Alhassan Abdulaziz I
Department of Medical Education, College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2023 Aug 4;14:845-857. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S417649. eCollection 2023.
The purpose of this study was to examine the application of faculty to stimulate the critical thinking and deep analysis of their students through instructional practice including lecture design, assessment structure, and assignment instructions.
Faculty from multiple different health colleges at Saudi Arabia were asked to respond to survey items about the activities they use in their classrooms with regards to designing lectures, assessment structures, and instructional assignments. A correlation analysis was performed to determine if the level of applied critical thinking and deep analysis that is stimulated by faculty members were statistically related between designing lectures, assessment structure, and instructional assignments. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was also performed to determine if there were significant differences based on the demographic characteristics of the participants and level of applied critical thinking and deep analysis.
A correlational analysis revealed that the mean score for designing lectures was 67.276, following by a mean score of 65.233 for instructional assignment and 64.688 for assessment structure. The result of the ANOVA showed that there was a significant difference in the perceptions of the participants between designing lectures, assessment structure, and instructional assignment (p<0.05).
The participants applied critical thinking and deep analysis when they design their lectures more than assessments and instructional assignments. They had the flexibility to stimulate critical thinking during the lecture activities. In contrast, this flexibility was limited when they were structuring the assessment as they had instructions to consider and were required to provide a rubric with unified key answer which is a mandatory requirement from the assessment department. This is due to the nature of high level of critical thinking answers that lead to high subjectivity in student responses.
本研究旨在通过包括讲座设计、评估结构和作业指导在内的教学实践，考察教师如何应用教学方法来激发学生的批判性思维和深度分析能力。
来自沙特阿拉伯多所不同健康学院的教师被要求回答关于他们在课堂上用于讲座设计、评估结构和教学作业的活动的调查项目。进行相关性分析以确定教师所激发的应用批判性思维和深度分析水平在讲座设计、评估结构和教学作业之间是否存在统计学关联。还进行了方差分析（ANOVA），以确定基于参与者的人口统计学特征以及应用批判性思维和深度分析水平是否存在显著差异。
相关性分析显示，讲座设计的平均得分为67.276，其次教学作业的平均得分为65.233，评估结构的平均得分为64.688。方差分析结果表明，参与者在讲座设计、评估结构和教学作业方面的认知存在显著差异（p<0.05）。
参与者在设计讲座时比在评估和教学作业中更能应用批判性思维和深度分析。他们在讲座活动中有激发批判性思维的灵活性。相比之下，在构建评估时这种灵活性受到限制，因为他们有需要考虑的指导说明，并且被要求提供带有统一标准答案的评分标准，这是评估部门的一项强制性要求。这是由于高水平批判性思维答案的性质导致学生回答具有高度主观性。
