Do medical students generate sound arguments during small group discussions in problem-based learning?: an analysis of preclinical medical students’ argumentation according to a framework of hypothetico-deductive reasoning
2
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: Hypothetico-deductive reasoning (HDR) is an essential learning activity and a learning outcome in problem-based learning (PBL). It is important for medical students to engage in the HDR process through argumentation during their small group discussionsin PBL. This study aimed to analyze the quality of preclinical medical students’ argumentation according to each phase of HDR in PBL. Methods: Participants were 15 first-year preclinical students divided into two small groups. A set of three 2-hour discussion sessions from each of the two groups during a 1-week-long PBL unit on the cardiovascular system was audio-recorded. The arguments constructed by the students were analyzed using a coding scheme, which included four types of argumentation (Type 0: incomplete, Type 1: claim only, Type 2: claim with data, and Type 3: claim with data and warrant). The mean frequency of each type of argumentation according to each HDR phase across the two small groups was calculated. Results: During small group discussions, Type 1 arguments were generated most often (frequency=120.5, 43%), whereas the least common were Type 3 arguments (frequency=24.5, 8.7%) among the four types of arguments. Conclusion: The results of this study revealed that the students predominantly made claims without proper justifications; they often omitted data for supporting their claims or did not provide warrants to connect the claims and data. The findings suggest instructional interventions to enhance the quality of medical students’ arguments in PBL, including promoting students’ comprehension of the structure of argumentation for HDR processes and questioning.
Abstract
Purpose: Hypothetico-deductive reasoning (HDR) is an essential learning activity and a learning outcome in problem-based learning (PBL). It is important for medical students to engage in the HDR process through argumentation during their small group discussionsin PBL. This study aimed to analyze the quality of preclinical medical students’ argumentation according to each phase of HDR in PBL. Methods: Participants were 15 first-year preclinical students divided into two small groups. A set of three 2-hour discussion sessions from each of the two groups during a 1-week-long PBL unit on the cardiovascular system was audio-recorded. The arguments constructed by the students were analyzed using a coding scheme, which included four types of argumentation (Type 0: incomplete, Type 1: claim only, Type 2: claim with data, and Type 3: claim with data and warrant). The mean frequency of each type of argumentation according to each HDR phase across the two small groups was calculated. Results: During small group discussions, Type 1 arguments were generated most often (frequency=120.5, 43%), whereas the least common were Type 3 arguments (frequency=24.5, 8.7%) among the four types of arguments. Conclusion: The results of this study revealed that the students predominantly made claims without proper justifications; they often omitted data for supporting their claims or did not provide warrants to connect the claims and data. The findings suggest instructional interventions to enhance the quality of medical students’ arguments in PBL, including promoting students’ comprehension of the structure of argumentation for HDR processes and questioning.
참고문헌 (20)
- Groves M, "Understanding clinical reasoning: the next step in working out how it really works", Med Educ, 46, pp.444~446 (2012)
- Kempainen RR, "Understanding our mistakes: a primer on errors in clinical reasoning", Med Teach, 25, pp.177~181 (2003)
- Barrows HS, "Practice-based learning: problem-based learning applied to medical education. Springfield" (1994), Southern Illinois University
- Patel VL, "The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning", pp.727~750 (2005), Cambridge University Press
- Durham CO, "Teaching dual-process diagnostic reasoning to doctor of nursing practice students: problem-based learning and the illness script", J Nurs Educ, 53, pp.646~650 (2014)
- Hmelo-Silver CE, "Facilitating collaborative knowledge building", Cogn Instr, 26, pp.48~94 (2008)
- Frederiksen CH, "Learning to reason through discourse in a problem‐based learning group", Discourse Process, 27, pp.135~160 (1999)
- Visschers-Pleijers AJ, "Analysis of verbal interactions in tutorial groups: a process study", Med Educ, 40, pp.129~137 (2006)
- 여상희, "Students’ perceptions and satisfaction level of hybrid problem-based learning for 16 years in Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Korea", Korean Journal of Medical Education, 28(1), pp.9~16 (2016), 한국의학교육학회[DOI]
- Ju H, "Challenges experienced by Korean medical students and tutors during problembased learning: a cultural perspective", Interdiscip J Probl Based Learn, 10 (2016)
- Toulmin S., "The uses of argument" (1958), Cambridge University Press
- Jimenez-Aleixandre MP, "“Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: argument in high school genetics", Sci Educ, 84, pp.757~792 (2000)
- Jonassen DH, "Learning to solve problems: a handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments" (2011), Routledge
- Ju H, "The role of argumentation in hypotheticodeductive reasoning during problem-based learning in medical education: a conceptual framework", Interdiscip J Probl Based Learn
- Cohen J, "A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales", Educ Psychol Meas, 20, pp.37~46 (1960)
- Barrows HS, "How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years" (1985), Springer
- McNeill KL, "Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials", J Learn Sci, 15, pp.153~191 (2006)
- Cerbin, B, "The nature and development of informal reasoning skills in college students", Paper presented at:the 12th National Institute on Issues in Teaching and Learning (1988)
- Schmidt HG, "The process of problem-based learning: what works and why", Med Educ, 45, pp.792~806 (2011)
- Chin C, "Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: case studies in science classrooms", J Learn Sci, 19, pp.230~284 (2010)