OBJECTIVE: To implement and assess the effectiveness of an activity to teach pharmacy students to critically evaluate clinical literature using instructional scaffolding and a Clinical Trial Evaluation Rubric. DESIGN: The literature evaluation activity centered on a single clinical research article and involved individual, small group, and large group instruction, with carefully structured, evidence-based scaffolds and support materials centered around 3 educational themes: (1) the reader's awareness of text organization, (2) contextual/background information and vocabulary, and (3) questioning, prompting, and self-monitoring (metacognition). ASSESSMENT: Students initially read the article, scored it using the rubric, and wrote an evaluation. Students then worked individually using a worksheet to identify and define 4 to 5 vocabulary/concept knowledge gaps. They then worked in small groups and as a class to further improve their skills. Finally, they assessed the same article using the rubric and writing a second evaluation. Students' rubric scores for the article decreased significantly from a mean pre-activity score of 76.7% to a post-activity score of 61.7%, indicating that their skills in identifying weaknesses in the article's study design had improved. CONCLUSION: Use of instructional scaffolding in the form of vocabulary supports and the Clinical Trial Evaluation Rubric improved students' ability to critically evaluate a clinical study compared to lecture-based coursework alone.
OBJECTIVE: To implement and assess the effectiveness of an activity to teach pharmacy students to critically evaluate clinical literature using instructional scaffolding and a Clinical Trial Evaluation Rubric. DESIGN: The literature evaluation activity centered on a single clinical research article and involved individual, small group, and large group instruction, with carefully structured, evidence-based scaffolds and support materials centered around 3 educational themes: (1) the reader's awareness of text organization, (2) contextual/background information and vocabulary, and (3) questioning, prompting, and self-monitoring (metacognition). ASSESSMENT: Students initially read the article, scored it using the rubric, and wrote an evaluation. Students then worked individually using a worksheet to identify and define 4 to 5 vocabulary/concept knowledge gaps. They then worked in small groups and as a class to further improve their skills. Finally, they assessed the same article using the rubric and writing a second evaluation. Students' rubric scores for the article decreased significantly from a mean pre-activity score of 76.7% to a post-activity score of 61.7%, indicating that their skills in identifying weaknesses in the article's study design had improved. CONCLUSION: Use of instructional scaffolding in the form of vocabulary supports and the Clinical Trial Evaluation Rubric improved students' ability to critically evaluate a clinical study compared to lecture-based coursework alone.
Keywords:
clinical trial evaluation; evidence-based medicine; instructional model; literature evaluation; literature evaluation rubric; scaffolds in instruction
Authors: David Moher; Sally Hopewell; Kenneth F Schulz; Victor Montori; Peter C Gøtzsche; P J Devereaux; Diana Elbourne; Matthias Egger; Douglas G Altman Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-03-23