↓ Skip to main content

A multi‐site study of strategies to teach critical thinking: ‘why do you think that?’

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Education, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
216 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
A multi‐site study of strategies to teach critical thinking: ‘why do you think that?’
Published in
Medical Education, January 2016
DOI 10.1111/medu.12937
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Critical thinking (CT) is a fundamental skill for clinicians. It plays an essential role in clinical decision making, which has implications for diagnostic accuracy, appropriate management and, ultimately, patient outcomes. Many theoretical frameworks have conceptualised CT and its related constructs. Nevertheless, it is unclear how this topic is taught by faculty staff who teach health professionals. The purpose of this multi-site qualitative study was to characterise the instructional strategies of faculty members actively teaching CT. We used semi-structured interviews to answer the following questions: (i) What approaches do faculty staff recognised by peers as good teachers in CT use to teach CT? (ii) How explicit is this teaching? We used snowball recruitment at eight participating institutions to identify faculty staff considered to be local experts in teaching CT. Forty-four eligible faculty members agreed to participate in semi-structured interviews, which were recorded and transcribed. We used the framework method to analyse the qualitative data. We organised the findings into themes of what faulty staff teach to learners (habits of mind, such as higher-order thinking and metacognition), how they teach (guiding principles of clinical relevance and perspective shifting, and concrete strategies such as questioning and group interaction) and why they teach CT (to produce the best possible health outcomes for patients). This work has practical recommendations for the individual faculty member. Promoting higher-level cognition, asking questions that probe the learner's understanding and linking discussions to the clinical context are some of the approaches that can be incorporated immediately.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 216 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Unknown 214 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 13%
Lecturer 23 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 8%
Other 16 7%
Other 55 25%
Unknown 57 26%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 14%
Social Sciences 20 9%
Arts and Humanities 13 6%
Psychology 10 5%
Other 36 17%
Unknown 60 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 February 2016.
All research outputs
#14,536,679
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Medical Education
#1,843
of 3,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,390
of 405,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Education
#17
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,017 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 405,868 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.