基于问题的学习对提高医学生批判性思维和解决问题能力的有效性:对15年(2005-2019)经验的系统回顾

Rayed Alreshidi, F. Alreshidi
{"title":"基于问题的学习对提高医学生批判性思维和解决问题能力的有效性:对15年(2005-2019)经验的系统回顾","authors":"Rayed Alreshidi, F. Alreshidi","doi":"10.5742/mewfm.2023.95256077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: An ongoing challenge for medical education in the twenty-first century is determining the best method to foster problem-solving and critical thinking in learners. These higher-order aptitudes help to prepare medical doctors for practice in a rapidly evolving health system. In medical education, Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is an instructional pedagogy in which pupils are challenged to seek answers to authentic patient scenarios in small groups. PBL techniques are proposed as one method to enhance pupils’ learning abilities including critical thinking and problem-solving. Aim: This systematic review was conducted to search for evidence from the past fifteen years of literature, demonstrating the capability of PBL to improve critical thinking and problem-solving skills for medical students. Review Question: Is there evidence to support the capability of PBL to improve problem solving and critical thinking skills in medical students? Methods: The search process was conducted through electronic databases on publications related to the impact of PBL, particularly, on two fundamental skills; critical thinking and problem-solving for medical students. The search process was restricted to publicationsbetween January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2019. Four electronic databases were searched, namely; Medline, PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus. The Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) guidelines were utilised to guide the way this systematic review was conducted. Quality assessment was performed through rating the evaluation methods of the included studies. This rating was through employing a five-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree) for each study in relation to three items; the appropriateness of study design, the implementation of the study as well as the appropriateness of data analysis. The rating for each study was then mapped to a grade from grade 1 (low) to grade 5 (high), which aligns with the BEME strength of the study findings. Results: Searching the four aforementioned databases produced 657 publications, including 249 duplicates. Therefore, 408 publications were screened based on their titles against inclusion and exclusion criteria, leaving 86 articles to screen their abstracts. A further 9 articles were manually obtained such that a total of 95 articles were obtained for a review of their abstracts. Forty-one met the criteria for full text review. Following the full text review, twenty-nine articles were excluded. Therefore, twelve studies were included in this systematic review. The BEME strength of study findings were as follows; only two of the reviewed studies were graded as grade 5, four were graded as grade 4, and six were graded as grade 3. Of the twelve studies reviewed, only five studies provided evidence in support of the capability of PBL to improve critical thinking and problem-solving skills among medical students. Two of these five studies were graded as grade 5 and two were graded as grade 4, while one was graded as grade 3. Discussion: The available evidence in this systematic review provided limited support of the claim that PBL improves medical students’ critical thinking and problem-solving aptitudes. Only five studies provided evidence in support of this claim, while the remaining seven studies did not. Two of these seven studies assessed only the knowledge, comprehension, and application domains, as their evaluation of problem-solving and critical thinking abilities was based on student perspectives. A further two of these seven studies, where the description provided either for case-analysis tests or modified essay questions, did not give an actual indication for measuring critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Another two of these seven studies did not describe their written tests i.e. case-analysis tests and proxy questions that are purported to measure higher-order skills, including critical thinking and problem-solving. This prevented the use of the findings from these two studies as evidence to support the specified review question. The remaining study reported that PBL students’ scores in the final assessment did not improve significantly (p>0.05) compared to the initial assessment. Conclusion: There is very little published evidence over the last fifteen years supporting the claim that PBL improves critical thinking and problem-solving skills in medical students. Therefore, recent practice is not based on evidence. As such, investigations are required to legitimise the claims that PBL improves critical thinking and problem-solving skills for medical students. Key words: Problem-Based Learning, Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills, Medical Students","PeriodicalId":23895,"journal":{"name":"World Family Medicine Journal /Middle East Journal of Family Medicine","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effectiveness of Problem-Based Learning in Improving Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills in Medical Students: A Systematic Review of Fifteen Years’ Experience (2005-2019)\",\"authors\":\"Rayed Alreshidi, F. Alreshidi\",\"doi\":\"10.5742/mewfm.2023.95256077\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: An ongoing challenge for medical education in the twenty-first century is determining the best method to foster problem-solving and critical thinking in learners. These higher-order aptitudes help to prepare medical doctors for practice in a rapidly evolving health system. In medical education, Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is an instructional pedagogy in which pupils are challenged to seek answers to authentic patient scenarios in small groups. PBL techniques are proposed as one method to enhance pupils’ learning abilities including critical thinking and problem-solving. Aim: This systematic review was conducted to search for evidence from the past fifteen years of literature, demonstrating the capability of PBL to improve critical thinking and problem-solving skills for medical students. Review Question: Is there evidence to support the capability of PBL to improve problem solving and critical thinking skills in medical students? Methods: The search process was conducted through electronic databases on publications related to the impact of PBL, particularly, on two fundamental skills; critical thinking and problem-solving for medical students. The search process was restricted to publicationsbetween January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2019. Four electronic databases were searched, namely; Medline, PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus. The Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) guidelines were utilised to guide the way this systematic review was conducted. Quality assessment was performed through rating the evaluation methods of the included studies. This rating was through employing a five-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree) for each study in relation to three items; the appropriateness of study design, the implementation of the study as well as the appropriateness of data analysis. The rating for each study was then mapped to a grade from grade 1 (low) to grade 5 (high), which aligns with the BEME strength of the study findings. Results: Searching the four aforementioned databases produced 657 publications, including 249 duplicates. Therefore, 408 publications were screened based on their titles against inclusion and exclusion criteria, leaving 86 articles to screen their abstracts. A further 9 articles were manually obtained such that a total of 95 articles were obtained for a review of their abstracts. Forty-one met the criteria for full text review. Following the full text review, twenty-nine articles were excluded. Therefore, twelve studies were included in this systematic review. The BEME strength of study findings were as follows; only two of the reviewed studies were graded as grade 5, four were graded as grade 4, and six were graded as grade 3. Of the twelve studies reviewed, only five studies provided evidence in support of the capability of PBL to improve critical thinking and problem-solving skills among medical students. Two of these five studies were graded as grade 5 and two were graded as grade 4, while one was graded as grade 3. Discussion: The available evidence in this systematic review provided limited support of the claim that PBL improves medical students’ critical thinking and problem-solving aptitudes. Only five studies provided evidence in support of this claim, while the remaining seven studies did not. Two of these seven studies assessed only the knowledge, comprehension, and application domains, as their evaluation of problem-solving and critical thinking abilities was based on student perspectives. A further two of these seven studies, where the description provided either for case-analysis tests or modified essay questions, did not give an actual indication for measuring critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Another two of these seven studies did not describe their written tests i.e. case-analysis tests and proxy questions that are purported to measure higher-order skills, including critical thinking and problem-solving. This prevented the use of the findings from these two studies as evidence to support the specified review question. The remaining study reported that PBL students’ scores in the final assessment did not improve significantly (p>0.05) compared to the initial assessment. Conclusion: There is very little published evidence over the last fifteen years supporting the claim that PBL improves critical thinking and problem-solving skills in medical students. Therefore, recent practice is not based on evidence. As such, investigations are required to legitimise the claims that PBL improves critical thinking and problem-solving skills for medical students. Key words: Problem-Based Learning, Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills, Medical Students\",\"PeriodicalId\":23895,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Family Medicine Journal /Middle East Journal of Family Medicine\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Family Medicine Journal /Middle East Journal of Family Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5742/mewfm.2023.95256077\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Family Medicine Journal /Middle East Journal of Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5742/mewfm.2023.95256077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景:二十一世纪医学教育面临的一个持续挑战是确定培养学习者解决问题和批判性思维的最佳方法。这些高阶能力有助于医生为在快速发展的卫生系统中实践做好准备。在医学教育中,基于问题的学习(PBL)是一种教学方法,在这种教学方法中,学生被要求在小组中寻找真实患者情景的答案。PBL技术是提高学生批判性思维和解决问题能力的一种方法。目的:本系统回顾从过去15年的文献中寻找证据,证明PBL能够提高医学生的批判性思维和解决问题的能力。复习问题:是否有证据支持PBL能够提高医学生的问题解决能力和批判性思维能力?方法:通过与PBL影响相关的出版物的电子数据库进行搜索过程,特别是对两项基本技能的影响;医学生的批判性思维和解决问题能力。搜索过程仅限于2005年1月1日至2019年12月31日之间的出版物。检索了四个电子数据库,即;Medline, PubMed, EMBASE和Scopus。采用最佳证据医学教育(BEME)指南指导进行系统评价的方式。通过评价纳入研究的评价方法进行质量评价。这个评级是通过采用李克特五点量表(1=非常不同意到5=非常同意)对每个研究涉及三个项目;研究设计的适当性,研究的实施以及数据分析的适当性。然后将每项研究的评级映射为从1级(低)到5级(高)的等级,这与研究结果的BEME强度一致。结果:在上述四个数据库中检索得到657篇论文,其中重复论文249篇。因此,根据纳入和排除标准筛选408篇出版物的标题,留下86篇文章筛选其摘要。另外还有9篇文章是手工获取的,这样总共获得了95篇文章,以便对其摘要进行审查。41篇符合全文审查的标准。全文审阅后,29篇文章被排除在外。因此,本系统综述纳入了12项研究。研究结果的BEME强度如下:被审查的研究中只有两个被评为5级,4个被评为4级,6个被评为3级。在回顾的12项研究中,只有5项研究提供证据支持PBL能够提高医学生的批判性思维和解决问题的能力。这5项研究中有2项被评为5级,2项被评为4级,1项被评为3级。讨论:本系统综述的现有证据对PBL提高医学生批判性思维和解决问题能力的说法提供了有限的支持。只有五项研究提供了支持这一说法的证据,而其余七项研究没有。这七项研究中有两项只评估了知识、理解和应用领域,因为他们对解决问题和批判性思维能力的评估是基于学生的观点。在这七项研究中,另外两项研究的描述要么是为案例分析测试提供的,要么是修改后的论文问题,但没有给出衡量批判性思维和解决问题能力的实际指示。这七项研究中还有两项没有描述他们的书面测试,即案例分析测试和代理问题,这些测试旨在衡量包括批判性思维和解决问题在内的高阶技能。这阻碍了使用这两项研究的结果作为证据来支持特定的审查问题。其余研究报告PBL学生在最终评估中的得分与初始评估相比没有显著提高(p>0.05)。结论:在过去的15年里,很少有公开的证据支持PBL可以提高医学生的批判性思维和解决问题的能力。因此,最近的实践并不是基于证据的。因此,需要进行调查,以证明PBL提高医学生批判性思维和解决问题能力的说法是合理的。关键词:基于问题的学习,批判性思维和问题解决能力,医学生
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Effectiveness of Problem-Based Learning in Improving Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills in Medical Students: A Systematic Review of Fifteen Years’ Experience (2005-2019)
Background: An ongoing challenge for medical education in the twenty-first century is determining the best method to foster problem-solving and critical thinking in learners. These higher-order aptitudes help to prepare medical doctors for practice in a rapidly evolving health system. In medical education, Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is an instructional pedagogy in which pupils are challenged to seek answers to authentic patient scenarios in small groups. PBL techniques are proposed as one method to enhance pupils’ learning abilities including critical thinking and problem-solving. Aim: This systematic review was conducted to search for evidence from the past fifteen years of literature, demonstrating the capability of PBL to improve critical thinking and problem-solving skills for medical students. Review Question: Is there evidence to support the capability of PBL to improve problem solving and critical thinking skills in medical students? Methods: The search process was conducted through electronic databases on publications related to the impact of PBL, particularly, on two fundamental skills; critical thinking and problem-solving for medical students. The search process was restricted to publicationsbetween January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2019. Four electronic databases were searched, namely; Medline, PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus. The Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) guidelines were utilised to guide the way this systematic review was conducted. Quality assessment was performed through rating the evaluation methods of the included studies. This rating was through employing a five-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree) for each study in relation to three items; the appropriateness of study design, the implementation of the study as well as the appropriateness of data analysis. The rating for each study was then mapped to a grade from grade 1 (low) to grade 5 (high), which aligns with the BEME strength of the study findings. Results: Searching the four aforementioned databases produced 657 publications, including 249 duplicates. Therefore, 408 publications were screened based on their titles against inclusion and exclusion criteria, leaving 86 articles to screen their abstracts. A further 9 articles were manually obtained such that a total of 95 articles were obtained for a review of their abstracts. Forty-one met the criteria for full text review. Following the full text review, twenty-nine articles were excluded. Therefore, twelve studies were included in this systematic review. The BEME strength of study findings were as follows; only two of the reviewed studies were graded as grade 5, four were graded as grade 4, and six were graded as grade 3. Of the twelve studies reviewed, only five studies provided evidence in support of the capability of PBL to improve critical thinking and problem-solving skills among medical students. Two of these five studies were graded as grade 5 and two were graded as grade 4, while one was graded as grade 3. Discussion: The available evidence in this systematic review provided limited support of the claim that PBL improves medical students’ critical thinking and problem-solving aptitudes. Only five studies provided evidence in support of this claim, while the remaining seven studies did not. Two of these seven studies assessed only the knowledge, comprehension, and application domains, as their evaluation of problem-solving and critical thinking abilities was based on student perspectives. A further two of these seven studies, where the description provided either for case-analysis tests or modified essay questions, did not give an actual indication for measuring critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Another two of these seven studies did not describe their written tests i.e. case-analysis tests and proxy questions that are purported to measure higher-order skills, including critical thinking and problem-solving. This prevented the use of the findings from these two studies as evidence to support the specified review question. The remaining study reported that PBL students’ scores in the final assessment did not improve significantly (p>0.05) compared to the initial assessment. Conclusion: There is very little published evidence over the last fifteen years supporting the claim that PBL improves critical thinking and problem-solving skills in medical students. Therefore, recent practice is not based on evidence. As such, investigations are required to legitimise the claims that PBL improves critical thinking and problem-solving skills for medical students. Key words: Problem-Based Learning, Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills, Medical Students
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信