Literature review explores CBL and PBL in clinical correctional education for juvenile offenders, suggesting improvements.
This article systematically reviews relevant domestic and international literature to explore the application value of Case-Based Learning (CBL) and Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in the clinical correctional education practice of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). After optimization and improvement, they can effectively enhance the correction ability of TCM clinical students and assist the physical and mental rehabilitation and social reintegration of juvenile offenders, with the physical function status of juvenile offenders exerting a significant impact on the correction effect. Both at home and abroad, great importance is attached to the in-depth integration of medical education and juvenile offender correction, with a focus on exploring the application paths of CBL and PBL in clinical correction. With cases as the carrier and problems as the orientation, the CBL and PBL models meet the training needs of TCM syndrome differentiation thinking, and can effectively promote TCM clinical students to integrate TCM diagnosis and treatment skills with psychological correction knowledge, thereby improving their practical ability in personality remodeling and emotional regulation of juvenile offenders. At present, the application still has shortcomings, such as the lack of TCM-specific correctional cases, the absence of practical teaching bases including prisons, the disconnection between PBL problem design and TCM clinical practice, and the impact of individual differences in students' learning on teaching effectiveness. As a literature review of pedagogical innovation, this study proposes that breakthroughs can be achieved by improving the TCM-specific case database, strengthening the dual-professional training of teachers, deepening the integration of the models with TCM syndrome differentiation theory, and optimizing model adaptability for individual learning differences.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: