Cargando…

Student Perceptions of a New Course Using Argumentation in Medical Education

PURPOSE: Critical thinking and the ability to engage with others of differing views in a civil manner is essential to the practice of medicine. A new format for medical student education (“Argue-to-Learn”) that uses staged debates followed by small group discussions was introduced into the curriculu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Foy, Andrew J, Vrana, Kent E, Haidet, Paul, Hausman, Bernice L, Adams, Nancy E, Ropson, Ira, Wolpaw, Daniel R, Rabago, David, Mailman, Richard B, Huang, Xuemei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10505381/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37724185
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S394219
_version_ 1785106908023095296
author Foy, Andrew J
Vrana, Kent E
Haidet, Paul
Hausman, Bernice L
Adams, Nancy E
Ropson, Ira
Wolpaw, Daniel R
Rabago, David
Mailman, Richard B
Huang, Xuemei
author_facet Foy, Andrew J
Vrana, Kent E
Haidet, Paul
Hausman, Bernice L
Adams, Nancy E
Ropson, Ira
Wolpaw, Daniel R
Rabago, David
Mailman, Richard B
Huang, Xuemei
author_sort Foy, Andrew J
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Critical thinking and the ability to engage with others of differing views in a civil manner is essential to the practice of medicine. A new format for medical student education (“Argue-to-Learn”) that uses staged debates followed by small group discussions was introduced into the curriculum of first year medical school at the Penn State College of Medicine. The goal was to create a structured environment for spirited, civil discourse, and to encourage students to think critically about clinically controversial topics. This manuscript describes the development of the program, and presents comparative data on student perceptions of the first two mandatory sessions that focused on the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis and on COVID-19 vaccine mandates. METHODS: Quantitative results were gathered from standardized post-block student surveys for each session and compared to cumulative results of all other courses included in the learning block. Post-block surveys of students include four session-evaluation questions scored on a 5 point Likert scale. Scores were compared using Student’s t-test. Thematic analysis of qualitative data was performed on a single open-ended response from the same survey. RESULTS: Compared to all other courses in the learning block, scores on each of the four questions were either the same or numerically higher for the Argue-to-Learn sessions, but none reached statistical significance. Two important qualitative themes were identified. First, students enjoyed the format, found it interesting and engaging and want more similar sessions. Second, students appreciated hearing opposing viewpoints and presenting their own viewpoints in a safe and supportive environment. CONCLUSION: These findings support evidence from educational scholarship outside of medicine showing argumentation as a learning tool is well received by students. Further work is needed to determine whether it improves critical thinking skills and enhances learning in medical education.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10505381
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105053812023-09-18 Student Perceptions of a New Course Using Argumentation in Medical Education Foy, Andrew J Vrana, Kent E Haidet, Paul Hausman, Bernice L Adams, Nancy E Ropson, Ira Wolpaw, Daniel R Rabago, David Mailman, Richard B Huang, Xuemei Adv Med Educ Pract Original Research PURPOSE: Critical thinking and the ability to engage with others of differing views in a civil manner is essential to the practice of medicine. A new format for medical student education (“Argue-to-Learn”) that uses staged debates followed by small group discussions was introduced into the curriculum of first year medical school at the Penn State College of Medicine. The goal was to create a structured environment for spirited, civil discourse, and to encourage students to think critically about clinically controversial topics. This manuscript describes the development of the program, and presents comparative data on student perceptions of the first two mandatory sessions that focused on the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis and on COVID-19 vaccine mandates. METHODS: Quantitative results were gathered from standardized post-block student surveys for each session and compared to cumulative results of all other courses included in the learning block. Post-block surveys of students include four session-evaluation questions scored on a 5 point Likert scale. Scores were compared using Student’s t-test. Thematic analysis of qualitative data was performed on a single open-ended response from the same survey. RESULTS: Compared to all other courses in the learning block, scores on each of the four questions were either the same or numerically higher for the Argue-to-Learn sessions, but none reached statistical significance. Two important qualitative themes were identified. First, students enjoyed the format, found it interesting and engaging and want more similar sessions. Second, students appreciated hearing opposing viewpoints and presenting their own viewpoints in a safe and supportive environment. CONCLUSION: These findings support evidence from educational scholarship outside of medicine showing argumentation as a learning tool is well received by students. Further work is needed to determine whether it improves critical thinking skills and enhances learning in medical education. Dove 2023-09-13 /pmc/articles/PMC10505381/ /pubmed/37724185 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S394219 Text en © 2023 Foy et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Original Research
Foy, Andrew J
Vrana, Kent E
Haidet, Paul
Hausman, Bernice L
Adams, Nancy E
Ropson, Ira
Wolpaw, Daniel R
Rabago, David
Mailman, Richard B
Huang, Xuemei
Student Perceptions of a New Course Using Argumentation in Medical Education
title Student Perceptions of a New Course Using Argumentation in Medical Education
title_full Student Perceptions of a New Course Using Argumentation in Medical Education
title_fullStr Student Perceptions of a New Course Using Argumentation in Medical Education
title_full_unstemmed Student Perceptions of a New Course Using Argumentation in Medical Education
title_short Student Perceptions of a New Course Using Argumentation in Medical Education
title_sort student perceptions of a new course using argumentation in medical education
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10505381/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37724185
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S394219
work_keys_str_mv AT foyandrewj studentperceptionsofanewcourseusingargumentationinmedicaleducation
AT vranakente studentperceptionsofanewcourseusingargumentationinmedicaleducation
AT haidetpaul studentperceptionsofanewcourseusingargumentationinmedicaleducation
AT hausmanbernicel studentperceptionsofanewcourseusingargumentationinmedicaleducation
AT adamsnancye studentperceptionsofanewcourseusingargumentationinmedicaleducation
AT ropsonira studentperceptionsofanewcourseusingargumentationinmedicaleducation
AT wolpawdanielr studentperceptionsofanewcourseusingargumentationinmedicaleducation
AT rabagodavid studentperceptionsofanewcourseusingargumentationinmedicaleducation
AT mailmanrichardb studentperceptionsofanewcourseusingargumentationinmedicaleducation
AT huangxuemei studentperceptionsofanewcourseusingargumentationinmedicaleducation