OBJECTIVES: This article describes an online debate series that was developed as a new component to an introductory core course for first-professional year pharmacy students. Objectives were to facilitate the group process, introduce controversial issues related to the US healthcare system, improve critical thinking and communication skills, enable students' ability to analyze and evaluate evidence, help develop skills in formulating written arguments, and encourage tolerance of diverse points of view. DESIGN: One hundred sixty-two students were assigned to 40 teams (half assigned to argue as "Pros" and half as "Cons") and paired into 20 debating groups. The paired teams posted 3 arguments in an online forum alternatively over a 12-week period. The winning teams were determined by a panel of 3 judges. ASSESSMENT: Feedback from the judges was posted online and summarized in an in-class discussion. Thematic analysis of qualitative data from students and faculty members demonstrated the effectiveness of the online debate component in helping students work together in a group, learn alternative sides of complex issues, and write persuasive arguments. CONCLUSION: This novel online-debate forum was a feasible teaching and learning strategy, which helped pharmacy students improve their communication skills and critical thinking, expanded their scope of knowledge, and provided a platform for group process.
OBJECTIVES: This article describes an online debate series that was developed as a new component to an introductory core course for first-professional year pharmacy students. Objectives were to facilitate the group process, introduce controversial issues related to the US healthcare system, improve critical thinking and communication skills, enable students' ability to analyze and evaluate evidence, help develop skills in formulating written arguments, and encourage tolerance of diverse points of view. DESIGN: One hundred sixty-two students were assigned to 40 teams (half assigned to argue as "Pros" and half as "Cons") and paired into 20 debating groups. The paired teams posted 3 arguments in an online forum alternatively over a 12-week period. The winning teams were determined by a panel of 3 judges. ASSESSMENT: Feedback from the judges was posted online and summarized in an in-class discussion. Thematic analysis of qualitative data from students and faculty members demonstrated the effectiveness of the online debate component in helping students work together in a group, learn alternative sides of complex issues, and write persuasive arguments. CONCLUSION: This novel online-debate forum was a feasible teaching and learning strategy, which helped pharmacy students improve their communication skills and critical thinking, expanded their scope of knowledge, and provided a platform for group process.
Authors: Gary M Oderda; Robin M Zavod; Jean T Carter; Johnnie L Early; Pamela U Joyner; Harold Kirschenbaum; Eric J Mack; Andrew P Traynor; Cecilia M Plaza Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 2.047