论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨上海市中小学校无尘板书教具对教学过程和教师健康的影响,为指导学校配备教具、保护师生健康提供参考和依据。方法分层整群抽取徐汇、长宁、普陀和杨浦区11所使用无尘板书教具的中小学校590名授课教师和4所使用传统板书教具的中小学校234名授课教师进行问卷调查,分析各类板书教具的使用效果。结果无尘组中分别有52.7%,51.6%和59.7%的教师认为无尘板书教具的书写效果、擦拭效果和使用方便程度均优于传统板书教具,有34.3%的教师认为无尘板书教具日常维护较传统板书教具繁琐;与传统板书教具相比,使用无尘板书教具后粉笔产生量降低,教师上呼吸道不舒适感和30 d内上呼吸道刺激症状自报比例降低,差异均有统计学意义(χ~2值分别为212.59,187.57和5.52,P值均<0.05);3类无尘板书教具对健康的影响比较中,白板水笔使用效果相对最佳,吸尘板擦使用效果相对较差,差异均有统计学意义(P值均<0.05)。结论无尘板书教具比传统板书教具更有利于教学活动,且对教师健康影响小于传统板书教具,应予以推广。
Objective To investigate the influence of dust-free teaching aids on the teaching process and teacher’s health in primary and secondary schools in Shanghai and to provide reference and basis for guiding the school to equip teaching aids and protect the health of teachers and students. Methods A total of 590 primary and secondary school teachers from 11 dust-dust-board teaching aids in Xuhui, Changning, Putuo and Yangpu districts and 234 teachers from primary and secondary schools using 4 traditional blackboard teaching aids were stratified and clustered to conduct a questionnaire survey. Use of teaching aids. Results In the dust-free group, 52.7%, 51.6% and 59.7% of the teachers thought that the writing effect, the wiping effect and the ease of use of the dust-free teaching aids were better than those of the traditional blackboard teaching aids. 34.3% of the teachers considered the dust- Compared with the traditional blackboard teaching aids, the use of dust-free teaching aids reduced the amount of chalk produced, the upper respiratory tract discomfort of teachers and the lower self-reported proportion of upper respiratory tract irritation within 30 days, the difference was statistically significant (χ ~ 2 values ?? were 212.59,187.57 and 5.52, P values were <0.05); 3 class dust book teaching aids compared to the health effects, the best use of whiteboard pen effect, the use of the vacuum board wipe relatively poor results, The differences were statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusion The dust-free book teaching aids are more conducive to teaching activities than the traditional blackboard teaching aids, and their impact on teachers’ health is less than that of traditional blackboard teaching aids, which should be promoted.