“递进式”开放实验室在医学生创新训练中的作用的调查与分析

Investigation and Analysis of the Role of “Progressive” Open Laboratories in Medical Students’ Innovation Training

摘要: 目的：调查学生对“递进式”开放实验室的认知情况以及“递进式”开放实验室在医学生创新训练中的作用。方法：通过使用问卷星平台对2019级至2022级医学相关专业学生进行了有关“递进式”开放实验室项目的认知情况和其在开展创新训练项目中的作用的调查。结果：有92.9% (443/477)的学生所在的院系设有面向本科生的开放实验室，但只有33.3% (159/477)的学生认为自己了解“递进式”开放实验室，而有28.1% (134/477)的学生所在的实验室属于“递进式”开放实验室。认为“递进式”开放实验室对提升医学生的“科研兴趣”、“系统了解科研过程”、“培养科研思维”、“掌握实验技术”、“更好利用课余时间”、“提高团队协作精神”、“增加同学间的交流”、提高“分析解决问题能力”等方面有帮助的学生分别占96.3% (129/134)、97.8% (131/134)、94% (126/134)、88.8% (119/134)、95.5% (128/134)、83.6% (112/134)、94.8% (127/134)、95.5% (128/134)；认为其他实验室对上述各项有帮助的学生比例分别为：84.8% (291/343)、77% (264/343)、65.3% (224/343)、69.1% (237/343)、57.7% (198/343)、46.1% (158/343)、34.7% (119/343)、34.7% (119/343)；在“递进式”开放实验室中，有68.7%(92/134)的项目能够按时结题，有32.1% (43/134)的被调查学生发表了论文，此外有11.9% (16/134)被调查学生依托创新训练项目获得过各种奖励，在其他实验室中对应类别数据分别为：33.8% (116/343)、19.8% (68/343)、8.2% (28/343)。结论：学生对“递进式”开放实验室的了解还不够，有必要加强宣传和推广；在“递进式”开放实验室中开展的创新训练项目效果更好，取得的项目成果(发表论文、获得奖励等)更多。

Abstract: Objective: To investigate students’ awareness of “progressive” open laboratories and the role of these laboratories in medical students’ innovation training. Methods: A survey was conducted among medical students from the classes of 2019 to 2022 using the Wenjuanxing platform to gather information on their awareness of the “progressive” open laboratory project and its role in carrying out innovation training projects. Results: 92.9% (443/477) of the students were from departments with open laboratories available to undergraduates, but only 33.3% (159/477) claimed to understand what a “progressive” open laboratory is, and 28.1% (134/477) were in laboratories that are “progressive” open laboratories. Students who believed that “progressive” open laboratories helped enhance their “research interest,” “systematic understanding of the research process,” “development of research thinking,” “mastery of experimental techniques,” “better utilization of spare time,” “improvement of teamwork spirit,” “increased peer interaction,” and “ability to analyze and solve problems” accounted for 96.3% (129/134), 97.8% (131/134), 94% (126/134), 88.8% (119/134), 95.5% (128/134), 83.6% (112/134), 94.8% (127/134), and 95.5% (128/134) respectively; the corresponding percentages for other laboratories were 84.8% (291/343), 77% (264/343), 65.3% (224/343), 69.1% (237/343), 57.7% (198/343), 46.1% (158/343), 34.7% (119/343), and 34.7% (119/343) respectively. In “progressive” open laboratories, 68.7% (92/134) of the projects were completed on time, 32.1% (43/134) of the surveyed students published papers, and 11.9% (16/134) received various awards based on innovation training projects, compared to 33.8% (116/343), 19.8% (68/343), and 8.2% (28/343) in other laboratories for the same categories. Conclusion: Students’ understanding of “progressive” open laboratories is still insufficient, highlighting the need for stronger promotion and publicity; innovation training projects carried out in “progressive” open laboratories yield better results and more achievements (such as publishing papers and receiving awards).