A meta-analysis of the effects of non-traditional teaching methods on the critical thinking abilities of nursing students
Scientific framework is important in designing curricula and evaluating students in the field of education and clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of non-traditional educational methods on critical thinking skills. A systematic review approach was applied. S...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | BMC medical education 2016-09, Vol.16 (1), p.240-240, Article 240 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 240 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 240 |
| container_title | BMC medical education |
| container_volume | 16 |
| creator | Lee, JuHee Lee, Yoonju Gong, SaeLom Bae, Juyeon Choi, Moonki |
| description | Scientific framework is important in designing curricula and evaluating students in the field of education and clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of non-traditional educational methods on critical thinking skills.
A systematic review approach was applied. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals from January 2001 to December 2014 were searched using electronic databases and major education journals. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.2. Reviewing the included studies, the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) and California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) were used to assess the effectiveness of critical thinking in the meta-analysis.
The eight CCTDI datasets showed that non- traditional teaching methods (i.e., no lectures) were more effective compared to control groups (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.42, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.26-0.57, p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1186/s12909-016-0761-7 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5025580</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A464407104</galeid><sourcerecordid>A464407104</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c560t-18bdd6b1f96a7f7daaffbbeb5ffb50586370a6b6545f49a5749cfbbe67e0329c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkk1vFSEUhonR2A_9AW7MJG7cUA_D18zG5KbRatLEja4Jw8C91BmowDS5_17m3lpbY1gA5zzvSzh5EXpD4IKQTnzIpO2hx0AEBikIls_QKWGyxaJv4fmj8wk6y_kGgMiOkpfopJWCUg7iFO03zWyLxjroaZ99bqJrys421jlryuEaYsAl6dEXHyvVFKvNzoftKtzFsTLhIDGpEmYFavfnCujBT7VmjzZLymsxl2W0oeRX6IXTU7av7_dz9OPzp--XX_D1t6uvl5trbLiAgkk3jKMYiOuFlk6OWjs3DHbgdePAO0ElaDEIzrhjveaS9WYFhLRA297Qc_Tx6Hu7DLMdTX076UndJj_rtFdRe_W0E_xObeOd4tBy3kE1eH9vkOKvxeaiZp-NnSYdbFyyIl0LAigVpKLv_kFv4pLq0A4UB9oRJv5SWz1Z5YOL9V2zmqoNE4yBJMAqdfEfqq7Rzt7EYJ2v9ScCchSYFHNO1j38kYBa86KOeVE1L2rNi5JV8_bxcB4UfwJCfwPZsr0Z</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1825038146</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A meta-analysis of the effects of non-traditional teaching methods on the critical thinking abilities of nursing students</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Lee, JuHee ; Lee, Yoonju ; Gong, SaeLom ; Bae, Juyeon ; Choi, Moonki</creator><creatorcontrib>Lee, JuHee ; Lee, Yoonju ; Gong, SaeLom ; Bae, Juyeon ; Choi, Moonki</creatorcontrib><description>Scientific framework is important in designing curricula and evaluating students in the field of education and clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of non-traditional educational methods on critical thinking skills.
A systematic review approach was applied. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals from January 2001 to December 2014 were searched using electronic databases and major education journals. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.2. Reviewing the included studies, the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) and California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) were used to assess the effectiveness of critical thinking in the meta-analysis.
The eight CCTDI datasets showed that non- traditional teaching methods (i.e., no lectures) were more effective compared to control groups (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.42, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.26-0.57, p < .00001). And six CCTST datasets showed the teaching and learning methods in these studies were also had significantly more effects when compared to the control groups (SMD: 0.29, 95 % CI: 0.10-0.48, p = 0.003).
This research showed that new teaching and learning methods designed to improve critical thinking were generally effective at enhancing critical thinking dispositions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1472-6920</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1472-6920</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s12909-016-0761-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27633506</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central Ltd</publisher><subject>Bias ; Clinical Competence ; Clinical Decision-Making ; Clinical medicine ; Cognition & reasoning ; Concept mapping ; Confidence intervals ; Control Groups ; Critical thinking ; Curricula ; Curriculum ; Data collection ; Decision making ; Design ; Education ; Education, Nursing, Baccalaureate - methods ; Evidence-based nursing ; Humans ; Independent study ; Inventory ; Judgment ; Meta-analysis ; Methods ; Nursing education ; Problem based learning ; Standard deviation ; Students ; Students, Nursing - psychology ; Studies ; Study and teaching ; Teaching ; Teaching methods ; Thinking Skills</subject><ispartof>BMC medical education, 2016-09, Vol.16 (1), p.240-240, Article 240</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2016 BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright BioMed Central 2016</rights><rights>The Author(s). 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c560t-18bdd6b1f96a7f7daaffbbeb5ffb50586370a6b6545f49a5749cfbbe67e0329c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c560t-18bdd6b1f96a7f7daaffbbeb5ffb50586370a6b6545f49a5749cfbbe67e0329c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5025580/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5025580/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,728,781,785,865,886,27929,27930,53796,53798</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27633506$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lee, JuHee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Yoonju</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gong, SaeLom</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bae, Juyeon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choi, Moonki</creatorcontrib><title>A meta-analysis of the effects of non-traditional teaching methods on the critical thinking abilities of nursing students</title><title>BMC medical education</title><addtitle>BMC Med Educ</addtitle><description>Scientific framework is important in designing curricula and evaluating students in the field of education and clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of non-traditional educational methods on critical thinking skills.
A systematic review approach was applied. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals from January 2001 to December 2014 were searched using electronic databases and major education journals. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.2. Reviewing the included studies, the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) and California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) were used to assess the effectiveness of critical thinking in the meta-analysis.
The eight CCTDI datasets showed that non- traditional teaching methods (i.e., no lectures) were more effective compared to control groups (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.42, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.26-0.57, p < .00001). And six CCTST datasets showed the teaching and learning methods in these studies were also had significantly more effects when compared to the control groups (SMD: 0.29, 95 % CI: 0.10-0.48, p = 0.003).
This research showed that new teaching and learning methods designed to improve critical thinking were generally effective at enhancing critical thinking dispositions.</description><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Clinical Competence</subject><subject>Clinical Decision-Making</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Cognition & reasoning</subject><subject>Concept mapping</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Control Groups</subject><subject>Critical thinking</subject><subject>Curricula</subject><subject>Curriculum</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Education, Nursing, Baccalaureate - methods</subject><subject>Evidence-based nursing</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Independent study</subject><subject>Inventory</subject><subject>Judgment</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Nursing education</subject><subject>Problem based learning</subject><subject>Standard deviation</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Students, Nursing - psychology</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Study and teaching</subject><subject>Teaching</subject><subject>Teaching methods</subject><subject>Thinking Skills</subject><issn>1472-6920</issn><issn>1472-6920</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNptkk1vFSEUhonR2A_9AW7MJG7cUA_D18zG5KbRatLEja4Jw8C91BmowDS5_17m3lpbY1gA5zzvSzh5EXpD4IKQTnzIpO2hx0AEBikIls_QKWGyxaJv4fmj8wk6y_kGgMiOkpfopJWCUg7iFO03zWyLxjroaZ99bqJrys421jlryuEaYsAl6dEXHyvVFKvNzoftKtzFsTLhIDGpEmYFavfnCujBT7VmjzZLymsxl2W0oeRX6IXTU7av7_dz9OPzp--XX_D1t6uvl5trbLiAgkk3jKMYiOuFlk6OWjs3DHbgdePAO0ElaDEIzrhjveaS9WYFhLRA297Qc_Tx6Hu7DLMdTX076UndJj_rtFdRe_W0E_xObeOd4tBy3kE1eH9vkOKvxeaiZp-NnSYdbFyyIl0LAigVpKLv_kFv4pLq0A4UB9oRJv5SWz1Z5YOL9V2zmqoNE4yBJMAqdfEfqq7Rzt7EYJ2v9ScCchSYFHNO1j38kYBa86KOeVE1L2rNi5JV8_bxcB4UfwJCfwPZsr0Z</recordid><startdate>20160915</startdate><enddate>20160915</enddate><creator>Lee, JuHee</creator><creator>Lee, Yoonju</creator><creator>Gong, SaeLom</creator><creator>Bae, Juyeon</creator><creator>Choi, Moonki</creator><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><general>BioMed Central</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160915</creationdate><title>A meta-analysis of the effects of non-traditional teaching methods on the critical thinking abilities of nursing students</title><author>Lee, JuHee ; Lee, Yoonju ; Gong, SaeLom ; Bae, Juyeon ; Choi, Moonki</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c560t-18bdd6b1f96a7f7daaffbbeb5ffb50586370a6b6545f49a5749cfbbe67e0329c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Clinical Competence</topic><topic>Clinical Decision-Making</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Cognition & reasoning</topic><topic>Concept mapping</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Control Groups</topic><topic>Critical thinking</topic><topic>Curricula</topic><topic>Curriculum</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Education, Nursing, Baccalaureate - methods</topic><topic>Evidence-based nursing</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Independent study</topic><topic>Inventory</topic><topic>Judgment</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Nursing education</topic><topic>Problem based learning</topic><topic>Standard deviation</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Students, Nursing - psychology</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Study and teaching</topic><topic>Teaching</topic><topic>Teaching methods</topic><topic>Thinking Skills</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lee, JuHee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Yoonju</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gong, SaeLom</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bae, Juyeon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choi, Moonki</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BMC medical education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lee, JuHee</au><au>Lee, Yoonju</au><au>Gong, SaeLom</au><au>Bae, Juyeon</au><au>Choi, Moonki</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A meta-analysis of the effects of non-traditional teaching methods on the critical thinking abilities of nursing students</atitle><jtitle>BMC medical education</jtitle><addtitle>BMC Med Educ</addtitle><date>2016-09-15</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>240</spage><epage>240</epage><pages>240-240</pages><artnum>240</artnum><issn>1472-6920</issn><eissn>1472-6920</eissn><abstract>Scientific framework is important in designing curricula and evaluating students in the field of education and clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of non-traditional educational methods on critical thinking skills.
A systematic review approach was applied. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals from January 2001 to December 2014 were searched using electronic databases and major education journals. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.2. Reviewing the included studies, the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) and California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) were used to assess the effectiveness of critical thinking in the meta-analysis.
The eight CCTDI datasets showed that non- traditional teaching methods (i.e., no lectures) were more effective compared to control groups (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.42, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.26-0.57, p < .00001). And six CCTST datasets showed the teaching and learning methods in these studies were also had significantly more effects when compared to the control groups (SMD: 0.29, 95 % CI: 0.10-0.48, p = 0.003).
This research showed that new teaching and learning methods designed to improve critical thinking were generally effective at enhancing critical thinking dispositions.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central Ltd</pub><pmid>27633506</pmid><doi>10.1186/s12909-016-0761-7</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1472-6920 |
| ispartof | BMC medical education, 2016-09, Vol.16 (1), p.240-240, Article 240 |
| issn | 1472-6920 1472-6920 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5025580 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central Open Access; Springer Nature OA Free Journals; PubMed Central; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Bias Clinical Competence Clinical Decision-Making Clinical medicine Cognition & reasoning Concept mapping Confidence intervals Control Groups Critical thinking Curricula Curriculum Data collection Decision making Design Education Education, Nursing, Baccalaureate - methods Evidence-based nursing Humans Independent study Inventory Judgment Meta-analysis Methods Nursing education Problem based learning Standard deviation Students Students, Nursing - psychology Studies Study and teaching Teaching Teaching methods Thinking Skills |
| title | A meta-analysis of the effects of non-traditional teaching methods on the critical thinking abilities of nursing students |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-13T00%3A08%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20meta-analysis%20of%20the%20effects%20of%20non-traditional%20teaching%20methods%20on%20the%20critical%20thinking%20abilities%20of%20nursing%20students&rft.jtitle=BMC%20medical%20education&rft.au=Lee,%20JuHee&rft.date=2016-09-15&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=240&rft.epage=240&rft.pages=240-240&rft.artnum=240&rft.issn=1472-6920&rft.eissn=1472-6920&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s12909-016-0761-7&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA464407104%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1825038146&rft_id=info:pmid/27633506&rft_galeid=A464407104&rfr_iscdi=true |