Cargando…

Systematic review of the use of debates in health professions education – does it work?

Background: It is unavoidable for learners undergoing health professions training to encounter different complex clinical scenarios related to diagnoses, treatment and ethical dilemmas. The lack of standard answers to such clinical challenges can cause uncertainty in the process of teaching, learnin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ang, Ren Xuan, Chew, Qian Hui, Sum, Min Yi, Sengupta, Somnath, Sim, Kang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6737264/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31544137
http://dx.doi.org/10.3205/zma001245
_version_ 1783450633796321280
author Ang, Ren Xuan
Chew, Qian Hui
Sum, Min Yi
Sengupta, Somnath
Sim, Kang
author_facet Ang, Ren Xuan
Chew, Qian Hui
Sum, Min Yi
Sengupta, Somnath
Sim, Kang
author_sort Ang, Ren Xuan
collection PubMed
description Background: It is unavoidable for learners undergoing health professions training to encounter different complex clinical scenarios related to diagnoses, treatment and ethical dilemmas. The lack of standard answers to such clinical challenges can cause uncertainty in the process of teaching, learning and assessment as learners grapple with the need to critically appraise the specific context, past practices and extant literature to arrive at a thoughtful decision. In this aspect, debate can be a useful pedagogical tool to consider multiple, different perspectives regarding these issues. As the use of debate within the health professions education has not been reviewed, we conducted a systematic review of the current literature on the adoption of debate as a pedagogical tool to clarify the specific context of use as well as its effectiveness in the learning of skills and content within the health professions education. Methods: A systematic review was conducted on relevant published literature in English within journal databases until September 2018 that employed debate as a pedagogical tool within health professions education. Results: Out of 626 screened articles, 12 studies were finally included based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. The 12 studies (9 undergraduate, 3 postgraduate) covered a diverse range of disciplines and debate in health professions education was adopted for acquisition of skills (such as critical thinking, communication skills, teamwork), or learning of specific topics (such as patient safety, ethical issues, teaching of new topics) as well as to examine evidence based practice. In the majority of studies (10 of 12 studies, 83.3%), debate has been deemed by the learners to be effective in facilitating the learning of new content and skills such as communication and critical thinking, which are related to processes aligned with adult learning, motivational, reflective and social learning theories. Conclusion: Overall, sparse studies to date with relatively low risk of bias found debate to be effective in enabling the learning of skills and content within health professions education. Future studies may want to incorporate more objective measures of the learning outcomes of learners following the adoption of debate as a teaching tool as well as to examine the combinatorial use of debate with other pedagogical tools and their longitudinal impact on learners and learning.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6737264
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher German Medical Science GMS Publishing House
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67372642019-09-20 Systematic review of the use of debates in health professions education – does it work? Ang, Ren Xuan Chew, Qian Hui Sum, Min Yi Sengupta, Somnath Sim, Kang GMS J Med Educ Article Background: It is unavoidable for learners undergoing health professions training to encounter different complex clinical scenarios related to diagnoses, treatment and ethical dilemmas. The lack of standard answers to such clinical challenges can cause uncertainty in the process of teaching, learning and assessment as learners grapple with the need to critically appraise the specific context, past practices and extant literature to arrive at a thoughtful decision. In this aspect, debate can be a useful pedagogical tool to consider multiple, different perspectives regarding these issues. As the use of debate within the health professions education has not been reviewed, we conducted a systematic review of the current literature on the adoption of debate as a pedagogical tool to clarify the specific context of use as well as its effectiveness in the learning of skills and content within the health professions education. Methods: A systematic review was conducted on relevant published literature in English within journal databases until September 2018 that employed debate as a pedagogical tool within health professions education. Results: Out of 626 screened articles, 12 studies were finally included based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. The 12 studies (9 undergraduate, 3 postgraduate) covered a diverse range of disciplines and debate in health professions education was adopted for acquisition of skills (such as critical thinking, communication skills, teamwork), or learning of specific topics (such as patient safety, ethical issues, teaching of new topics) as well as to examine evidence based practice. In the majority of studies (10 of 12 studies, 83.3%), debate has been deemed by the learners to be effective in facilitating the learning of new content and skills such as communication and critical thinking, which are related to processes aligned with adult learning, motivational, reflective and social learning theories. Conclusion: Overall, sparse studies to date with relatively low risk of bias found debate to be effective in enabling the learning of skills and content within health professions education. Future studies may want to incorporate more objective measures of the learning outcomes of learners following the adoption of debate as a teaching tool as well as to examine the combinatorial use of debate with other pedagogical tools and their longitudinal impact on learners and learning. German Medical Science GMS Publishing House 2019-08-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6737264/ /pubmed/31544137 http://dx.doi.org/10.3205/zma001245 Text en Copyright © 2019 Ang et al. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. See license information at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Ang, Ren Xuan
Chew, Qian Hui
Sum, Min Yi
Sengupta, Somnath
Sim, Kang
Systematic review of the use of debates in health professions education – does it work?
title Systematic review of the use of debates in health professions education – does it work?
title_full Systematic review of the use of debates in health professions education – does it work?
title_fullStr Systematic review of the use of debates in health professions education – does it work?
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review of the use of debates in health professions education – does it work?
title_short Systematic review of the use of debates in health professions education – does it work?
title_sort systematic review of the use of debates in health professions education – does it work?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6737264/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31544137
http://dx.doi.org/10.3205/zma001245
work_keys_str_mv AT angrenxuan systematicreviewoftheuseofdebatesinhealthprofessionseducationdoesitwork
AT chewqianhui systematicreviewoftheuseofdebatesinhealthprofessionseducationdoesitwork
AT summinyi systematicreviewoftheuseofdebatesinhealthprofessionseducationdoesitwork
AT senguptasomnath systematicreviewoftheuseofdebatesinhealthprofessionseducationdoesitwork
AT simkang systematicreviewoftheuseofdebatesinhealthprofessionseducationdoesitwork