About this paper

Appears in:
Pages: 3847-3852
Publication year: 2010
ISBN: 978-84-614-2439-9
ISSN: 2340-1095

Conference name: 3rd International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation
Dates: 15-17 November, 2010
Location: Madrid, Spain

DEVELOPMENT OF CRITICAL READING SKILL IN RESEARCH IN TWO DIFFERENTIATED GROUPS

H. Cobos, P. Pérez

Universidad de Monterrey (MEXICO)
Objective: To compare the development of critical reading between two groups of different experience in medical research (internships versus professors).
Design: Educational Intervention. Methods: Two groups were studied, G1, n: 18 (medical students in internship) and G 2, n: 15 (clinical professors of medical residences) with different experience in clinical research. Intervention: Both groups were exposed to a critical reading in medical research course of 40 hours in a presence type educative strategy. Reading guides of published medical articles were elaborated with several questions to inquire about methodological issues in the next designs: validation of an instrument, surveys, case-control studies, diagnosis tests, clinical essays, and cohort study. The subcomponents of critical reading were explored such as interpretation, judgment and proposal trough the questions elaborated. The students in both groups and in each class had to resolve the guide and then discus it in a group session conducted by the professor. The discussion was stimulated by the professor emphasizing the opposite answers and their arguments. An instrument to measure the critical reading was applied in the onset and in the end of the course. The instrument was previously validated and a value of 0.75 reliability was obtained by Kudder-Richardson formula. It was conformed with 108 questions; 36 to each subcomponent and 18 per design. Mann-Whitney’s U and Wilcoxon tests were used to compare initial and final global as in the different designs results in both groups as well as the advance in each group separately. Results: The initial and final global results for both groups were G1: 18 and 40 vs. 35 and 44 (108 was the upmost possible grade) with a significant difference for G2 in global results and interpretation. No difference was found when compared the results in designs explored. A weighted advance was higher in group 1. Comments: A participative educational strategy develops this complex ability in students which are supposed not very interested in this issues when compared with some other groups with different experience.
@InProceedings{COBOS2010DEV,
author = {Cobos, H. and P{\'{e}}rez, P.},
title = {DEVELOPMENT OF CRITICAL READING SKILL IN RESEARCH IN TWO DIFFERENTIATED GROUPS},
series = {3rd International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation},
booktitle = {ICERI2010 Proceedings},
isbn = {978-84-614-2439-9},
issn = {2340-1095},
publisher = {IATED},
location = {Madrid, Spain},
month = {15-17 November, 2010},
year = {2010},
pages = {3847-3852}}
TY - CONF
AU - H. Cobos AU - P. Pérez
TI - DEVELOPMENT OF CRITICAL READING SKILL IN RESEARCH IN TWO DIFFERENTIATED GROUPS
SN - 978-84-614-2439-9/2340-1095
PY - 2010
Y1 - 15-17 November, 2010
CI - Madrid, Spain
JO - 3rd International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation
JA - ICERI2010 Proceedings
SP - 3847
EP - 3852
ER -
H. Cobos, P. Pérez (2010) DEVELOPMENT OF CRITICAL READING SKILL IN RESEARCH IN TWO DIFFERENTIATED GROUPS, ICERI2010 Proceedings, pp. 3847-3852.
User:
Pass: