| Literature DB >> 30606170 |
Dan Pu1, Juhua Ni2, Demao Song3, Weiguang Zhang4, Yuedan Wang5, Liling Wu3, Xian Wang3, Yun Wang6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Problem-based learning (PBL), a pedagogical approach, is widely accepted in medical education. Manipulated by many factors, the internal motivation of learner is the most crucial determinant that affects the nature of the outcome, in which the influences of critical thinking (CT) remained elusive.Entities:
Keywords: Critical thinking; Learning efficiency; Personal characteristics; Problem-based learning
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30606170 PMCID: PMC6318932 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-018-1418-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 2.463
Standard of performance and its corresponding scores
| Level | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of performance | Bad | Poor | Moderate | Good | Excellent |
| Scores | 2, 4, 6 | 8, 10 | 12 | 14, 16 | 18, 20 |
Descriptive analysis of CTDI-CV
| Subscales | Mean ± SD | Max | Min | Positive attitude (%) | Negative attitude (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Truth Seeking | 41.19 ± 5.63 | 56 | 26 | 54.90 | 1.96 |
| Open-mindedness | 42.89 ± 4.91 | 52 | 32 | 67.64 | 0.00 |
| Analyticity | 44.21 ± 5.54 | 57 | 32 | 73.53 | 0.00 |
| Systematicity | 41.57 ± 5.65 | 57 | 30 | 54.90 | 0.00 |
| CT self-confidence | 41.13 ± 7.34 | 60 | 23 | 49.01 | 2.94 |
| Inquisitiveness | 44.19 ± 5.88 | 58 | 29 | 71.57 | 0.98 |
| Cognitive maturity | 42.55 ± 4.64 | 55 | 27 | 69.61 | 0.98 |
| Total Scores | 297.72 ± 29.80 | 370 | 236 | 70.59 | 0.00 |
Pearson correlation coefficients between CT disposition and PBL performance calculated using parametric bivariate correlation analysis (n = 102)
| CT/ CT Subscales | PBL performance | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PBL score | Participation | Preparation | Communication skills | Critical discussion | Team working | |
| Total Score | 0.264** | 0.266** | 0.260** | 0.224* | 0.231* | 0.211* |
| Truth Seeking | 0.161 | 0.153 | 0.198* | 0.110 | 0.163 | 0.096 |
| Open-mindedness | 0.245* | 0.261** | 0.226* | 0.228* | 0.180 | 0.226* |
| Analyticity | 0.230* | 0.198* | 0.206* | 0.197* | 0.201* | 0.260** |
| Systematicity | 0.177 | 0.168 | 0.234* | 0.126 | 0.134 | 0.140 |
| CT self-confidence | 0.272** | 0.292** | 0.242* | 0.225* | 0.245* | 0.221* |
| Inquisitiveness | 0.195* | 0.203* | 0.1543 | 0.163 | 0.170 | 0.184 |
| Cognitive maturity | 0.073 | 0.086 | 0.079 | 0.108 | 0.090 | −0.067 |
*P < 0.05 **P < 0.01
Significant difference in performance in PBL tutorials between Strong-CT students and Weak-CT students analyzed using independent t-test
| Scores (Mean ± SD) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Strong-CT students | Weak-CT students | ||
| PBL score | 89.39 ± 2.39 | 87.80 ± 2.27 | 0.011* |
| Participation | 17.89 ± 0.63 | 17.48 ± 0.57 | 0.012* |
| Preparation | 17.94 ± 0.48 | 17.66 ± 0.46 | 0.025* |
| Communication skills | 17.80 ± 0.54 | 17.52 ± 0.55 | 0.054 |
| Critical discussion | 17.85 ± 0.56 | 17.49 ± 0.54 | 0.017* |
| Team working | 17.90 ± 0.42 | 17.64 ± 0.40 | 0.017* |
*P < 0.05
Significant performance differences were observed in Late-Half PBL tutorials between Strong-CT students and Weak-CT students but not in Early-Half PBL tutorials. The differences were analyzed using independent t-test
| Early-Half PBL tutorials | Late-Half PBL tutorials | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strong-CT group | Weak-CT group | Strong-CT group | Weak-CT group | |||
| PBL score | 88.96 ± 2.50 | 88.05 ± 2.63 | 0.186 | 89.83 ± 2.65 | 87.54 ± 2.21 | 0.001** |
| Participation | 17.83 ± 0.73 | 17.54 ± 0.62 | 0.108 | 17.96 ± 0.69 | 17.43 ± 0.68 | 0.005** |
| Preparation | 17.81 ± 0.56 | 17.72 ± 0.65 | 0.551 | 18.08 ± 0.53 | 17.61 ± 0.45 | 0.001** |
| Communication skills | 17.72 ± 0.61 | 17.60 ± 0.68 | 0.471 | 17.88 ± 0.66 | 17.44 ± 0.54 | 0.007** |
| Critical discussion | 17.78 ± 0.62 | 17.58 ± 0.61 | 0.217 | 17.92 ± 0.63 | 17.41 ± 0.60 | 0.003** |
| Team working | 17.81 ± 0.44 | 17.62 ± 0.49 | 0.114 | 17.99 ± 0.55 | 17.66 ± 0.48 | 0.018* |
*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01
Significant performance improvement was observed in students with strong CT disposition but not in students with weak CT disposition. The differences were analyzed using independent t-test
| Improvement Scores (Mean ± SD) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Strong-CT students | Weak-CT students | ||
| PBL scores | 0.875 ± 1.96 | −0.508 ± 1.74 | 0.006** |
| Participation | 0.125 ± 0.63 | −0.117 ± 0.61 | 0.144 |
| Preparation | 0.27 ± 0.52 | − 0.11 ± 0.632 | 0.017* |
| Communication skills | 0.161 ± 0.67 | −0.158 ± 0.52 | 0.047* |
| Critical discussion | 0.14 ± 0.55 | − 0.17 ± 0.55 | 0.037* |
| Team working | 0.18 ± 0.55 | 0.04 ± 0.56 | 0.354 |
*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01
Model summary between the PBL performance dimensions and the CT disposition subscales, analyzed using a stepwise multiple linear regression (n = 102)
| Model | R | R square | Adjusted R square | Std. error of the estimate | Change statistics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R square change | F change | df1 | df2 | Sig F change | |||||
| Preparation | 0.250a | 0.063 | 0.053 | 0.600 | 0.063 | 6.667 | 1 | 100 | 0.011* |
aPredictors: (Constant), Open-mindedness
*P < 0.05