A Practice-Oriented Teaching Reform Model for Orthopaedic Instrumentation Education

Authors

  • Minghui Wang 1.Institute of Intelligent Rehabilitation Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai 200093, China 2.Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Assistive Devices, Shanghai 200093, China Author
  • Minghao Chen 1.Institute of Intelligent Rehabilitation Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai 200093, China 2.Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Assistive Devices, Shanghai 200093, China Author
  • Hongliu Yu 1.Institute of Intelligent Rehabilitation Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai 200093, China 2.Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Assistive Devices, Shanghai 200093, China Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55578/fepr.2604.007

Keywords:

Orthopaedic instrumentation, Rehabilitation engineering, Teaching reform, Practice-oriented education

Abstract

The Orthopaedic Instrumentation course, as a representative interdisciplinary subject integrating medicine and engineering, plays a pivotal bridging role between engineering competence cultivation and clinical application understanding. In response to existing challenges—including outdated course content, insufficient integration of theory and practice, and a single-dimensional assessment system—this study adopts engineering competency development as its core orientation and constructs a three-dimensional collaborative reform framework encompassing content restructuring, practice enhancement, and diversified evaluation. The reform was systematically implemented across two consecutive teaching cycles. By incorporating cutting-edge technological modules, establishing a tiered practical training system, and developing a comprehensive process-oriented assessment mechanism, the proposed reform facilitates the integration of theoretical instruction and engineering practice. Empirical observations indicate that course performance, excellence rate, and student satisfaction all showed noticeable improvement after the reform. Moreover, students exhibited enhanced engineering analytical capability and interdisciplinary problem-solving competence. This study provides a transferable structural paradigm for optimizing professional curricula within the context of medical–engineering integration. 

References

1. Pan Y, Xu Q, Wu Q, et al. Reform and effectiveness of interdisciplinary courses in physical medicine and rehabilitation for eight-year medical students. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice, 2020, 26(12): 1483–1488.

2. Wang X L, Wang F M, Lü T B. Research and practice on curriculum construction of “Physical Therapy Medicine” in interdisciplinary medical-engineering education. China University Teaching, 2024(09): 21–26.

3. Zhao X H, Xu D W, Chen Y H. Innovation of talent cultivation system in interdisciplinary medical-engineering education: Practice of Tsinghua-Berkeley Shenzhen Institute. Research in Higher Engineering Education, 2022(02): 81–86.

4. Hu J H, Chen J, Li G Q. Exploration of “medical-engineering integration” in prosthetics and orthotics education. Modern Vocational Education, 2023(33): 77–80.

5. Ahtiainen R, Pulkkinen J, Jahnukainen M. The 21st century reforms reshaping the education policy of inclusive and special education in Finland. Education Sciences, 2021, 11(11).

6. Narong D K, Hallinger P. Traversing the evolution of research on engineering education for sustainability: A bibliometric review (1991–2022). Sustainability, 2024, 16(2).

7. Habal M B. Medical education beyond health care reform. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 2011, 22(2): 377–378.

8. Zhang S Q, Sun J Y, Chen C, et al. Development and application of additive manufacturing in orthopaedic implantable medical devices. Bioorthopaedic Materials and Clinical Research, 2018, 15(1): 76–80.

9. Liu Y X, Zhang X Y, Li H, et al. Multifunctional applications of metal-organic frameworks in bone tissue engineering and orthopaedic disease treatment. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2025, 29(10): 2151–2161.

10. Fan T, Chen H, Zheng P, et al. Exploration of curriculum construction and teaching reform in prosthetics and orthotics engineering under new circumstances. China Rehabilitation, 2023, 38(7): 446–448.

11. Luo C L, Liu W, Wang L Y. International standards and assessment systems for prosthetics and orthotics education. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 2021, 36(2): 193–197.

12. Li Z M. Overview and prospects of prosthetics and orthotics technology. China Medical Device Information, 2019, 25(17): 32–33.

13. Spady W G. Outcome-Based Education: Critical Issues and Answers [M]. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators, 1994.

14. Jaya D J, Sudira P, Raharjo N E, et al. Outcome-Based Education (OBE) approach in vocational education: Strategies, advantages, and challenges in Indonesia. Papeles, 2025, 17(33): 71–84.Approach in Vocational Education: Strategies, Advantages, and Challenges in Indonesia [J]. Papeles, 2025, 17(33).

Downloads

Published

2026-04-16

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request from the authors.

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

A Practice-Oriented Teaching Reform Model for Orthopaedic Instrumentation Education. (2026). Frontiers in Educational Practice and Research, 2(2), 111-116. https://doi.org/10.55578/fepr.2604.007