教学策略对中小学批判性思维学习的影响:系统综述。

Q2 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
F1000Research Pub Date : 2025-04-16 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.12688/f1000research.158087.2
Andrew D Oxman, Allen Nsangi, Laura Martínez García, Margaret Kaseje, Laura Samsó Jofra, Daniel Semakula, Heather Munthe-Kaas, Sarah E Rosenbaum
{"title":"教学策略对中小学批判性思维学习的影响:系统综述。","authors":"Andrew D Oxman, Allen Nsangi, Laura Martínez García, Margaret Kaseje, Laura Samsó Jofra, Daniel Semakula, Heather Munthe-Kaas, Sarah E Rosenbaum","doi":"10.12688/f1000research.158087.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We conducted an overview of systematic reviews about the effects of teaching strategies that can be used to teach primary and secondary school students to think critically. Our objective was to inform decisions about what teaching strategies to use in resources that we developed to teach critical thinking about health in secondary schools.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We mapped characteristics of systematic reviews of teaching strategies and summarised findings from the most relevant reviews to teaching students to think critically about health. We included reviews that assessed the effects of teaching strategies that could potentially be used in primary or secondary schools to teach students to think critically, had a Methods section with explicit selection criteria, reported at least one outcome measure of the ability to undertake one of four basic types of cognitive tasks (memory, procedural, comprehension, or opinion), and were published after 1999.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 326 systematic reviews. The reviews evaluated a wide range of teaching strategies for a variety of purposes. Important limitations of the reviews included not considering adverse effects (99% of the reviews), not assessing the risk of bias for included studies (93% of the reviews), and not assessing the credibility of subgroup effects (100% of the reviews). We summarised the findings for 37 teaching strategies that we considered most relevant. The certainty of the evidence of the effects varied from very low to moderate. We used 12 of the strategies in resources that we developed to teach secondary students to think critically about health.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A tremendous amount of work has gone into evaluating the effects of a wide range of teaching strategies. The results of this research can inform decisions about how to teach critical thinking and future research. However, well-designed, up-to-date systematic reviews are still needed for many teaching strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":12260,"journal":{"name":"F1000Research","volume":"13 ","pages":"1426"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12022541/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effects of teaching strategies on learning to think critically in primary and secondary schools: an overview of systematic reviews.\",\"authors\":\"Andrew D Oxman, Allen Nsangi, Laura Martínez García, Margaret Kaseje, Laura Samsó Jofra, Daniel Semakula, Heather Munthe-Kaas, Sarah E Rosenbaum\",\"doi\":\"10.12688/f1000research.158087.2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We conducted an overview of systematic reviews about the effects of teaching strategies that can be used to teach primary and secondary school students to think critically. Our objective was to inform decisions about what teaching strategies to use in resources that we developed to teach critical thinking about health in secondary schools.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We mapped characteristics of systematic reviews of teaching strategies and summarised findings from the most relevant reviews to teaching students to think critically about health. We included reviews that assessed the effects of teaching strategies that could potentially be used in primary or secondary schools to teach students to think critically, had a Methods section with explicit selection criteria, reported at least one outcome measure of the ability to undertake one of four basic types of cognitive tasks (memory, procedural, comprehension, or opinion), and were published after 1999.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 326 systematic reviews. The reviews evaluated a wide range of teaching strategies for a variety of purposes. Important limitations of the reviews included not considering adverse effects (99% of the reviews), not assessing the risk of bias for included studies (93% of the reviews), and not assessing the credibility of subgroup effects (100% of the reviews). We summarised the findings for 37 teaching strategies that we considered most relevant. The certainty of the evidence of the effects varied from very low to moderate. We used 12 of the strategies in resources that we developed to teach secondary students to think critically about health.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A tremendous amount of work has gone into evaluating the effects of a wide range of teaching strategies. The results of this research can inform decisions about how to teach critical thinking and future research. However, well-designed, up-to-date systematic reviews are still needed for many teaching strategies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12260,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"F1000Research\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"1426\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12022541/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"F1000Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.158087.2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"F1000Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.158087.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:我们对教学策略的效果进行了系统的综述,这些策略可用于培养中小学生的批判性思维。我们的目标是为决策提供信息,决定在我们开发的用于在中学教授健康批判性思维的资源中使用何种教学策略。方法:我们绘制了教学策略系统评价的特征,并总结了从最相关的评价中得出的结论,以教导学生批判性地思考健康。我们纳入了评估教学策略效果的综述,这些策略有可能在小学或中学中用于教授学生批判性思考,有明确的选择标准的方法部分,报告了至少一项承担四种基本认知任务(记忆、程序、理解或意见)之一的能力的结果测量,并在1999年之后发表。结果:我们纳入了326篇系统评价。这些评论评估了各种各样的教学策略。综述的重要局限性包括未考虑不良反应(99%的综述),未评估纳入研究的偏倚风险(93%的综述),未评估亚组效应的可信度(100%的综述)。我们总结了37种我们认为最相关的教学策略。这些影响证据的确定性从极低到中等不等。我们使用了我们开发的资源中的12种策略来教中学生批判性地思考健康问题。结论:在评估各种教学策略的效果方面已经做了大量的工作。这项研究的结果可以为如何教授批判性思维和未来研究的决策提供信息。然而,许多教学策略仍然需要精心设计的、最新的系统评价。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The effects of teaching strategies on learning to think critically in primary and secondary schools: an overview of systematic reviews.

Background: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews about the effects of teaching strategies that can be used to teach primary and secondary school students to think critically. Our objective was to inform decisions about what teaching strategies to use in resources that we developed to teach critical thinking about health in secondary schools.

Methods: We mapped characteristics of systematic reviews of teaching strategies and summarised findings from the most relevant reviews to teaching students to think critically about health. We included reviews that assessed the effects of teaching strategies that could potentially be used in primary or secondary schools to teach students to think critically, had a Methods section with explicit selection criteria, reported at least one outcome measure of the ability to undertake one of four basic types of cognitive tasks (memory, procedural, comprehension, or opinion), and were published after 1999.

Results: We included 326 systematic reviews. The reviews evaluated a wide range of teaching strategies for a variety of purposes. Important limitations of the reviews included not considering adverse effects (99% of the reviews), not assessing the risk of bias for included studies (93% of the reviews), and not assessing the credibility of subgroup effects (100% of the reviews). We summarised the findings for 37 teaching strategies that we considered most relevant. The certainty of the evidence of the effects varied from very low to moderate. We used 12 of the strategies in resources that we developed to teach secondary students to think critically about health.

Conclusions: A tremendous amount of work has gone into evaluating the effects of a wide range of teaching strategies. The results of this research can inform decisions about how to teach critical thinking and future research. However, well-designed, up-to-date systematic reviews are still needed for many teaching strategies.

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
F1000Research
F1000Research Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (all)
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1646
审稿时长
1 weeks
期刊介绍: F1000Research publishes articles and other research outputs reporting basic scientific, scholarly, translational and clinical research across the physical and life sciences, engineering, medicine, social sciences and humanities. F1000Research is a scholarly publication platform set up for the scientific, scholarly and medical research community; each article has at least one author who is a qualified researcher, scholar or clinician actively working in their speciality and who has made a key contribution to the article. Articles must be original (not duplications). All research is suitable irrespective of the perceived level of interest or novelty; we welcome confirmatory and negative results, as well as null studies. F1000Research publishes different type of research, including clinical trials, systematic reviews, software tools, method articles, and many others. Reviews and Opinion articles providing a balanced and comprehensive overview of the latest discoveries in a particular field, or presenting a personal perspective on recent developments, are also welcome. See the full list of article types we accept for more information.
×
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