Dataset Information

Questioning Aid for Rich, Real-Time Discussion (QARRD): A Tool to Improve Critical Thinking in Clinical Settings.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Critical thinking skills are crucial for health professionals, especially in clinical settings. However, most health professions educators engage learners with only lower-level concepts such as definitions, fact recall, or basic explanations. Employing strategic questioning methods that require learners to use higher-order thinking can help develop clinical reasoning skills.

Methods

The Questioning Aid for Rich, Real-time Discussion (QARRD) was created for health professions educators to purposefully implement concepts from Bloom's taxonomy and hierarchical questioning in clinical settings. The tool was introduced to faculty in a 1-hour, interprofessional workshop that described learning science and evidence-based questioning methods. Participants practiced QARRD questioning strategies and completed a pre/post case-based evaluation in which they developed discussion prompts for learners.

Results

Thirty-seven educators participated in two separate workshops. The majority (71%) of preworkshop prompts were lower-order thinking skills (remembering/understanding). After the workshop, the complexity of participants' discussion prompts increased significantly. Most postworkshop prompts (69%) reflected higher-level thinking skills (apply/analyze/evaluate/create). Many participants reported that, despite previously knowing about Bloom's taxonomy, they had not known how to implement this learning framework in clinical instruction until completing the QARRD training.

Discussion

The QARRD is a versatile, practical tool for health professions educators to practice promoting higher-level thinking in clinical settings. QARRD strategies allow educators to make small, purposeful adjustments to instructional methods that meaningfully engage learners to help facilitate clinical reasoning. This workshop can be delivered at other institutions and adapted as a virtual grand rounds to broadly enhance strategic questioning in clinical education.

SUBMITTER: Farmer RW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8015636 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Using a probe-tube microphone to measure and adjust the real-ear performance of the hearing aid to match the prescription target is recommended and widely used in clinical practice. Hearing aid fitting software can approximately match the amplification characteristics of the hearing aid to the prescription without real-ear measurements (REMs), but using REM improves the match to the prescribed target. What is unclear is if the improved match results in a better patient-reported outcome. The primary objective of this review is to determine whether the use of REM improves patient-reported outcomes in adult hearing aid users. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The review's methods are in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and CENTRAL via Cochrane Library will be searched to identify relevant studies. The review's population of interest will include adults with any degree of sensorineural or mixed hearing loss who have been prescribed with acoustic hearing aids. The included studies should compare REM fitting to the initial fit provided by the manufacturer's fitting software. Hearing-specific health-related quality of life is the primary outcome but secondary outcomes include self-reported listening ability, speech recognition scores, generic health-related quality of life, hours of use, number of required follow-up sessions and adverse events. Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials will be included. The risk of bias in the included studies will be evaluated using Down and Black's checklist. The quality of the overall evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval will not be sought because this systematic review will only retrieve and analyse data from published studies. Review results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42020166074.

Project description:BackgroundIn medicine, critical thinking is required for managing and tolerating medical uncertainty, as well as solving professional problems and treating diseases. However, the core of Confucianism, teacher-centered and exam-oriented settings in middle and high school education may pose challenges to developing critical thinking in Han Chinese or Taiwanese students. Students may be adversely affected by these pedagogies since student-centered settings were more effective in stimulating their critical and reflective thinking, as well as a sense of responsibility, in the ever-changing world. Therefore, guiding students with less stable foundations of critical thinking might require a different approach. A review article highlighted the potential utility of the Socratic method as a tool for teaching critical thinking in the healthcare field. The method involves posing a series of questions to students. More importantly, medical students and residents in clinical teaching are familiar with the method. Almost all healthcare students must complete a biochemistry laboratory course as part of their basic science training. Thus, we aimed to train students to develop critical thinking in the biochemistry laboratory course by using learning sheets and teacher guidance based on the Socratic method and questioning.MethodWe recruited second-year students from a medical school, of whom 32 had medical science and biotechnology majors (MSB), 27 had pharmaceutical science majors (PS), and 85 were medical undergraduate (MU) students. An exercise in critical thinking was conducted during a biochemistry laboratory course, which consisted of five different biochemical experiments, along with learning sheets that contained three or four critical thinking questions. Then, the teacher evaluated the students' ability to think critically based on nine intellectual dimensions (clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, fairness, and significance) based on the universal intellectual standards developed by Prof. Linda Elder and Richard Paul. In the following analysis, regression models and multivariate analysis were used to determine how students improved over time, and trajectory analysis were carried out in order to observe the trends in students' critical thinking skills construction.ResultsClarity and logic dimensions were identified as the key elements to facilitate the development of critical thinking skills through learning sheets and teacher guidance in students across all three different healthcare majors. The results showed that metacognitive monitoring via Socratic questioning learning sheets have demonstrated potential encourage students to develop critical thinking skills in all dimensions. Another unique contribution of current study was present the heterogeneous learning patterns and progress trajectories of clarity and logic dimensions within classes.ConclusionUsing the Socratic learning model could effectively develop students' critical thinking skills so they can more effectively care for their patients.

Project description:Developing a position on a socio-scientific issue and defending it using a well-reasoned justification involves complex cognitive skills that are challenging to both teach and assess. Our work centers on instructional strategies for fostering critical thinking skills in high school students using bioethical case studies, decision-making frameworks, and structured analysis tools to scaffold student argumentation. In this study, we examined the effects of our teacher professional development and curricular materials on the ability of high school students to analyze a bioethical case study and develop a strong position. We focused on student ability to identify an ethical question, consider stakeholders and their values, incorporate relevant scientific facts and content, address ethical principles, and consider the strengths and weaknesses of alternate solutions. 431 students and 12 teachers participated in a research study using teacher cohorts for comparison purposes. The first cohort received professional development and used the curriculum with their students; the second did not receive professional development until after their participation in the study and did not use the curriculum. In order to assess the acquisition of higher-order justification skills, students were asked to analyze a case study and develop a well-reasoned written position. We evaluated statements using a scoring rubric and found highly significant differences (p<0.001) between students exposed to the curriculum strategies and those who were not. Students also showed highly significant gains (p<0.001) in self-reported interest in science content, ability to analyze socio-scientific issues, awareness of ethical issues, ability to listen to and discuss viewpoints different from their own, and understanding of the relationship between science and society. Our results demonstrate that incorporating ethical dilemmas into the classroom is one strategy for increasing student motivation and engagement with science content, while promoting reasoning and justification skills that help prepare an informed citizenry.