Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36941597›Full record

ReviewBMC medical education2023

Thinking more wisely: using the Socratic method to develop critical thinking skills amongst healthcare students.

Yueh-Ren Ho, Bao-Yu Chen, Chien-Ming Li

Open access · goldFull text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
96.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 100 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yueh-Ren HoDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, University Road No.1, East District 701, Tainan City, Taiwan (R.O.C.). yrho@mail.ncku.edu.tw.
Bao-Yu ChenInstitute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, University Road No.1, East District 701, Tainan City, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
Chien-Ming LiSchool of Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, University Road No.1, East District 701, Tainan City, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
National Cheng Kung University · TWChi Mei Medical Center · TW

Funding

Teaching Practice Research Program, Ministry of Education, Taiwan PMN1110350, PMN1100853, PMN1090364, PMN108075, PMN107018
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Education, Nursing, BaccalaureateStudents, MedicalAgedDelivery of Health CareHumansProblem SolvingThinkingBiochemistry experimentCritical thinkingMedical educationMetacognitionSocratic method

Identifiers

PMID36941597
PMCPMC10026783
OpenAlexW4328049487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read4
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.