To evaluate the effectiveness of outdoor field-based teaching in improving the ability of clinical medical postgraduates and visiting trainees to identify allergenic plants, and to provide evidence for optimizing standardized training curricula for allergy specialists. A single-group pre- and post-test design was employed. A two-hour outdoor practical teaching session was conducted at the National Botanical Garden for clinical medical postgraduates and visiting trainees from Peking Union Medical College Hospital. The course was jointly delivered by instructors in botany and allergy, using on-site explanations of representative plant species, analysis of key morphological features, real-time question-and-answer interactions, and guided discussions. Participants completed plant identification tests before and after the course, and a post-course questionnaire was administered to collect student feedback on learning experience and satisfaction. Sixteen students participated in the course. Post-course test scores 90.0 (80.0, 100.0) were significantly higher than pre-course scores 60.0 (42.5, 70.0), with a median improvement of 30 points (P < 0.001). The magnitude of score improvement was negatively correlated with baseline knowledge (ρ = -0.674, P = 0.004). After the course, plant identification accuracy exceeded 80% for most species, with Chinese ash and sycamore achieving 100% recognition. Summer solstice grass, pine, and Chinese ash showed the greatest improvement (all increased by 50%). All participants reported overall satisfaction with the course, and more than 90% considered outdoor practical teaching to be more engaging and effective than traditional slide-based lectures. Outdoor field-based teaching significantly enhances trainees’ ability to identify allergenic plants and is associated with high learner satisfaction. Increasing course duration and further integrating theoretical instruction with practical field experience may further improve the quality of allergy specialist training.
Li et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: