232. Ras T, Daitz E, Jenkins LS, van Rendsburg JJ, Muller M, Singaram V, Cooke R, Adam S, Mawela D, Botha G, et al: Workplace-based assessment in South African postgraduate medical training: A baseline survey. J Coll Med S Afr 2024, 2: 88. AlOmar RS, AlShamlan NA: Profiling learning approaches among Saudi postgraduate medical trainees: advancing education in the Vision 2030 era. Front Med (Lausanne) 2025, 12: 1654690. Dinis-Oliveira RJ: Forensic science or sciences? The recognition as an independent science and redefinition of expert practices based on transdisciplinary. Forensic Sci Res 2025, 10: owaf012. Ilic D, Maloney S: Methods of teaching medical trainees evidence-based medicine: a systematic review. Med Educ 2014, 48: 124-135. Gruppen LD, Irby DM, Durning SJ, Maggio LA: Conceptualizing Learning Environments in the Health Professions. Acad Med 2019, 94: 969-974. Palinkas LA, Aarons GA, Horwitz S, Chamberlain P, Hurlburt M, Landsverk J: Mixed method designs in implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health 2011, 38: 44-53. Lieff SJ, Baker L, Poost-Foroosh L, Castellani B, Hafferty FW, Ng SL: Exploring the Networking of Academic Health Science Leaders: How and Why Do They Do It? Acad Med 2020, 95: 1570-1577. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Supplementaryfile1.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers invited by journal 01 Dec, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 26 Nov, 2025 Editor invited by journal 03 Nov, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 03 Nov, 2025 First submitted to journal 03 Nov, 2025 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-7855498","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":553567740,"identity":"b720b230-9108-42ec-8b5e-8d41dd7d7ca1","order_by":0,"name":"Yunchuan Tian","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Disease of Women and Children of MOE, West China Second University Hospital","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yunchuan","middleName":"","lastName":"Tian","suffix":""},{"id":553567742,"identity":"03c28581-c067-4cf1-b8cf-da4229722d17","order_by":1,"name":"Xiang Wang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Disease of Women and Children of MOE, West China Second University Hospital","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xiang","middleName":"","lastName":"Wang","suffix":""},{"id":553567744,"identity":"3153c5ed-574f-43af-980b-95aa5d95f61b","order_by":2,"name":"Xinyao Tang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Disease of Women and Children of MOE, West China Second University Hospital","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xinyao","middleName":"","lastName":"Tang","suffix":""},{"id":553567749,"identity":"d92e9f4f-a107-4798-8c1f-63ae339cb337","order_by":3,"name":"Gan Shen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Disease of Women and Children of MOE, West China Second University Hospital","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gan","middleName":"","lastName":"Shen","suffix":""},{"id":553567750,"identity":"dd46190d-21c3-42a0-be35-21d8e75c6a79","order_by":4,"name":"Ying Shen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Disease of Women and Children of MOE, West China Second University Hospital","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ying","middleName":"","lastName":"Shen","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-14 07:38:45","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7855498/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7855498/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":97455107,"identity":"2c5cda46-3c66-4d84-997a-5907665fb2e3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-04 14:19:58","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":80200,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Manuscript.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7855498/v1/6ae91fc5dea8f0a9d32c10df.docx"},{"id":97667922,"identity":"fc77012b-b5c0-4052-bf01-d34549d302a2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:24:29","extension":"tif","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":13282284,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure1.tif","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7855498/v1/f824d4ea805c88ed2d47bd28.tif"},{"id":97455117,"identity":"f1cbd31b-7166-4363-a6ac-8d0433d89873","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-04 14:19:58","extension":"tif","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":13283160,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure2.tif","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7855498/v1/aba8b8b4848bbf4b992bf4b7.tif"},{"id":97667788,"identity":"31f03580-26f1-4564-935b-d37e0c9560f1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:24:16","extension":"tif","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":13282060,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure3.tif","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7855498/v1/e42fdc29e628fe0597fa11a8.tif"},{"id":97455113,"identity":"d33b1a9c-6bf1-4328-88f6-e066682879cf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-04 14:19:58","extension":"json","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":7495,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"a3eebfeb72b842d2a44846f2f33db177.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7855498/v1/1831580c67ca8c483dbbb888.json"},{"id":97455110,"identity":"a3d8c7eb-1cb0-40fd-b925-35f17d8030a2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-04 14:19:58","extension":"docx","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":17931,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplementaryfile1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7855498/v1/0b7432ea0e4fe0a2ef365349.docx"},{"id":97455120,"identity":"a440ea74-ecbb-431e-a57d-4d7b58457226","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-04 14:19:58","extension":"xml","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":64656,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"a3eebfeb72b842d2a44846f2f33db1771enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7855498/v1/1c3cd00a7ee9d71caf7f0878.xml"},{"id":97455123,"identity":"4f61640c-bfb7-4617-a5a5-8cf58d19fd60","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-04 14:19:58","extension":"tif","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":13282284,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure1.tif","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7855498/v1/2d68ab5aace8418e329a0555.tif"},{"id":97455124,"identity":"2338bbea-91c2-44c5-ac70-c7bb98af7983","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-04 14:19:58","extension":"tif","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":13283160,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure2.tif","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7855498/v1/34e832e184db39f230906a42.tif"},{"id":97455125,"identity":"fc2fda85-5d13-46ce-9316-8919e23a5688","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-04 14:19:58","extension":"tif","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":13282060,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure3.tif","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7855498/v1/7b0a08b032c5e2df2f984685.tif"},{"id":97455114,"identity":"0a2bcb7f-3d59-4bc4-b6f3-8b44c1c8200c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-04 14:19:58","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":42566,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFigure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7855498/v1/ec81dfbaa5597dca5de239a4.png"},{"id":97669071,"identity":"4c00b24b-26cc-479b-a2d2-742c2b1c9387","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:27:10","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":47356,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFigure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7855498/v1/dd9cdb47f05ff2bf1edc0f45.png"},{"id":97669373,"identity":"fd9d28fa-889f-4edc-9eb9-01cff0c53e86","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:27:54","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":41403,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFigure3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7855498/v1/f79bb9e2718d8c6c360a2c45.png"},{"id":97668751,"identity":"255ae1ac-5ced-4311-a8e6-7eeab9172df4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:26:15","extension":"xml","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":63616,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"a3eebfeb72b842d2a44846f2f33db1771structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7855498/v1/011582cbb27a2dc3b3e78893.xml"},{"id":97669818,"identity":"dce39f81-77a0-4d1f-bc7f-0e0709bdff5c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:29:00","extension":"html","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":71020,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7855498/v1/4885b454279e8fe1ab1a278f.html"},{"id":97669503,"identity":"5672ad3e-5a0b-4723-a69a-8059f4ad12d8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:28:06","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":137781,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch design competency before and after the educational reform.\u003c/strong\u003eThe research design competency of postgraduate students increased after the educational reform compared with before.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7855498/v1/52e67baa81073915b2723281.png"},{"id":97668607,"identity":"8c1737a2-d497-40e9-84b9-7cc217d71f04","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:25:50","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":148393,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eComparison of literature analysis and academic writing competency before and after the educational reform. \u003c/strong\u003eThe ability of postgraduate students in literature critique and academic writing improved significantly after the educational reform compared with before.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7855498/v1/70545f42aa867942012e6d32.png"},{"id":97669798,"identity":"260d7152-0e47-406f-bf37-1e7a4fff71a2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:28:58","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":130187,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePerformance in data analysis exercises before and after the educational reform. \u003c/strong\u003eThe ability of postgraduate students in data analysis improved significantly after the educational reform compared with before.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7855498/v1/f788acc24a3c255448be86dd.png"},{"id":97893545,"identity":"df7d9143-15ef-4bf6-8904-187407cc11f6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-10 15:30:42","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2397772,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7855498/v1/6a1b7ca9-65d9-4d8d-9a61-cb0b457c7f47.pdf"},{"id":97455111,"identity":"ea507449-0662-47ba-a179-5a01abdc6ab3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-04 14:19:58","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":17931,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplementaryfile1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7855498/v1/10a2ff42f35560acfd208c8d.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Transforming postgraduate education in reproductive medicine: outcomes of a blended teaching reform focused on research thinking and innovation","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eReproductive disorders have become pressing global public health challenges, with declining fertility rates and increasing birth defect prevalence posing long-term demographic and social implications [1]. In China, reproductive health has been recognized as a national priority under the \u0026ldquo;Healthy China\u0026rdquo; strategy, which emphasizes fertility protection, genetic disease prevention, and population optimization [2\u0026ndash;4]. Within this context, reproductive medicine has emerged as a rapidly evolving interdisciplinary field that bridges clinical and experimental domains by integrating internal medicine, surgery, molecular research, genetics, embryology, and modern biotechnology to address complex issues such as gametogenesis, fertilization, embryonic development, and assisted reproductive technologies (ART). In contrast, traditional medical subspecialties such as nephrology or neurology are characterized by a more narrowly defined organ-specific focus.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGiven the unique disciplinary characteristics of reproductive medicine, postgraduate training in this field requires a distinctive integration of theoretical depth and practical research competence. Beyond mastering the physiological and pathological foundations of human reproduction, trainees are expected to design rigorous experimental and clinical studies, integrate molecular, genetic, and endocrine perspectives, and apply quantitative analytical tools to solve complex reproductive problems [5, 6]. Developing academic thinking in this field entails the ability to formulate meaningful research questions grounded in reproductive pathophysiology, construct hypothesis-driven experimental designs, interpret multidimensional biological data, and communicate research outcomes effectively in international scientific contexts [7, 8].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, current reproductive medicine postgraduate education remains fragmented and theoretically disconnected. Training often focuses narrowly on male and female reproductive systems, without adequately linking knowledge from genetics, molecular biology, developmental biology, and bioinformatics. As a result, the capacity to investigate mechanisms underlying infertility, reproductive aging, and hereditary reproductive disorders remains underdeveloped. Many students still rely on imitative research design rather than independent hypothesis formulation, and their proficiency in experimental techniques, data analysis, and scientific writing is limited [9]. Furthermore, insufficient interdisciplinary collaboration between laboratory and clinical departments constrains innovation and translational outcomes in reproductive medicine research [10, 11].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo address these challenges, we implemented a comprehensive, discipline-specific teaching reform aimed at strengthening the academic thinking and research capacity of reproductive medicine postgraduates. Building upon the educational and research platform of West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, the reform integrates problem-based learning (PBL) and case-based learning (CBL) with structured training in research design, experimental practice, data analysis, academic writing, and interdisciplinary collaboration [12, 13]. This restructured curriculum emphasizes the integration of laboratory and clinical perspectives to cultivate postgraduates capable of independent innovation, critical reasoning, and international academic communication. This present study evaluates the effectiveness of this reform and provides empirical evidence and a scalable framework for advancing postgraduate education in reproductive medicine.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy design and overall framework\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study adopted a mixed-methods educational research design combining quantitative evaluation and qualitative exploration to assess the effectiveness of an academic thinking\u0026ndash;oriented teaching reform for postgraduate students in reproductive medicine. This reform was implemented over two academic years (2023\u0026ndash;2025) at the Department of Reproductive Medicine, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University. This project aimed to construct, apply, and evaluate an integrated curriculum model emphasizing scientific reasoning, critical inquiry, and research competence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a pre-intervention and post-intervention comparative design. Baseline data were collected from students enrolled in the 2022 academic cohort, representing the traditional teaching model, while post-reform data were obtained from cohorts trained under the restructured curriculum. A concurrent qualitative study was conducted through focus group discussions and faculty interviews to capture experiential and perceptual dimensions of the reform.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipants and recruitment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants included full-time postgraduate students (master\u0026rsquo;s and doctoral levels) specializing in reproductive medicine and related disciplines, including maternal and child health, stress biology, obstetrics and gynecology, and pediatrics. A total of 74 students were included in the baseline cohort and 81 in the post-reform cohort. Eligibility criteria included enrollment in at least one of the core reproductive medicine courses, participation in at least one research project, and willingness to complete both pre- and post-training assessments. Students with incomplete participation or missing evaluation data were excluded from the final analysis. Additionally, 16 faculty members were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews, representing diverse teaching roles in laboratory sciences, clinical practice, and medical education.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStructure of the reformed curriculum\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis restructured curriculum was designed around three interconnected modules\u0026mdash;\u003cem\u003eScientific Thinking Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eResearch Design and Data Analysis\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eAcademic Communication and Scholarly Practice\u003c/em\u003e. Each module integrated classroom instruction, problem-based learning (PBL), case discussions, and research mentorship. Firstly, the \u003cem\u003eScientific Thinking Development\u003c/em\u003e focused on nurturing the capacity to identify research problems, formulate hypotheses, and employ logical reasoning. Weekly \u0026ldquo;inquiry workshops\u0026rdquo; required students to analyze real reproductive medicine cases, propose mechanistic questions, and discuss possible experimental strategies under faculty guidance. Next, the \u003cem\u003eResearch Design and Data Analysis\u003c/em\u003e introduced advanced methods of experimental design, data interpretation, and bioinformatics tools relevant to reproductive medicine. Training included practical sessions on SPSS, R, and GraphPad Prism, emphasizing statistical validity and reproducibility. Students worked with authentic datasets from laboratory and clinical research projects. Finally, the \u003cem\u003eAcademic Communication and Scholarly Practice\u003c/em\u003e aimed to enhance English academic writing, literature synthesis, and oral presentation skills. Students practiced preparing abstracts, manuscripts, and posters aligned with international journal standards. Peer review and formative feedback were embedded throughout the semester.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImplementation process\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis reform was implemented through a stepwise and iterative process. During the first semester, course content was reorganized around research-driven learning objectives. Faculty received professional development workshops on innovative pedagogy, including flipped classrooms and competency-based assessment. In the second semester, students engaged in interdisciplinary projects that linked laboratory experiments with clinical applications, supervised jointly by mentors from basic and clinical departments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThroughout the reform period, periodic teaching evaluations and reflective meetings ensured continuous improvement of teaching quality. To ensure consistency, all teaching sessions were documented and reviewed by the educational committee of the project. Feedback from both students and faculty was integrated after each term to refine teaching activities and evaluation rubrics.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEvaluation framework\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo comprehensively evaluate the outcomes, this research adopted the \u003cem\u003eKirkpatrick Four-Level Model of Educational Evaluation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e[14], encompassing reaction, learning, behavior, and results. At the reaction level, student satisfaction and perceived learning experiences were evaluated using standardized questionnaires and anonymous feedback forms. The learning level assessed knowledge and skill acquisition through pre- and post-course tests, written assignments, and performance in practical research tasks. The behavior level examined changes in academic engagement, including improvements in research design, participation in interdisciplinary projects, and involvement in manuscript preparation. Finally, the results level focused on long-term academic outcomes, such as publication records, conference presentations, and research awards, to gauge the sustained impact of the reformed teaching model on scholarly productivity.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuantitative assessment tools\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeveral validated instruments were employed to quantitatively evaluate the educational impact of the reformed curriculum.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Design Competency Scale (RDCS)\u003c/strong\u003e [15]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUsing the Postgraduate Research Innovation Ability Scale [15] developed for Chinese postgraduate education evaluates the capacity of students to generate hypotheses, construct experimental designs, and select appropriate analytical methods relevant to reproductive medicine research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe RDCS consists of 11 items across three dimensions: (1) creativity-relevant processes, which assess the ability to identify research gaps and formulate innovative questions; (2) domain-relevant skills, which measure proficiency in experimental design, methodological selection, and variable control; and (3) intrinsic motivation, which evaluates scientific curiosity and sustained engagement in research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEach item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater competence in research design. The original instrument demonstrated good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; = 0.89). For the present study, total scores were converted to a standardized 100-point scale for comparative analysis.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCritical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CTDI)\u003c/strong\u003e [16]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCritical and analytical thinking dispositions were evaluated using the Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory for Chinese Medical College Students (CTDI-M), developed and validated by Luo et al. (2016) [16]. This instrument contains 18 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), covering three core dimensions: Open-mindedness, Truth Seeking, and Systematicity/Analyticity. Total scores range from 18 to 90, with higher values representing stronger critical thinking disposition. The reported internal consistency of the CTDI-M was Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; = 0.924.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eScientific Writing Rubric (Supplementary file 1)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo evaluate academic writing competence, the Scientific Writing Rubric was developed by the teaching committee of the Department of Reproductive Medicine. This rubric assesses the quality of written work of students\u0026mdash;including research proposals, reports, and manuscripts\u0026mdash;across four domains: (1) structure and organization, (2) logical reasoning and argument clarity, (3) integration of evidence and literature, and (4) language accuracy and visual presentation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEach domain is rated on a 5-point scale (1 = poor, 5 = excellent), yielding a total score of 20. Scores were standardized to a 100-point scale for analysis. Higher scores indicate more proficient academic writing performance and alignment with international reproductive medicine publication standards. For interpretative consistency, total scores greater than 16 were defined as \u0026ldquo;well-organized and concise,\u0026rdquo; scores between 12 and 16 were considered adequate, and scores below 12 were categorized as needing improvement.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Analysis Proficiency Test (DAPT)\u003c/strong\u003e [17]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Postgraduate Data Literacy Evaluation Scale [17] was used to assess the competency in handling, analyzing, and interpreting data in reproductive medicine research among students. The instrument consists of 48 items distributed across six dimensions: (1) data awareness, (2) data collection and evaluation, (3) data organization and management, (4) data processing and analysis, (5) data utilization and archiving, and (6) data ethics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEach item is scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Higher total scores reflect stronger proficiency in data literacy and analytical reasoning. Reported reliability coefficients for the subscales range from 0.814 to 0.924, with an overall Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; of 0.959, indicating excellent internal consistency. Scores were standardized to a 100-point scale for comparison.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuantitative data were analyzed using paired \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-tests or independent-sample \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-tests, depending on the study design. Categorical variables were compared using \u0026chi;\u0026sup2; tests. A \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value of \u0026lt; 0.05 was considered statistically significant.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was granted by the Ethics Committee of West China Second University Hospital (2024017). Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Data confidentiality and anonymity were maintained throughout. All procedures were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and institutional research ethics guidelines.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuantitative data were analyzed using \u003cem\u003eIBM SPSS Statistics version 26.0\u003c/em\u003e (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Continuous variables were expressed as mean \u0026plusmn; standard deviation (SD). Pre- and post-intervention comparisons used paired \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-tests, while comparisons between independent cohorts used independent-sample \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-tests. For categorical variables, \u0026chi;\u0026sup2; or Fisher\u0026rsquo;s exact tests were applied. Correlation analyses explored relationships between research design ability, critical thinking, and publication output. Qualitative coding frequencies were quantified to identify dominant themes across participant groups.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImprovement in research design ability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing the implementation of the reform-oriented curriculum, the research design ability of reproductive medicine postgraduates improved markedly, particularly in formulating questions grounded in reproductive physiology and infertility pathogenesis. Quantitative assessment using the \u003cem\u003eResearch Design Competency Scale (RDCS)\u003c/em\u003e revealed a significant enhancement, with the mean score increasing from 62.3 \u0026plusmn; 9.1 to 85.4 \u0026plusmn; 6.5 (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001) (Figure 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe improvement was reflected in the ability of students to construct hypothesis-driven reproductive research, integrating molecular, cellular, and clinical perspectives. Prior to the reform, experimental proposals often lacked clarity in variable control or failed to consider biological mechanisms such as gametogenesis, embryo implantation, or hormonal regulation. After two semesters of iterative training, over 80% of students could independently articulate scientifically sound objectives, justify methodological choices, and evaluate potential biases. Faculty feedback also noted increased originality in topic selection, with projects shifting from replication of previous work to novel exploration in areas such as oocyte maturation, spermatogenic impairment, and mechanisms of reproductive aging.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnhancement of literature analysis and academic writing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSubstantial progress was observed in the ability to critically analyze literature and compose scholarly manuscripts related to reproductive medicine among students. The average literature critique score, assessed through structured peer review, rose from 50.2 \u0026plusmn; 8.0 to 71.5 \u0026plusmn; 7.2 (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001) (Figure 2). Students developed greater competence in identifying knowledge gaps across reproductive endocrinology, ART outcomes, and infertility research, as well as in synthesizing evidence from both clinical and laboratory studies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJournal club discussions and guided literature analyses transformed reading habits from passive to critical engagement. Students learned to evaluate study design validity in clinical trials of in vitro fertilization (IVF) or polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) management and to compare mechanistic findings from molecular or animal models of gametogenesis. English academic writing workshops further strengthened their ability to structure manuscripts and describe experimental findings. The proportion of manuscripts rated as \u0026ldquo;well-organized and concise\u0026rdquo; in internal reviews increased from 28.3% to 56.8%, while 41% of students completed their first full draft within one semester compared with 19% previously.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStrengthening of data analysis and presentation skills\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis reform emphasized rigorous training in quantitative and statistical analysis tailored to reproductive research. Prior to implementation, few students had experience handling complex datasets such as hormonal profiles, embryo development metrics, or genetic sequencing results. Post-reform, data analytical competency significantly improved: approximately 68% of students achieved independent proficiency in SPSS, and 54% could conduct analysis in R, compared to less than 20% at baseline.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudents were trained to select appropriate tests for comparing fertilization rates or hormonal responses, conduct ANOVA and regression modeling for reproductive outcome data, and interpret p-values and confidence intervals in biologically meaningful ways. Performance in data analysis exercises improved from 59.2 \u0026plusmn; 10.3 to 84.1 \u0026plusmn; 7.5 (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001) (Figure 3). Their visual presentation of findings using GraphPad Prism and Adobe Illustrator also improved, producing figures consistent with publication standards in reproductive biology journals, particularly in displaying gene expression and hormonal correlation data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIncreased interdisciplinary integration and collaborative learning\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis reform strongly promoted cross-disciplinary collaboration, aligning reproductive medicine with genetics, endocrinology, bioinformatics, and developmental biology. The number of interdisciplinary joint projects increased from 7 to 21 within two academic years. Students participated in collaborative workshops simulating translational research between clinicians, embryologists, and molecular biologists.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSurvey data indicated that 82.7% of students believed these experiences deepened their understanding of the translational value of reproductive medicine. For example, in one case-based module, students collaborated with bioinformatics experts to analyze multi-omics datasets of male infertility, identifying potential biomarkers for impaired spermatogenesis. Another group integrated single-cell transcriptomic data with clinical IVF outcomes to explore embryo developmental potential. Such experiences enhanced both research depth and collaborative awareness, preparing students for team-based reproductive research environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBoost in scholarly productivity and research dissemination\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuantitative indicators of scholarly productivity improved significantly, particularly in reproductive medicine\u0026ndash;related research output. The mean number of manuscripts prepared or published per student increased from 1.1 to 1.8 within two academic years, a relative growth of 63.6%. In parallel, 38.2% of students presented their work at domestic or international reproductive medicine meetings, compared with 12.1% before the reform.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the proportion of students serving as first authors on indexed publications rose from 17.6% to 35.8%, and the mean journal impact factor increased from 3.2 \u0026plusmn; 1.6 to 5.1 \u0026plusmn; 2.0. These improvements reflect not only increased academic productivity but also a more mature understanding of reproductive medicine as a translational and multidisciplinary field.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePositive feedback from students and faculty\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of qualitative feedback obtained through anonymous questionnaires and semi-structured interviews revealed strong satisfaction among both students and faculty members. A total of 86.4% of students reported improved logical reasoning, problem-solving, and confidence in research communication specific to reproductive medicine. Faculty members highlighted that the integration of authentic clinical and experimental cases, ranging from ovulation induction to embryo transfer, greatly enhanced engagement and initiative of students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, 80.2% of students reported improved confidence in English writing and presentation for reproductive medicine journals and conferences. Faculty respondents observed that the new curriculum cultivated a research-driven academic atmosphere, characterized by critical discussion, mentorship, and teamwork. Students emphasized that formative assessments and constructive feedback throughout the training cycle contributed significantly to their scientific reasoning, laboratory proficiency, and motivation for academic advancement.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis present study provides compelling evidence that a systematic, inquiry-oriented teaching reform can substantially enhance the academic thinking and research capacity of postgraduate students in reproductive medicine. Grounded in constructivist learning theory and research-based pedagogy, the restructured curriculum enhanced the ability of students to conceptualize and design scientifically rigorous reproductive studies, critically interpret data from both laboratory and clinical sources, and communicate research findings in an academically precise manner. Quantitative findings demonstrated consistent gains across all competency domains, while qualitative insights underscored a parallel transformation in confidence, motivation, and engagement of students. Taken together, these outcomes confirmed that fostering academic thinking through an integrated, student-centered curriculum is both feasible and effective in reproductive medicine postgraduate education.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese observed improvements in research design and critical analysis align with educational theories emphasizing the role of active inquiry and contextual learning in higher-order cognitive development. Previous studies have shown that traditional didactic instruction often fails to cultivate independent scientific reasoning in complex reproductive medicine fields [18-20]. In contrast, our findings align with evidence from Chen et al. [21] and Yin et al. [22], demonstrating that experiential and problem-based learning substantially enhance analytical thinking in medical postgraduates. Within the context of reproductive medicine, embedding really experimental and clinical cases\u0026mdash;such as assisted reproductive technology procedures and genetic diagnosis workflows\u0026mdash;enabled students to integrate molecular, cellular, and physiological perspectives when formulating research questions. This linkage between theory and translational application deepened their understanding of reproductive mechanisms and improved their capacity for hypothesis-driven investigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom a pedagogical standpoint, this study extends current evidence supporting competency-oriented and integrative teaching models in medical postgraduate education\u0026nbsp;[23, 24]. The inclusion of data analysis, biostatistics, and bioinformatics of reform not only improved technical proficiency of students but also elevated their ability to interpret multi-omics datasets, assess embryo development outcomes, and evaluate clinical trial data with scientific rigor [25]. Moreover, by fostering collaboration across genetics, molecular biology, and clinical reproductive medicine, the program mirrored the interdisciplinary nature of contemporary reproductive research. The enhanced ability of students to co-develop translational research proposals and communicate effectively within multidisciplinary teams reflects the global trend toward collaborative, precision-oriented reproductive medicine [26]. Faculty feedback further indicated that the reform fostered a shift from instructor-centered delivery toward a culture of interactive mentorship and reflective learning, thereby enhancing the academic ecosystem of the institution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNevertheless, several limitations should be acknowledged. This study was conducted within a single institution, and thus the generalizability of findings to other academic or cultural contexts may be limited [27, 28]. Institutional resources and faculty expertise could influence implementation outcomes. In addition, although mixed-methods evaluation provided comprehensive insight, the qualitative data relied on self-reported measures, which may introduce subjective bias [29]. Long-term tracking of research productivity, publication impact, and contribution to clinical reproductive research among graduates would yield stronger evidence of sustained benefits [8]. Finally, while improvements in academic thinking were clearly demonstrated, future studies should explore whether these competencies translate into independent grant acquisition, laboratory leadership, or innovations in reproductive technologies [30].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the broader context of global medical education reform, these findings have important implications [8]. As reproductive medicine rapidly advances with technologies such as CRISPR-based gene editing, single-cell sequencing, preimplantation genetic testing, and AI-assisted embryo selection, postgraduate training must evolve to prepare students for research at this scientific frontier [12, 13]. The demonstrated success of this program suggests that systematic academic thinking training can equip reproductive medicine postgraduates with the integrative, analytical, and ethical competencies required to drive innovation in reproductive health and fertility preservation. Furthermore, the integration of English academic writing and presentation practice supports the development of globally competent scholars, aligning with the internationalization goals of higher medical education.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study establishes an evidence-based, discipline-specific educational framework for cultivating academic thinking and research competence among reproductive medicine postgraduates. Through its multidimensional structure that combines inquiry-driven learning, interdisciplinary mentorship, and systematic skill development, this reform effectively bridged the gap between theoretical instruction and practical research application in key areas including gametogenesis, embryonic development, and assisted reproduction. The demonstrated improvements in research design, data interpretation, and scholarly productivity highlight the potential of this model to train reflective, innovative, and globally competitive reproductive scientists. Continued refinement and dissemination of this framework may contribute to elevating postgraduate education standards and advancing both reproductive medicine research and clinical excellence in China and worldwide.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was granted by the Ethics Committee of West China Second University Hospital (2024017). The survey contents and analysis protocol satisfied the relevant guidelines. All participants within the study approved the written informed consent and were maintained for their privacy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical trial number\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\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\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare 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 Teaching Reform Project of Higher Education at Sichuan University (Grant No. SCU11346).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eY.S. designed and supervised the study experiments. Y.T., X.T., and G.S. performed the study, analyzed the data, and prepared the figures. Y.T. and X.W. wrote the first article draft. Y.S. reviewed the final manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision and approved the submitted version.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe are grateful to all participants within the study, and the reviewers and editors who provided value suggestions, which contributed to the completion of the paper.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAddressing Social and Structural Determinants of Health in the Delivery of Reproductive Health Care: ACOG Committee Statement No. 11.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eObstet Gynecol \u003c/em\u003e2024, \u003cstrong\u003e144:\u003c/strong\u003ee113-e120.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKong F, Wang Y, Li R, Qiao J: \u003cstrong\u003eAssisted reproductive technology in China: introduction to the special issue.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eHum Reprod \u003c/em\u003e2023, \u003cstrong\u003e38:\u003c/strong\u003eii1-ii2.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGao C, Xu J, Liu Y, Yang Y: \u003cstrong\u003eNutrition Policy and Healthy China 2030 Building.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eEur J Clin Nutr \u003c/em\u003e2021, \u003cstrong\u003e75:\u003c/strong\u003e238-246.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiang Y, Huang J, Zhao Q, Mo H, Su Z, Feng S, Li S, Ruan X: \u003cstrong\u003eGlobal, regional, and national prevalence and trends of infertility among individuals of reproductive age (15-49 years) from 1990 to 2021, with projections to 2040.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eHum Reprod \u003c/em\u003e2025, \u003cstrong\u003e40:\u003c/strong\u003e529-544.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTen Cate O: \u003cstrong\u003eCompetency-Based Postgraduate Medical Education: Past, Present and Future.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eGMS J Med Educ \u003c/em\u003e2017, \u003cstrong\u003e34:\u003c/strong\u003eDoc69.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu F, Qu S, Fan Y, Chen F, He B: \u003cstrong\u003eScientific creativity and innovation ability and its determinants among medical postgraduate students in Fujian province of China: a cross sectional study.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eBMC Med Educ \u003c/em\u003e2023, \u003cstrong\u003e23:\u003c/strong\u003e444.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026apos;Flaherty J, Costabile M: \u003cstrong\u003eUsing a science simulation-based learning tool to develop students\u0026apos; active learning, self-confidence and critical thinking in academic writing.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eNurse Educ Pract \u003c/em\u003e2020, \u003cstrong\u003e47:\u003c/strong\u003e102839.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, Evans T, Fineberg H, Garcia P, Ke Y, Kelley P, et al: \u003cstrong\u003eHealth professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eLancet \u003c/em\u003e2010, \u003cstrong\u003e376:\u003c/strong\u003e1923-1958.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGao L, Lu Q, Hou X, Ou J, Wang M: \u003cstrong\u003eEffectiveness of a nursing innovation workshop at enhancing nurses\u0026apos; innovation abilities: A quasi-experimental study.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eNurs Open \u003c/em\u003e2022, \u003cstrong\u003e9:\u003c/strong\u003e418-427.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpecht A, Crowston K: \u003cstrong\u003eInterdisciplinary collaboration from diverse science teams can produce significant outcomes.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ePLoS One \u003c/em\u003e2022, \u003cstrong\u003e17:\u003c/strong\u003ee0278043.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIqbal S, Willis I, T HA, Aldahmash A, Rastam S: \u003cstrong\u003eOutcome-based education: evaluation, implementation and faculty development.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eMedEdPublish (2016) \u003c/em\u003e2020, \u003cstrong\u003e9:\u003c/strong\u003e121.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDoudna JA, Charpentier E: \u003cstrong\u003eGenome editing. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eScience \u003c/em\u003e2014, \u003cstrong\u003e346:\u003c/strong\u003e1258096.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen G, Ning B, Shi T: \u003cstrong\u003eSingle-Cell RNA-Seq Technologies and Related Computational Data Analysis.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eFront Genet \u003c/em\u003e2019, \u003cstrong\u003e10:\u003c/strong\u003e317.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohnston S, Coyer FM, Nash R: \u003cstrong\u003eKirkpatrick\u0026apos;s Evaluation of Simulation and Debriefing in Health Care Education: A Systematic Review.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eJ Nurs Educ \u003c/em\u003e2018, \u003cstrong\u003e57:\u003c/strong\u003e393-398.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXu JB, Tian M, Wang J, Lin GB, Lei QL, Lin XH, Jiang Q: \u003cstrong\u003eConstruction and Validation of the Postgraduate Research Innovation Ability Scale (PRIAS): A Three-Dimensional Structural Model Based on Componential Theory of Creativity.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ePsychol Res Behav Manag \u003c/em\u003e2023, \u003cstrong\u003e16:\u003c/strong\u003e2425-2436.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang X, Sun X, Huang T, He R, Hao W, Zhang L: \u003cstrong\u003eDevelopment and validation of the critical thinking disposition inventory for Chinese medical college students (CTDI-M).\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eBMC Med Educ \u003c/em\u003e2019, \u003cstrong\u003e19:\u003c/strong\u003e200.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi M: \u003cstrong\u003eConstruction and application of the Postgraduate Data Literacy Evaluation Scale.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eMaster\u0026rsquo;s thesis. Jiangsu University, \u003c/em\u003e2017.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKantrowitz B: \u003cstrong\u003eThe science of learning.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eSci Am \u003c/em\u003e2014, \u003cstrong\u003e311:\u003c/strong\u003e68-73.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKoedinger KR, Corbett AT, Perfetti C: \u003cstrong\u003eThe knowledge-learning-instruction framework: bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eCogn Sci \u003c/em\u003e2012, \u003cstrong\u003e36:\u003c/strong\u003e757-798.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoil D, Wenderoth MP, Cunningham M, Dirks C: \u003cstrong\u003eTeaching the process of science: faculty perceptions and an effective methodology.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eCBE Life Sci Educ \u003c/em\u003e2010, \u003cstrong\u003e9:\u003c/strong\u003e524-535.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen S: \u003cstrong\u003eExploration on the reform of the postgraduate course Reproductive Biology and Medicine.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Education\u003c/em\u003e 2024, 14(2):1447\u0026ndash;1452.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYin NL, Liu XR, Xu HB: \u003cstrong\u003eExploration of postgraduate teaching models in reproductive medicine in the new era.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eModern Medical and Health\u003c/em\u003e 2021, 37:2842\u0026ndash;2844.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eŞenyuva E, G\u0026ouml;r\u0026uuml;gen \u0026Uuml;, Yalniz N: \u003cstrong\u003eThe Opinions of Graduates, Nurse Educators and Nurses on the Competencies Gained by Graduate Education in Nursing: A Qualitative Study.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eNurs Health Sci \u003c/em\u003e2025, \u003cstrong\u003e27:\u003c/strong\u003ee70232.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRas T, Daitz E, Jenkins LS, van Rendsburg JJ, Muller M, Singaram V, Cooke R, Adam S, Mawela D, Botha G, et al: \u003cstrong\u003eWorkplace-based assessment in South African postgraduate medical training: A baseline survey.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eJ Coll Med S Afr \u003c/em\u003e2024, \u003cstrong\u003e2:\u003c/strong\u003e88.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlOmar RS, AlShamlan NA: \u003cstrong\u003eProfiling learning approaches among Saudi postgraduate medical trainees: advancing education in the Vision 2030 era.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eFront Med (Lausanne) \u003c/em\u003e2025, \u003cstrong\u003e12:\u003c/strong\u003e1654690.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDinis-Oliveira RJ: \u003cstrong\u003eForensic science or sciences? The recognition as an independent science and redefinition of expert practices based on transdisciplinary.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eForensic Sci Res \u003c/em\u003e2025, \u003cstrong\u003e10:\u003c/strong\u003eowaf012.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIlic D, Maloney S: \u003cstrong\u003eMethods of teaching medical trainees evidence-based medicine: a systematic review.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eMed Educ \u003c/em\u003e2014, \u003cstrong\u003e48:\u003c/strong\u003e124-135.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGruppen LD, Irby DM, Durning SJ, Maggio LA: \u003cstrong\u003eConceptualizing Learning Environments in the Health Professions.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eAcad Med \u003c/em\u003e2019, \u003cstrong\u003e94:\u003c/strong\u003e969-974.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePalinkas LA, Aarons GA, Horwitz S, Chamberlain P, Hurlburt M, Landsverk J: \u003cstrong\u003eMixed method designs in implementation research.\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eAdm Policy Ment Health \u003c/em\u003e2011, \u003cstrong\u003e38:\u003c/strong\u003e44-53.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLieff SJ, Baker L, Poost-Foroosh L, Castellani B, Hafferty FW, Ng SL: \u003cstrong\u003eExploring the Networking of Academic Health Science Leaders: How and Why Do They Do It?\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eAcad Med \u003c/em\u003e2020, \u003cstrong\u003e95:\u003c/strong\u003e1570-1577.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"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":"bmc-medical-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"meed","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Medical Education](http://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/meed/default.aspx","title":"BMC Medical Education","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Reproductive medicine, Postgraduate medical education, Curriculum reform, Research capacity, Scholarly thinking","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7855498/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7855498/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eReproductive medicine, as an interdisciplinary field bridging basic medicine, clinical medicine, genetics, and biotechnology, places unique demands on postgraduate medicine education. Unlike traditional specialties such as nephrology or neurology, it integrates elements of obstetrics and gynecology, andrology, pediatrics, internal medicine, surgery, and molecular genetics. Postgraduate students must therefore not only acquire theoretical knowledge but also master experimental and clinical skills related to gametogenesis, fertilization, embryonic development, and assisted reproductive technologies (ART). However, current training remains largely theory-heavy, with insufficient emphasis on research design, laboratory practice, and interdisciplinary integration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted at West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, using its reproductive medicine education and research platform. A blended teaching reform model was implemented, combining problem-based learning (PBL) and case-based learning (CBL) with structured training in research design, experimental skills, academic writing, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Effectiveness was evaluated by comparing the performance of students in research design, data analysis, scientific writing, and academic communication before and after implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis reformed teaching model significantly improved the research design ability, academic thinking, and professional competence of students. They demonstrated greater innovation in research topics, deeper engagement with reproductive science literature, stronger data analysis, and more effective academic writing. This curriculum also enhanced experimental\u0026ndash;clinical integration and fostered collaboration across reproductive medicine, genetics, embryology, and obstetrics.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study developed a discipline-specific framework for postgraduate education in reproductive medicine that integrates research thinking, hands-on experimentation, and academic communication. This model effectively enhances both scientific and clinical competency and offers a replicable pathway for advancing postgraduate medical education in reproductive health.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Transforming postgraduate education in reproductive medicine: outcomes of a blended teaching reform focused on research thinking and innovation","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-12-04 14:19:53","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7855498/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-12-01T11:14:21+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-11-26T12:11:25+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-11-03T09:05:43+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-11-03T08:15:15+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Medical Education","date":"2025-11-03T08:07:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-medical-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"meed","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Medical Education](http://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/meed/default.aspx","title":"BMC Medical Education","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"cd1394e7-35f9-4afa-bb23-787b212a51a7","owner":[],"postedDate":"December 4th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-04T14:19:53+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-12-04 14:19:53","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7855498","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7855498","identity":"rs-7855498","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}