Advertisement

Medical Science Educator

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 149–156 | Cite as

Advancing Critical Thinking Through Learning Issues in Problem-Based Learning

  • Carol C. ThompsonEmail author
Original Research
  • 97 Downloads

Abstract

Health professions educators are increasingly urged to use learning designs that promote critical thinking and the development of interpersonal competencies. Problem-based learning (PBL) has a long, albeit contested, history as a collaborative and deep think-aloud process that participants use to reach conclusions about medical cases. In order to make progress, participants must assess what they do not know and what they must learn in order to continue. Answering these learning issues (LI) requires self-direction and cognitive presence. This study analyzes the discussions that participants used in the reporting phase of the LI process in an 8-week PBL module on cardiac-renal systems. Data were drawn from 10 class sessions and analyzed for critical thinking using a model based on Garrison and Newman et al. Participants at first presented LI reports didactically but over time initiated active learning strategies. The findings indicate large increases in the numbers of LI reports in which participants engaged in collaborative thinking. There were also large increases in the amount of time devoted to critical thinking as participants aligned the LI process more closely with the intent of PBL. Participants’ identity development as experts also underwent changes and the fluidity of the expert roles increased. Thoughtful design of the LI process can help learners develop the habitus of self-direction and collaborative critical thinking that they need in order to develop clinical reasoning.

Keywords

Learning issues Problem-based learning Critical thinking Discourse Identity development 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author is indebted to Dean Linda Boyd and Victor Scali, D.O., of the Rowan University School of Osteopathic medicine for their assistance in making this research possible, and to the students in the PBL class and to Matthew Tribble.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Prior to beginning the study, IRB approval was sought and granted.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that there is conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Irby DM, Cooke M, O’Brien BC. Calls for reform of medical education by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: 1910 and 2010. Aca Med. 2010;85(2):220–7.  https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e3181c88449.
  3. 3.
    Croskerry P. A model for clinical decision making in medicine. Med Sci Ed. 2017:27s9–s13.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-017-0499-9.
  4. 4.
    Ennis R. The nature of critical thinking. Presentation at the Sixth International Conference on Thinking at MIT, Cambridge, MA, July, 1994. Last revised May, 2011. Available http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/rhennis/documents/TheNatureofCriticalThinking_51711_000.pdf
  5. 5.
    Facione P. Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. California Academic Press. https://assessment.aas.duke.edu/documents/Delphi_Report.pdf. Accessed 7/14/14.
  6. 6.
    Kamin C, O'Sullivan P, Younger M, Deterding R. Measuring critical thinking in problem-based learning discourse. Teach Learn Med 2001;13(1):27–35. Available from:  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328015TLM1301_6.
  7. 7.
    Hmelo-Silver C, Barrows H. Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cogn Instr. 2008;26(1):48–94 http://www.jstor.org/stable/27739874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bransford J, Barron B, Pea R, Meltzoff A, Kuhl P, Bell P, et al. Foundations and opportunities for an interdisciplinary science of learning. In: Sawyer R, editor. Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown JS, Collins A, Duguid P. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ Res. 1989;18:32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nguyen QD, Fernandez N, Karsenti T, Charlin B. What is reflection? A conceptual analysis of major definitions and a proposal of a five component model. Med Educ. 2014;48:1176–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jeong AC. The sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in online threaded discussions. Am J Dist Educ. 2003;17(1):25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wittich C, Reed D, McDonald F, Varkey P, Beckman T. Transformative learning: a framework using critical reflection to link the improvement competencies in graduate medical education. Acad Med. 2010;85:1790–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mpofu D, Das M, Murdoch J, Lanphear J. Effectiveness of problems used in problem-based learning. Med Educ. 1997;31(5):330–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lin X. Designing metacognitive activities. ETR&D. 2001;42(2):23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vygotsky, LS. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press: 1978.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dolmans DHJM, Dolmans MA, Gijselaers WH, Schmidt H, van der Meer SB. Problem effectiveness in a course using problem-based learning. Acad Med. 1993;68(3):207–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van den Hurk MM, Wolfhagen I, Dolmans D, van der Vleuten C. The impact of student-generated learning issues on individual study time and academic achievement. Med Educ. 1999 Nov 1;33(11):808–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salinitri F, O'Connell M, Garwood C, Lehr V, Abdallah K. An objective structured clinical examination to assess problem-based learning. Am J Pharm Educ 2012;76(3):44. Available from:  https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe76344.
  19. 19.
    Woodward CA. A summary of McMaster medical graduates’ performance on the medical council of Canada examination. Hamlton, Ontario. McMaster Facutly of Health Sciences. 1984. Cited in Schmidt H, Dauphinee W, Patel V. Comparing the effects of problem-based and conventional curricula in an international sample. Acad Med 1987;62(4):305–315. Available from:  https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-198704000-00002.
  20. 20.
    Vernon D, Blake R. Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Acad Med 1993;68(7):550–563. Available from:  https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199307000-00015.
  21. 21.
    Albanese MA, Xakellis GC. Building collegiality: the real value of problem-based learning. Med Educ. 2001;35(12):1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Visschers-Pleijers A, Dolmans D, Wolfhagen I, van der Vleuten C. Exploration of a method to analyze group interactions in problem-based learning. Med Teach 2004;26:471–478. Available from  https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590410001679064.
  23. 23.
    DeGrave WS, Schmidt HG, Boshuizen H. Effects of problem-based discussion on studying a subsequent text: a randomized trial among first year medical students. Instruct Sci 2001; 29(1):33–44. Available from  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026571615672.
  24. 24.
    Hemelo-Silver C. Problem-based learning: when and how do students learn? Educ Psych Rev. 2004;16(3):235–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Garrison DR. Critical thinking and self-directed learning in adult education: an analysis of responsibility and control issues. Adult Educ Q. 1992;42(3):136–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Newman DR, Webb B, Cochrane C. Content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpers Comput Tech. 1995;3(2):56–77.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jacoby S, Gonzales P. The constitution of expert-novice in scientific discourse. Issues Appl Linguistics. 1991;2(2).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Patel VL, Kaufman DR, & Kannampallil TG. Rev Human factors Ergonomics 2013;8:149–190.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1557234X13492978.
  29. 29.
    Jonassen D. Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem solving learning outcomes. ETR&D. 1997;45(1):65–94.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jonassen D. Toward a design theory of problem solving. ERT&D. 2000;48(3):63–85.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Carasco G Behling K Lopez O. 2017. Evaluation of the role of incentive structure on student participation and performance in active learning strategies: a comparison of case-based and team-based learning. Med teacher Available  https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1408899.

Copyright information

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rowan UniversityGlassboroUSA

Personalised recommendations