A comparison of critical thinking in groups of third-year medical students in text, video, and virtual PBL case modalities.

Full Abstract

PURPOSE:
To determine whether critical thinking in problem-based learning (PBL) group discourse differed according to case modality.

METHOD:
The study was conducted in 2000 in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Denver. Third-year medical students on their pediatrics clerkship were divided into three groups:
face-to-face with a text case, face-to-face with a digital video case, and virtual with a digital video case. Twenty-four groups were divided among the three case modalities. Using an existing coding scheme, each distinct codable unit of discourse was placed into one of 35 indicators reflective of five critical-thinking stages. For each group's discourse, a critical-thinking ratio was calculated for each of the stages. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the critical-thinking ratios for each stage across the three modalities. Residual conversation to indicate processes occurring within the group was also coded.

RESULTS:
A content analysis of the transcripts of 13 of the 24 group discussions occurred. The virtual groups had the highest critical-thinking ratio. Except for the problem-identification stage, the video groups had higher ratios that the text groups did.

CONCLUSIONS:
This exploratory study examined how the mode of case presentation affected the critical thinking of groups using the PBL format. Students who learned in a virtual modality with a digital video case engaged in more critical thinking. The data suggest that the video enhanced critical thinking in both face-to-face and virtual PBL groups.

Learn Faster Today Improve your study skills

Author information

Author/s: Kamin, Carol (C); O'Sullivan, Patricia (P); Deterding, Robin (R); Younger, Monica (M);

Affiliation: Medical Education Research and Development, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, CO 80218, USA.

Journal and publication information

Publication Type: Comparative Study; Evaluation Studies; Journal Article; Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

Journal: Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges (Acad Med), published in United States. (Language: eng)

Reference: 2003-Feb; vol 78 (issue 2) : pp 204-11

Dates: Created 2003/02/13; Completed 2003/03/19; Revised 2006/11/15;

PMID: 12584102, status: MEDLINE (last retrieval date: 11/6/2008)

Sourced from the National Library of Medicine. Abstract text and other information may be subject to copyright.

External Links for this article (including full text providers, if available):

Click Electronic Full-text Provider Links to see options for finding the electronic full text links to this article. Note there may be a subscription or fee required for access to the full text. See our FAQ for information on finding FREE full text articles.

This article may also be located in paper journal collections available in many libraries. Use the Journal and Publication Information above to find the full article.

MeSH headings (categories)

This article was linked to the MESH Headings shown below.

This article has not been indexed for related articles as yet, however you can still use the live related article search links below.

See 100+ related articles.