在线辩论以提高药物治疗学的批判性思维。
Online debates to enhance critical thinking in pharmacotherapy.
机构信息
School of Pharmacy, Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
出版信息
Am J Pharm Educ. 2013 Oct 14;77(8):170. doi: 10.5688/ajpe778170.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the impact of teaching strategies on the complexity and structure of students' arguments and type of informal reasoning used in arguments.
DESIGN
Students were given an introduction to argumentation followed by 2 formal debates, with feedback provided in between.
ASSESSMENT
Four debate groups were randomly selected for evaluation. In debate 1, all groups posted 1 argument, and all 4 arguments were rationalistic and ranked as high-level arguments. In debate 2, members of the 4 groups posted a total of 33 arguments, which were evaluated and received an overall median ranking lower than that for debate 1. All debates were categorized as rationalistic.
CONCLUSION
Students were able to formulate rationalistic arguments to therapeutic controversies; however, their level of argumentation decreased over the course of the study. Changes planned for the future include conducting the debates in the context of patient scenarios to increase practical applicability.
目的
评估教学策略对学生论点的复杂性和结构以及论点中使用的非正式推理类型的影响。
设计
学生首先接受论证介绍，然后进行 2 次正式辩论，并在两次辩论之间提供反馈。
评估
随机选择了 4 个辩论小组进行评估。在辩论 1 中，所有小组都发布了 1 个论点，这 4 个论点都是理性主义的，并且被评为高级论点。在辩论 2 中，4 个小组的成员总共发布了 33 个论点，对这些论点进行了评估，其整体中位数排名低于辩论 1。所有辩论都被归类为理性主义。
结论
学生能够针对治疗争议形成理性主义论点；然而，他们的论证水平在研究过程中有所下降。未来计划的改变包括在患者情境的背景下进行辩论，以提高实际适用性。
Zotero 插件