METHODOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR DEVELOPING CRITICAL THINKING OF MEDICAL UNIVERSITY STUDENTS THROUGH A PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH.
Keywords:
critical thinking, psychological approach, medical education, methodology, students.Abstract
This article analyzes the methodological foundations for developing critical thinking skills among medical university students through a psychological approach. The psychological and pedagogical essence of critical thinking, key factors contributing to its development, and effective teaching methods are explored. The article is based on the theoretical views of modern scholars in pedagogy and psychology.
Downloads
References
Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts. Insight Assessment.
Halpern, D. F. (2014). Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking (5th ed.). Psychology Press.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2019). Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life. Rowman & Littlefield.
Brookfield, S. D. (2012). Teaching for Critical Thinking: Tools and Techniques to Help Students Question Their Assumptions. Jossey-Bass.
Ennis, R. H. (2011). The nature of critical thinking: An outline of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. University of Illinois.
This study aimed to develop critical thinking skills among medical institute students. The experimental methodology involved several stages:
Participants: A total of 92 medical students participated in the study. They were randomly divided into experimental and control groups.
Initial Assessment: The students' initial levels of critical thinking were assessed using diagnostic tests and reflective writing tasks. These tools helped determine their baseline ability to analyze problems and make evidence-based decisions.
Training and Practical Activities (Experimental Group): The experimental group participated in specially designed psychological and pedagogical training sessions focused on developing critical thinking. These included:
Problem-based tasks: Students were asked to analyze complex medical scenarios requiring reasoned judgment.
Group work: Collaborative activities encouraged students to share, compare, and defend their viewpoints.
Reflective writing: Students reflected on the training sessions, helping them internalize critical thinking practices.
Control Group: The control group continued with their regular coursework without any targeted intervention for critical thinking development.
Final Assessment: After the intervention, all participants were re-evaluated using similar tools. The critical thinking levels of the experimental group showed significant improvement compared to the control group.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All content published in the Journal of Applied Science and Social Science (JASSS) is protected by copyright. Authors retain the copyright to their work, and grant JASSS the right to publish the work under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). This license allows others to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the work, even commercially, as long as they credit the author(s) for the original creation.
