TEACHING OF CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE NATURAL SCIENCES’ TEXT FOR STUDENTS OF THE MEDICAL FACULTY WITH THE USING OF PEDAGOGICAL “BOXES” -QUESTIONNAIRES AND GUIDANCE FOR THE OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF MATERIAL RELIABILITY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11603/me.2414-5998.2019.1.10039Keywords:
critical thinking, methodological recommendations, material analysis, reliability, evidence baseAbstract
The aim of the work – assessment of the skills of critical thinking with the further development of constructive skepticism in medical students with the use of adjuvant methodological development.
The main body. The ability to critically perceive information and control its flow is a powerful educational tool, which determines the effectiveness of selection of empirically valuable material from pseudoscientific. It is studied the difference in the perception of the article by the students, depending on the training with the special methodical recommendations of M. K. Iribar and questionnaire developed for the third course, based on “boxing” J. Young, M. Solomon, T. Greenhalgh, U. Flick with author’s corrections. It is suggested to analyze the read content of the text in five indicators: reliability, availability of evidence base, clarity of presentation, logic of interrelations and validity of the article. It was established that the output level of knowledge of the article analysis by the medical students significantly differed from the initial assessment after working with the above-mentioned materials. Analyzing the results, it can be argued that educational training is needed for those who use in their work the objects of new research, in particular, precisely to avoid pseudoscientific recommendations and implementations into the practice.
Conclusions. Medical students show positive statistically significant changes (p≤ 0.001) regarding the critical analysis of the processed material on the final cut of knowledge after application of methodological recommendations and the questionnaire for the constructive assessment of scientific articles.
References
Wallas, M., & Wray, A. (2016). Critical reading and writing for postgraduates. London: 3-rd ed. SAGE.
Young, J.M., & Solomon, M.J. (2009). How to critically appraise an article. Nature Clinical Practice Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 6 (2), 82-91. Retrieved from: http://doi.org/10.1038/ncpgasthep1331.
Greenhalgh, T. (2014). How to read a paper: The basics of evidence-based medicine. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, 5-th ed.
Flick, U. (2015). Introducing research methodology – A beginners’ guide to doing a research project. London, England: SAGE, 2-nd ed.
Peinado, Kh. M., Vulf, F.I., Iribar, M.K., & Raid, A.M. (2014). Vykladannia ta navchannia navychkam naukovoi roboty protiahom pereddyplomnoii osvity [Teaching and learning research skills at the undergraduate level]. United Kingdom: University of Leeds [in Ukrainian].
Brondz, I. (2015). Analytical methods in the quality control of scientific publications part V: The fraud of pseudoscientists based on false measurements and method development. International Journal of Analytical Mass Spectrometry and Chromatography, 3, 25-31. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ijamsc.2015.32003.
Ayris, P. (2017). The importance of European collaborations of support open science and digital library development. LIBER Quarterly, 26 (4), 244-259. Retrieved from: http://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10147.
Formanek, M., & Zaborsky, M. (2017). Web Interface Security Vulnerabilities of European Academic Repositories. LIBER Quarterly, 27 (1), 45-57. Retrieved from: http://doi.org/10/18352/lq.10178.
Kautonen, H., & Nieminen, M. (2018). Conceptualising benefits of user-centred design for digital library services. LIBER Quarterly, 28 (1), 1-34. Retrieved from: http://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10231.
