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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |