医学本科生创新能力培养的改革、机制与成效——以重庆医科大学为例

Reform, Mechanisms and Outcomes of Innovative Capability Cultivation among Medical Undergraduates—A Case Study of Chongqing Medical University

摘要: 在新医科建设与医学教育创新转型持续推进的背景下，地方医科大学亟需将本科生创新能力培养由零散活动转向系统育人。针对学生创新认知不足、课程链条薄弱、导师指导不连续和平台支撑不充分等问题，以重庆医科大学2021~2025年改革实践为案例，基于建构主义、PBL、OBE、体验式学习和实践共同体理论，构建“认知启蒙–课程训练–导师带教–平台支撑–项目转化–评价反馈”的培养体系，并分析其运行机制与实践成效。结果显示，新参与创新项目学生由270人增至701人，指导教师人次由134增至251，立项总数由121项增至181项，学科竞赛获奖总数由15项增至91项。实践表明，体系化改革可通过真实问题情境、持续导师支持、开放实践平台和形成性评价，促进医学生创新意识、科研素养、问题解决能力和学术共同体身份的发展。鉴于现有证据仍以年度统计和过程性材料为主，后续需通过量表追踪、访谈、学习档案和作品评价等混合研究方法进一步检验学生能力变化，并完善导师激励、资源统筹和质量评价机制。

Abstract: Against the background of ongoing reform in new medical education and the growing emphasis on innovation-oriented medical training, local medical universities need to transform undergraduate innovation training from fragmented activities into a systematic educational model. In response to insufficient innovation awareness, weak curriculum continuity, discontinuous mentorship, and inadequate platform support, this study takes the reform practice of Chongqing Medical University from 2021 to 2025 as a case study. Guided by constructivist learning theory, problem-based learning, outcome-based education, experiential learning, and communities of practice, a cultivation system featuring “innovation awareness, curriculum training, mentorship, platform support, project transformation, and evaluation feedback” was established, and its operating mechanisms and practical outcomes were analyzed. The results showed that the number of newly participating students increased from 270 to 701, the number of supervising faculty members rose from 134 to 251, the total number of approved projects increased from 121 to 181, and the total number of discipline competition awards rose from 15 to 91. The practice indicates that systematic reform can promote medical students’ innovative awareness, research literacy, problem-solving ability, and academic community identity through authentic problem contexts, continuous mentorship, open practice platforms, and formative evaluation. Because the current evidence is mainly based on annual statistics and process materials, future studies should use mixed methods, including longitudinal scales, interviews, learning portfolios, and artifact assessment, to evaluate capability development more directly.