试行结构化辩论,作为学生和年轻医护人员讨论全科和家庭医学中社会问题的自学方法:日本案例报告

IF 1.8 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Tatsuki Ikejiri MD, Jeonse Lee MD, Natsuki Yokoyama BS, Arisa Hakariya MD, Yuki Otsuka MD, PhD, Hayase Hakariya PhD
{"title":"试行结构化辩论,作为学生和年轻医护人员讨论全科和家庭医学中社会问题的自学方法:日本案例报告","authors":"Tatsuki Ikejiri MD,&nbsp;Jeonse Lee MD,&nbsp;Natsuki Yokoyama BS,&nbsp;Arisa Hakariya MD,&nbsp;Yuki Otsuka MD, PhD,&nbsp;Hayase Hakariya PhD","doi":"10.1002/jgf2.706","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Structured debate is broadly played by university students and graduates as a competition. The educational benefits of debates, such as fostering critical thinking, are acknowledged across various disciplines.<span><sup>1</sup></span> Hence, we proposed using debates as a self-learning method for medical students and young healthcare providers. Herein, we report a trial where debate serves as a tool for self-learning in Japan.</p><p>Our debate adhered to the systematic procedures outlined by the Japan Debate Association.<span><sup>2</sup></span> Time allocation was slightly modified (Table S1). We held debates using Zoom, with approximately 5–10 voluntary participants: medical students and young healthcare providers. A “plan (agenda)” was collaboratively based on participants' daily observations and interests (Table 1). The participants were divided into two sides: the “pro” (Affirmative side) and the “con” (Negative side), enabling the debate. After the debate, a panel of three judges decided the persuasiveness of each side. The roles of “pro” and “con” were blindly assigned by a third party, irrespective of individuals' opinions on the topic. We performed four debates, as shown below (Table 1). Participants' motivation for these topics is also described.</p><p>After each debate, time for reflection was provided. Summarizing the participants' feedback, we found three distinctive characteristics of learning through structured debate as follows. First, students and early-career healthcare providers demonstrated their capability of thinking and researching actively (more easily with a single axis) when given the role of agreeing or disagreeing with a topic in which their interest was vague rather than with no axis. Second, developing discussions within a certain structure will foster the ability to think logically. Lastly, the students will be able to have a multifaceted viewpoint through arguments from both sides, rather than from one point of view.</p><p>Of note, our structured debate was conducted online. Given the increased attention toward online educational systems in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, this trial could potentially serve as a promising alternative tool in the future.</p><p>As a limitation, our debates were performed without the involvement of leadership experts, as we intended to provide a voluntarily investigating platform to explore topics of participants' interest. Consequently, the quality of the debates depended markedly on the participants' motivation. Moreover, given that participants of this trial were sufficiently motivated at least enough to invest their precious time voluntarily, well-organized and appealing instructions should be required to install our method in the usual classroom education. For instance, supervision by senior group mentors, who have already acquired the credit, during participants' preparation stage may be beneficial. Prior discussion and consultation with such mentors could also serve as students' gatekeeping not to miss essential points and maintain their direction. Imposing the report submission could also function as a quality assurance opportunity; nonetheless, burdens for teachers would be high.</p><p>Additionally, our assessment of the educational effect of the debate is insufficient, given that we solely gathered narrative feedback. However, it is noteworthy that only a few studies evaluated the educational effect of structured debate in the medical field; these reports included a variety of controversial topics such as medical ethics, healthcare systems, and emergency medicine.<span><sup>3-5</sup></span> A more comprehensive evaluation from various viewpoints would reinforce our proposal to utilize structured debates as a medical educational platform for students and early-career medical professionals.</p><p>The authors have stated explicitly that there are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article.</p>","PeriodicalId":51861,"journal":{"name":"Journal of General and Family Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jgf2.706","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A trial of structured debate as a self-learning method for students and young healthcare providers to discuss social issues in general and family medicine: A case report in Japan\",\"authors\":\"Tatsuki Ikejiri MD,&nbsp;Jeonse Lee MD,&nbsp;Natsuki Yokoyama BS,&nbsp;Arisa Hakariya MD,&nbsp;Yuki Otsuka MD, PhD,&nbsp;Hayase Hakariya PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jgf2.706\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Structured debate is broadly played by university students and graduates as a competition. The educational benefits of debates, such as fostering critical thinking, are acknowledged across various disciplines.<span><sup>1</sup></span> Hence, we proposed using debates as a self-learning method for medical students and young healthcare providers. Herein, we report a trial where debate serves as a tool for self-learning in Japan.</p><p>Our debate adhered to the systematic procedures outlined by the Japan Debate Association.<span><sup>2</sup></span> Time allocation was slightly modified (Table S1). We held debates using Zoom, with approximately 5–10 voluntary participants: medical students and young healthcare providers. A “plan (agenda)” was collaboratively based on participants' daily observations and interests (Table 1). The participants were divided into two sides: the “pro” (Affirmative side) and the “con” (Negative side), enabling the debate. After the debate, a panel of three judges decided the persuasiveness of each side. The roles of “pro” and “con” were blindly assigned by a third party, irrespective of individuals' opinions on the topic. We performed four debates, as shown below (Table 1). Participants' motivation for these topics is also described.</p><p>After each debate, time for reflection was provided. Summarizing the participants' feedback, we found three distinctive characteristics of learning through structured debate as follows. First, students and early-career healthcare providers demonstrated their capability of thinking and researching actively (more easily with a single axis) when given the role of agreeing or disagreeing with a topic in which their interest was vague rather than with no axis. Second, developing discussions within a certain structure will foster the ability to think logically. Lastly, the students will be able to have a multifaceted viewpoint through arguments from both sides, rather than from one point of view.</p><p>Of note, our structured debate was conducted online. Given the increased attention toward online educational systems in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, this trial could potentially serve as a promising alternative tool in the future.</p><p>As a limitation, our debates were performed without the involvement of leadership experts, as we intended to provide a voluntarily investigating platform to explore topics of participants' interest. Consequently, the quality of the debates depended markedly on the participants' motivation. Moreover, given that participants of this trial were sufficiently motivated at least enough to invest their precious time voluntarily, well-organized and appealing instructions should be required to install our method in the usual classroom education. For instance, supervision by senior group mentors, who have already acquired the credit, during participants' preparation stage may be beneficial. Prior discussion and consultation with such mentors could also serve as students' gatekeeping not to miss essential points and maintain their direction. Imposing the report submission could also function as a quality assurance opportunity; nonetheless, burdens for teachers would be high.</p><p>Additionally, our assessment of the educational effect of the debate is insufficient, given that we solely gathered narrative feedback. However, it is noteworthy that only a few studies evaluated the educational effect of structured debate in the medical field; these reports included a variety of controversial topics such as medical ethics, healthcare systems, and emergency medicine.<span><sup>3-5</sup></span> A more comprehensive evaluation from various viewpoints would reinforce our proposal to utilize structured debates as a medical educational platform for students and early-career medical professionals.</p><p>The authors have stated explicitly that there are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of General and Family Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jgf2.706\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of General and Family Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgf2.706\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of General and Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgf2.706","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有组织的辩论是大学生和毕业生广泛参与的一项竞赛活动。1 因此,我们建议将辩论作为医学生和年轻医护人员的自学方法。在此,我们报告了一项在日本将辩论作为自学工具的试验。我们的辩论遵循了日本辩论协会制定的系统程序2 。我们使用 Zoom 进行辩论,约有 5-10 名自愿参与者:医学生和年轻的医疗服务提供者。根据参与者的日常观察和兴趣,我们共同制定了 "计划(议程)"(表 1)。参与者被分为正反两方:"正方"(肯定方)和 "反方"(否定方),从而展开辩论。辩论结束后,由三位评委组成的评审团决定双方的说服力。正方 "和 "反方 "的角色由第三方盲目分配,与个人对主题的看法无关。我们进行了四场辩论,如下表所示(表 1)。每次辩论结束后,我们都会给参与者留出思考时间。总结参与者的反馈,我们发现通过结构化辩论学习有以下三个显著特点。首先,学生和初入职场的医护人员在被赋予同意或不同意他们感兴趣的模糊话题的角色时,比在没有轴心的情况下更容易表现出他们积极思考和研究的能力(在单一轴心的情况下更容易)。其次,在一定的结构中开展讨论将培养逻辑思维能力。最后,学生们将能够通过正反两方面的论证,而不是从一个观点出发,获得多方面的观点。值得注意的是,我们的结构化辩论是在网上进行的。鉴于 COVID-19 的流行,人们对在线教育系统的关注度越来越高,这一试验有可能在未来成为一种很有前途的替代工具。因此,辩论的质量在很大程度上取决于参与者的积极性。此外,鉴于本次试验的参与者至少有足够的积极性来自愿投入宝贵的时间,因此,要将我们的方法应用于通常的课堂教学中,就必须要有精心组织的、有吸引力的指导。例如,在参与者的准备阶段,由已经获得学分的资深小组导师进行指导可能会有所裨益。事先与这些导师进行讨论和协商,也可以为学员把关,避免遗漏要点,保持方向。此外,我们对辩论赛教育效果的评估还不够充分,因为我们只收集了叙述性反馈。然而,值得注意的是,只有少数研究评估了结构化辩论在医学领域的教育效果;这些报告包括各种有争议的话题,如医学伦理、医疗保健系统和急诊医学等。3-5 如果能从不同角度进行更全面的评估,将会强化我们的建议,即利用结构化辩论作为学生和早期医学专业人员的医学教育平台。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A trial of structured debate as a self-learning method for students and young healthcare providers to discuss social issues in general and family medicine: A case report in Japan

Structured debate is broadly played by university students and graduates as a competition. The educational benefits of debates, such as fostering critical thinking, are acknowledged across various disciplines.1 Hence, we proposed using debates as a self-learning method for medical students and young healthcare providers. Herein, we report a trial where debate serves as a tool for self-learning in Japan.

Our debate adhered to the systematic procedures outlined by the Japan Debate Association.2 Time allocation was slightly modified (Table S1). We held debates using Zoom, with approximately 5–10 voluntary participants: medical students and young healthcare providers. A “plan (agenda)” was collaboratively based on participants' daily observations and interests (Table 1). The participants were divided into two sides: the “pro” (Affirmative side) and the “con” (Negative side), enabling the debate. After the debate, a panel of three judges decided the persuasiveness of each side. The roles of “pro” and “con” were blindly assigned by a third party, irrespective of individuals' opinions on the topic. We performed four debates, as shown below (Table 1). Participants' motivation for these topics is also described.

After each debate, time for reflection was provided. Summarizing the participants' feedback, we found three distinctive characteristics of learning through structured debate as follows. First, students and early-career healthcare providers demonstrated their capability of thinking and researching actively (more easily with a single axis) when given the role of agreeing or disagreeing with a topic in which their interest was vague rather than with no axis. Second, developing discussions within a certain structure will foster the ability to think logically. Lastly, the students will be able to have a multifaceted viewpoint through arguments from both sides, rather than from one point of view.

Of note, our structured debate was conducted online. Given the increased attention toward online educational systems in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, this trial could potentially serve as a promising alternative tool in the future.

As a limitation, our debates were performed without the involvement of leadership experts, as we intended to provide a voluntarily investigating platform to explore topics of participants' interest. Consequently, the quality of the debates depended markedly on the participants' motivation. Moreover, given that participants of this trial were sufficiently motivated at least enough to invest their precious time voluntarily, well-organized and appealing instructions should be required to install our method in the usual classroom education. For instance, supervision by senior group mentors, who have already acquired the credit, during participants' preparation stage may be beneficial. Prior discussion and consultation with such mentors could also serve as students' gatekeeping not to miss essential points and maintain their direction. Imposing the report submission could also function as a quality assurance opportunity; nonetheless, burdens for teachers would be high.

Additionally, our assessment of the educational effect of the debate is insufficient, given that we solely gathered narrative feedback. However, it is noteworthy that only a few studies evaluated the educational effect of structured debate in the medical field; these reports included a variety of controversial topics such as medical ethics, healthcare systems, and emergency medicine.3-5 A more comprehensive evaluation from various viewpoints would reinforce our proposal to utilize structured debates as a medical educational platform for students and early-career medical professionals.

The authors have stated explicitly that there are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of General and Family Medicine
Journal of General and Family Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
79
审稿时长
48 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信