ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
The Case for Writing Critical Thinking Reports as a Teaching Strategy on Today's Hospital Wards.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
I review some of the challenges in teaching medical students and housestaff on today's hospital medicine wards, including increasingly limited time for dedicated teaching. Tapping into the extensive literature of "writing to learn" or "writing-across-the curriculum" in non-medical educational settings ranging from elementary school to college classes, I urge consideration of writing concise critical thinking reports (CTRs) by medical students and housestaff in response to questions raised during patient rounds as a means of enhancing their ward-based learning experience. Several potential reasons for writing CTRs are offered: (1) Nurtures curiosity; (2) Demands self-directed search for and encoding of new knowledge; (3) Emphasizes metacognition and conceptualization crucial to meaningful learning; (4) Provides opportunity for learners to teach and share newly-assimilated material with a broader web-based audience; (5) Encourages the concept of narrow but more in-depth learning related to a specific clinically relevant subject matter; (6) Nudges learners toward clear and succinct writing as an important general skill to develop in their everyday professional activities, including electronic medical record documentation; and (7) Reduces work-related burnout. Barriers to writing CTRs, including lack of general appreciation for explanatory writing as a potential teaching strategy in medical education and allowing sufficient time for medical students and housestaff to engage in this activity among other competing demands, are discussed. Writing CTRs is a potentially powerful pedagogical tool in ward-based learning that deserves consideration and formal evaluation by properly designed studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.