| Literature DB >> 35721094 |
Yuxuan Liao1,2, Hu Zhou2, Fang Wang3, Mingyi Zhao4, Jianzhen Wu1, Pengfei Rong5.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the effect and influence of the undergraduate tutor system on the undergraduate stage of Chinese 8-year medical program students in scientific research.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese 8-year medical students; questionnaire survey; scientific research ability; undergraduate research; undergraduate tutor system
Year: 2022 PMID: 35721094 PMCID: PMC9198716 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.854132
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) ISSN: 2296-858X
Demographic characteristics and basic information of the involved students and their tutors.
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Male | 30 (46.9%) | 34 (47.2%) | 27 (46.6%) | 0.997 |
| Female | 34 (53.1%) | 38 (52.8%) | 31 (53.4%) | |
|
| ||||
| Yes | 39 (60.9%) | 49 (68.1%) | 36 (62.1%) | 0.648 |
| No | 25 (39.1%) | 23 (31.9%) | 22 (37.9%) | |
|
| ||||
| Affiliated hospitals of Central South University | 47 (74.6%) | 60 (63.2%) | – | 0.321 |
| School of Basic Medicine | 15 (23.8%) | 33 (34.7%) | – | |
| School of Public Health | 1 (1.6%) | 2 (2.1%) | – | |
|
| ||||
| Master's supervisor | 16 (25.0%) | 23 (31.9%) | – | 0.670 |
| Doctoral supervisor | 43 (67.2%) | 44 (61.1%) | – | |
| None | 5 (7.8%) | 5 (6.9%) | – | |
|
| ||||
| More than once a week | 11 (17.2%) | 8 (11.1%) | – | 0.167 |
| Once a week | 11 (17.2%) | 13 (18.1%) | – | |
| Less than once a week | 29 (45.3%) | 44 (61.1%) | – | |
| Basically none | 13 (20.3%) | 7 (9.7%) | – | |
|
| ||||
| Personally guide | 21 (32.8%) | 26 (36.1%) | – | 0.080 |
| Send other teachers to guide | 2 (3.1%) | 8 (11.1%) | – | |
| Send elder students to guide | 14 (21.9%) | 22 (30.6%) | – | |
| Someone else to guide with regular care | 16 (25.0%) | 10 (13.9%) | – | |
| No effective method | 11 (17.2%) | 6 (8.3%) | – | |
The chi-square test was applied for comparing the basic characteristics of the groups.
Variable assignment for ordinal and multinomial-logistic regression analysis of influential factors of different subjective influence of different tutor systems.
|
|
|
|---|---|
|
| |
| View on scientific research after the guidance of the tutor | Completely negative = 1 |
| Kind of negative = 2 | |
| No change = 3 | |
| Kind of positive = 4 | |
| Extremely positive = 5 | |
| Daily mood after the guidance of the tutor | Completely negative = 1 |
| Kind of negative = 2 | |
| No change = 3 | |
| Kind of positive = 4 | |
| Extremely positive = 5 | |
| Vocational development planning after the guidance of the tutor | Completely unclear = 1 |
| Kind of unclear = 2 | |
| No change = 3 | |
| Kind of clear = 4 | |
| Extremely clear = 5 | |
|
| |
| The type of tutorial system | Single tutor for multiple students = 1 |
| Multiple tutors for multiple students = 2 | |
| The highest professional title of tutor(s) | Master supervisor = 1 |
| Doctoral supervisor = 2 | |
| No title = 3 | |
| The frequency of guidance | More than once a week = 1 |
| Once a week = 2 | |
| Less than once a week = 3 | |
| Hardly = 4 | |
| The way of guidance | Tutor's personal guidance = 1 |
| Assigning tutors from other teams = 2 | |
| Assigning elder students of the tutor for guidance = 3 | |
| Assigning others to guide but supervising periodically = 4 | |
| No effective method = 5 | |
Group A (n1 = 64) and group B (n2 = 72) were included.
Multiple ordinal logistic regression analysis of influential factors of view on scientific research after the guidance of the tutor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Single tutor for multiple students = 1 | −0.739 |
| 0.342 | 4.661 | 0.477 | 0.244–0.934 |
| Multiple tutors for multiple students = 2 | 0a | |||||
|
| ||||||
| Master supervisor = 1 | −1.047 | 0.203 | 0.822 | 1.620 | 0.351 | 0.07–1.759 |
| Doctoral supervisor = 2 | −0.849 | 0.277 | 0.781 | 1.181 | 0.428 | 0.093–1.978 |
| No title = 3 | 0a | |||||
|
| ||||||
| More than once a week = 1 | −0.175 | 0.823 | 0.783 | 0.050 | 0.840 | 0.181–3.895 |
| Once a week = 2 | 0.131 | 0.860 | 0.747 | 0.031 | 1.140 | 0.264–4.927 |
| Less than once a week = 3 | −1.331 |
| 0.658 | 4.094 | 0.264 | 0.073–0.959 |
| Hardly = 4 | 0a | |||||
|
| ||||||
| Tutor's personal guidance = 1 | 1.686 |
| 0.754 | 5.004 | 5.397 | 1.232–23.644 |
| Assigning tutors from other teams = 2 | 0.950 | 0.281 | 0.881 | 1.161 | 2.585 | 0.459–14.549 |
| Assigning elder students of the tutor for guidance = 3 | 1.601 |
| 0.742 | 4.652 | 4.959 | 1.157–21.245 |
| Assigning others to guide but supervising periodically = 4 | 1.421 | 0.074 | 0.795 | 3.197 | 4.139 | 0.872–19.645 |
| No effective method = 5 | 0a | |||||
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Completely negative = 1 | −4.105 | 0.785 | 27.348 | |||
| Kind of negative = 2 | −2.547 | 0.681 | 13.999 | |||
| No change = 3 | −0.677 | 0.645 | 1.102 | |||
| Kind of positive = 4 | 1.567 | 0.662 | 5.602 | |||
View on scientific research after the guidance of the tutor: 1 = Completely negative, 2 = kind of negative, 3 = no change, 4 = kind of positive, and 5 = extremely positive.
Test of parallel lines: likelihood ratio χ2 (30) = 32.23, P = 0.357; model fitting information: likelihood ratio χ2 (.
0.
Multiple ordinal logistic regression analysis of influential factors of daily mood after the guidance of the tutor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Single tutor for multiple students = 1 | −0.456 | 0.177 | 0.338 | 1.821 | 0.634 | 0.327–1.229 |
| Multiple tutors for multiple students = 2 | 0a | |||||
|
| ||||||
| Master supervisor = 1 | −0.965 | 0.243 | 0.826 | 1.365 | 0.381 | 0.075–1.923 |
| Doctoral supervisor = 2 | −1.165 | 0.139 | 0.788 | 2.185 | 0.312 | 0.067–1.462 |
| No title = 3 | 0a | |||||
|
| ||||||
| More than once a week = 1 | 0.010 | 0.989 | 0.778 | 0.000 | 1.010 | 0.220–4.641 |
| Once a week = 2 | −0.078 | 0.916 | 0.740 | 0.011 | 0.925 | 0.217–3.940 |
| Less than once a week = 3 | −1.112 | 0.088 | 0.652 | 2.907 | 0.329 | 0.092–1.181 |
| Hardly = 4 | 0a | |||||
|
| ||||||
| Tutor's personal guidance = 1 | 2.142 |
| 0.768 | 7.778 | 8.513 | 1.890–38.344 |
| Assigning tutors from other teams = 2 | 1.046 | 0.239 | 0.888 | 1.387 | 2.845 | 0.499–16.210 |
| Assigning elder students of the tutor for guidance = 3 | 1.580 |
| 0.747 | 4.471 | 4.856 | 1.122–21.011 |
| Assigning others to guide but supervising periodically = 4 | 1.603 |
| 0.804 | 3.974 | 4.967 | 1.027–24.022 |
| No effective method = 5 | 0a | |||||
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Completely negative = 1 | −4.099 | 0.812 | 25.478 | |||
| Kind of negative = 2 | −2.419 | 0.678 | 12.744 | |||
| No change = 3 | −0.302 | 0.642 | 0.222 | |||
| Kind of positive = 4 | 1.550 | 0.658 | 5.548 | |||
Daily mood after the guidance of the tutor: 1 = Completely negative, 2 = kind of negative, 3 = no change, 4 = kind of positive, and 5 = extremely positive.
Test of parallel lines: likelihood ratio χ2 (30) = 43.62, P = 0.052; model fitting information: likelihood ratio χ2 (.
Multinomial logistic regression analysis of influential factors of vocational development planning after the guidance of the tutor.
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
| Single tutor for multiple students | 34 (53.1%) | 13 (20.3%) | 17 (26.6%) | 2.175 | 0.337 | 1.292 (0.517–3.231) | 1.764 (0.566–5.493) |
| Multiple tutors for multiple students | 38 (52.8%) | 21 (29.2%) | 13 (18.1%) | Reference category | |||
|
| |||||||
| Master supervisor | 19 (48.7%) | 8 (20.5%) | 12 (30.8%) | 3.697 | 0.449 | 0.438 (0.030–6.455) | |
| Doctoral supervisor | 48 (55.2%) | 22 (25.3%) | 17 (19.5%) | 0.403 (0.031–5.243) | 10.045 (0.616–163.67) | ||
| No title | 5 (50.0%) | 4 (40.0%) | 1 (10.0%) | Reference category | |||
|
| |||||||
| More than once a week | 14 (73.7%) | 3 (15.8%) | 2 (10.5%) | 20.844 | 0.002 | 1.192 (0.109–13.019) | 0.120 (0.007–1.947) |
| Once a week | 20 (83.3%) | 4 (16.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1.393 (0.144–13.429) | – | ||
| Less than once a week | 31 (42.5%) | 22 (30.1%) | 20 (27.4%) | 0.421 (0.057–3.098) | 0.235 (0.030–1.832) | ||
| Hardly | 7 (35.0%) | 5 (25.0%) | 8 (40.0%) | Reference category | |||
|
| |||||||
| Tutor's personal guidance | 28 (59.6%) | 11 (23.4%) | 8 (17.0%) | 9.416 | 0.308 | 8.039 (0.580–111.34) | 0.904 (0.104–7.856) |
| Assigning tutors from other teams | 4 (40.0%) | 4 (40.0%) | 2 (20.0%) | 4.825 (0.281–82.974) | 0.581 (0.047–7.242) | ||
| Assigning elder students of the tutor for guidance | 21 (58.3%) | 7 (19.4%) | 8 (22.2%) | 11.24 (0.820–154.13) | 1.603 (0.188–13.67) | ||
| Assigning others to guide but supervising periodically | 15 (57.7%) | 6 (23.1%) | 5 (19.2%) | 10.60 (0.689–163.11) | 0.898 (0.090–8.981) | ||
| No effective method | 4 (23.5%) | 6 (35.3%) | 7 (41.2%) | Reference category | |||
Group A (n1 = 64) and group B (n2 = 72) were included.
OR (odds ratio), the probability of students likely to change clarity about their vocational development planning, compared with the reference. CI, confidence interval.
Figure 1The greatest effect of the undergraduate tutor system on students. (A) Group A, single tutor for multiple students' system. (B) Group B, multiple tutors for multiple students' system. The chi-square test was applied for the comparison.
The assessment of students' scientific research ability in literature processing, experimental operation, statistical analysis, manuscript producing, and innovative project design with the 5-point Likert scale.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Group A | 3.33 | 1.00 | 0.090 |
| Group B | 3.50 | 1.00 |
|
| Group C | 3.00 | 1.67 | – |
|
| |||
| Group A | 1.88 | 2.00 | 0.119 |
| Group B | 2.25 | 1.50 |
|
| Group C | 1.38 | 1.06 | – |
|
| |||
| Group A | 2.00 | 2.00 | 0.196 |
| Group B | 3.00 | 1.50 |
|
| Group C | 1.50 | 1.63 | – |
|
| |||
| Group A | 2.25 | 1.94 | 0.221 |
| Group B | 2.63 | 1.50 |
|
| Group C | 1.63 | 1.81 | – |
|
| |||
| Group A | 3.00 | 2.00 | 0.517 |
| Group B | 3.00 | 1.00 | 0.087 |
| Group C | 2.00 | 2.00 | - |
The non-parametric test was applied for the comparison. P < 0.05 was indicated in bold. .
Figure 2The box plots of the students' research ability rating with the 5-point Likert scale. (A) The average rating of literature processing. (B) The average rating of experimental operation. (C) The average rating of statistical analysis. (D) The average rating of manuscript producing. (E) The average rating of innovative project design. The non-parametric test was applied for the comparison.
Figure 3The most published types of articles by students. (A) Group A, single tutor for multiple students' system. (B) Group B, multiple tutors for multiple students' system. (C) Group C, no tutor system.