Online debates to enhance critical thinking in pharmacotherapy
MetadataShow full item record
Objectives. To assess the impact of teaching strategies on the complexity and structure of students' arguments and type of informal reasoning used in arguments. Design. Students were given an introduction to argumentation followed by 2 formal debates, with feedback provided in between. Assessment. Four debate groups were randomly selected for evaluation. In debate 1, all groups posted 1 argument, and all 4 arguments were rationalistic and ranked as high-level arguments. In debate 2, members of the 4 groups posted a total of 33 arguments, which were evaluated and received an overall median ranking lower than that for debate 1. All debates were categorized as rationalistic. Conclusion. Students were able to formulate rationalistic arguments to therapeutic controversies; however, their level of argumentation decreased over the course of the study. Changes planned for the future include conducting the debates in the context of patient scenarios to increase practical applicability.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Charrois, Theresa; Appleton, Michelle (2013)OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of teaching strategies on the complexity and structure of students’ arguments and type of informal reasoning used in arguments. DESIGN: Students were given an introduction to argumentation ...
Charrois, Theresa; Appleton, Shelley (2012)Given changes in the final year pharmacotherapy unit structure and calendar, along with a need to introduce assessments to encourage critical thinking, it was decided that online debates of therapeutic controversies would ...
Whitworth, Anne; Webster, J.; Howard, D. (2015)Background: Verb difficulties in aphasia often co-occur with difficulties specifying argument structure of the sentence. Recent exploration of verb and argument structure deficits has shown dissociations between lexical ...