Online Debates to Enhance Critical Thinking in Pharmacotherapy
Open accessAbstract
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.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Debates have been employed in pharmacy education for active learning and assessment activities in various contexts, including advocacy on ethical and legal issues, controversial policy issues in the US healthcare system, critical thinking and communication skills, evidence-based analysis and evaluation, and pharmacotherapy.
“Debates, however, have been employed in pharmacy education for active learning and assessment activities in various contexts (e.g.advocacy on ethical and legal issues, controversial policy issues in the US healthcare system, critical thinking and communication skills, evidence-based analysis and evaluation, and pharmacotherapy) (Lin & Crawford, 2007;”
From Students’ performance and perceptions of mock trials as a teaching and assessment activity over three years at two institutions (2024) · cites this paper as Charrois & Appleton, 2013
The Introduction (page not provided) says debates have been used in pharmacy curricula in courses on health systems, legislation and regulatory issues, and describes evidence appraisal and critique as part of debating. The paper also studies online pharmacotherapy debates as an assessment intended to encourage critical thinking. Our copy does not specifically establish the claimed advocacy on ethical issues or debates about controversial US healthcare policy. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
A revision of bloom's taxonomy: an overview
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002) · Theory Into Practice · doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 · Cited by 8,132 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- [1]Australian Pharmacy Council. Accreditation standards. December 2009. Version 1.0. http://www.pharmacycouncil.org.au/PDF/Undergraduate%20and%20Graduate%20Accreditation%20Standards.pdf. Accessed April 9, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- [2]Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education. Accreditation standards and guidelines for the professional program in pharmacy leading to the doctor of pharmacy degree. 2011 https://www.acpe-accredit.org/pdf/FinalS2007Guidelines2.0.pdf. Accessed April 9, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- [3]Taylor K, Harding G. The pharmacy degree: the student experience of professional training. Pharm Educ. 2007;7(1):83–88. [Google Scholar]
- [4]Novak JD. The promise of new ideas and new technology for improving teaching and learning. Cell Biol Educ. 2003;2(2):122–132. doi: 10.1187/cbe.02-11-0059. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
- [6]Lieberman SA, Trumble JM, Smith ER. The impact of structured student debates on critical thinking and informatics skills of second year medical students. Acad Med. 2000;75(10 Suppl):S84–S86. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200010001-00027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
- [7]Saito A, Fujinami K. Introduction of formal debate into a postgraduate specialty track education programme in periodontics in Japan. Eur J Dent Educ. 2011;15(1):58–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0579.2010.00635.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
- [8]Erstad BL, Murphy JE. Developing critical interaction skills in students: debating clinical pharmacokinetic controversies. Am J Pharm Educ. 1994;58(4):440–445. [Google Scholar]
- [9]Poirier S. Active involvement of students in the learning process of the American health care system. Am J Pharm Educ. 1997;6(1):91–97. [Google Scholar]
- [10]Lin SK, Crawford SY. An online debate series for first-year pharmacy students. Am J Pharm Educ. 2007;71(1):Article 12. doi: 10.5688/aj710112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
- [11]Sookaneknun P, Suttajit S, Ploylearmsang C, Kanjanasilp J, Maleewong U. Health promotion integrated into a Thai PharmD curriculum to improve pharmacy practice skills. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009;73(5):Article 78. doi: 10.5688/aj730578. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
- [12]Venville GJ, Dawson VM. The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning and conceptual understanding of science. J Res Sci Teach. 2010;47(8):952–977. [Google Scholar]
- [13]Sadler TD, Zeidler DL. The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Sci Educ. 2005;89(1):71–93. [Google Scholar]
- [14]Toulmin SE. The Uses of Arguments (updated edition). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
- [15]Sampson V, Clark DB. Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Sci Educ. 2008;92(3):447–472. [Google Scholar]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rosenberg, E., Hsu, S.-Y., Truong, H.-A., & Taheri, R. (2024) · Pharmacy Education · doi:10.46542/pe.2024.241.2939
- Authors
- Charrois, T. L., & Appleton, M.
- Affiliations
- Curtin University (AU)
- ORCID
- Charrois, Theresa L.
- Venue
- American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-10
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 170
- ISSN
- 0002-9459 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3806954
- OpenAlex
- W2068195686
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 1.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
- Keywords
- online debate, critical thinking, pharmacotherapy education, health diplomacy, global health governance, policy design, multilateral partnerships
- MeSH terms
- Computer-Assisted Instruction, Drug Therapy, Education, Pharmacy, Educational Measurement, Humans, Students, Pharmacy, Teaching, Thinking, Internet
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
