Assessing the Critical Thinking and Deep Analysis in Medical Education Among Instructional Practices

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to examine the application of faculty to stimulate the critical thinking and deep analysis of their students through instructional practice including lecture design, assessment structure, and assignment instructions.

Methods

Faculty from multiple different health colleges at Saudi Arabia were asked to respond to survey items about the activities they use in their classrooms with regards to designing lectures, assessment structures, and instructional assignments. A correlation analysis was performed to determine if the level of applied critical thinking and deep analysis that is stimulated by faculty members were statistically related between designing lectures, assessment structure, and instructional assignments. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was also performed to determine if there were significant differences based on the demographic characteristics of the participants and level of applied critical thinking and deep analysis.

Results

A correlational analysis revealed that the mean score for designing lectures was 67.276, following by a mean score of 65.233 for instructional assignment and 64.688 for assessment structure. The result of the ANOVA showed that there was a significant difference in the perceptions of the participants between designing lectures, assessment structure, and instructional assignment (p<0.05).

Conclusion

The participants applied critical thinking and deep analysis when they design their lectures more than assessments and instructional assignments. They had the flexibility to stimulate critical thinking during the lecture activities. In contrast, this flexibility was limited when they were structuring the assessment as they had instructions to consider and were required to provide a rubric with unified key answer which is a mandatory requirement from the assessment department. This is due to the nature of high level of critical thinking answers that lead to high subjectivity in student responses.

Keywords:

• critical thinking
• deep analysis
• higher education
• instructional design

Data Sharing Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on responsible request.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

The methods of the study were performed in accordance with the guidelines and regulations. Participation in the study was voluntary, and all the participants had the option to withdraw from the study at any stage of the research without giving any reasons. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. It included the explanation, the purpose and benefits of the study, and they were reassured about anonymity. Information that could identify participants was saved securely. Ethics approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia with study number (NRC21R/489/11).

Acknowledgments

We would like to extend our gratitude to the faculty members who participated in this study. We would also like to thank King Abdullah International Medical Research Center for the support.

Disclosure

The author declares that he has no competing interests.