人工智能赋能物理治疗学课程教学改革的效果评价——基于学生成绩的实证分析
Effect Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence Empowering Physical Therapy Course Teaching Reform—An Empirical Analysis Based on Student Grades
摘要: 目的:探讨人工智能(Artificial Intelligence, AI)赋能教学模式在物理治疗学课程中的应用效果。方法:选取某高校康复治疗学专业学生为研究对象,将2024~2025学年采用传统教学的学生(n = 162)作为对照组,2025~2026学年实施AI赋能教学的学生(n = 180)作为实验组。比较两组学生平时成绩、期末成绩及总评成绩,采用独立样本t检验进行统计分析,并计算Cohen’s d效应量。结果:实验组在平时成绩(t = 7.78, P < 0.01, d = 0.75)、期末成绩(t = 2.55, P = 0.011, d = 0.28)及总评成绩(t = 3.95, P < 0.01, d = 0.43)均高于对照组,差异具有统计学意义。效应量分析显示,平时成绩提升幅度最大,达到中等偏大效应。结论:AI赋能教学模式能够显著提升物理治疗学课程的教学效果,尤其在促进学生过程性学习方面优势更为突出,对优化教学模式和提高人才培养质量具有积极意义。
Abstract: Objective: To explore the effectiveness of an artificial intelligence (AI)-empowered teaching model in the course of Physical Therapy. Methods: Students majoring in Rehabilitation Therapy from a university were selected as participants. Five classes from the 2024~2025 academic year using traditional teaching (n = 162) were assigned as the control group, while five classes from the 2025~2026 academic year adopting an AI-empowered teaching model (n = 180) were assigned as the experimental group. Usual performance, final examination scores, and overall scores were compared between the two groups. Independent samples t-tests were conducted, and Cohen’s d was calculated to assess effect sizes. Results: The experimental group scored significantly higher than the control group in usual performance (t = 7.78, P < 0.01, d = 0.75), final examination (t = 2.55, P = 0.011, d = 0.28), and overall scores (t = 3.95, P < 0.01, d = 0.43). Effect size analysis indicated that the largest improvement was observed in usual performance, reaching a medium-to-large effect. Conclusion: The AI-empowered teaching model can significantly enhance learning outcomes in the Physical Therapy course, with a more pronounced impact on formative learning processes. It provides valuable support for optimizing teaching models and improving the quality of talent cultivation.
文章引用:王苏蒙. 人工智能赋能物理治疗学课程教学改革的效果评价——基于学生成绩的实证分析[J]. 教育进展, 2026, 16(6): 741-748. https://doi.org/10.12677/ae.2026.1661187

参考文献

[1] Prince, M. (2004) Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223-231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[2] Hmelo-Silver, C.E. (2004) Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235-266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[3] Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998) Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5, 7-74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[4] Siemens, G. and Baker, R. (2013) Learning Analytics and Educational Data Mining: Towards Communication and Collaboration. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, Vancouver, 29 April-2 May 2012, 252-254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[5] Masters, K. (2019) Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education. Medical Teacher, 41, 976-980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[6] McCoy, L.G., Nagaraj, S., Morgado, F., Harish, V., Das, S. and Celi, L.A. (2020) What Do Medical Students Actually Need to Know about Artificial Intelligence? npj Digital Medicine, 3, Article No. 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[7] Frank, J.R., Snell, L.S., Cate, O.T., Holmboe, E.S., Carraccio, C., Swing, S.R., et al. (2010) Competency-Based Medical Education: Theory to Practice. Medical Teacher, 32, 638-645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[8] Cook, D.A., Hatala, R., Brydges, R., Zendejas, B., Szostek, J.H., Wang, A.T., et al. (2011) Technology-enhanced Simulation for Health Professions Education. JAMA, 306, 978-988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[9] Chin, C. (2006) Classroom Interaction in Science: Teacher Questioning and Feedback to Students’ Responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1315-1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef