Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34408527›Full record

ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2021

Use of Debate as a Pedagogical Tool in Psychiatry Residency Teaching: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Qian Hui Chew, Xian Ying Seet, Kang Sim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Qian Hui ChewResearch Division, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore.
Xian Ying SeetDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore.
Kang SimWest Region, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-3209-9626

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDespite the potential benefits of the use of debate as a teaching tool in promoting active self-directed and reflective learning, there are few studies examining its use within postgraduate training including psychiatry residency training. We aim to study this pedagogical tool and hypothesize that within psychiatry residency training, preference for the use of debates during teaching of a common topic is associated with better learning processes and outcomes such as better motivation, engagement of the learners, promotion of critical thinking and understanding of the subject content. SUBJECTS AND

methodsAll second-year psychiatry residents from 2015 to 2019 who underwent a specific teaching session on "Neurobiology of Psychosis" (which was conducted using debate) were administered a study questionnaire following the session. Between-group comparisons, correlational and path analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between use of debate and specific learning processes and outcome.

resultsOverall, 66 out of 80 (82.5%) residents participated in the survey. The preferred use of debate was associated with better motivation, engagement, facilitation of critical thinking, understanding, equipping and better overall rating of the teaching session. Path analyses found that the relationship between preference for debate as a teaching tool and overall rating of the teaching was partially mediated by better engagement, felt relevance to the learning needs and better understanding.

conclusionThe effectiveness of debate as perceived by psychiatry residents is consistent with self-determination and related learning theories and extant literature on its use as a pedagogical tool. This behoves the need to consider more of its use alone or in combination with other teaching methods in enhancing learning outcomes within psychiatry residency teaching and other training programmes.

Indexed as

critical thinkingengagementmotivationunderstanding

Identifiers

PMID34408527
PMCPMC8364338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.