| Title |
Promotion of critical thinking in e-learning: a qualitative study on the experiences of instructors and students
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/amep.s105226 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mitra Gharib, Mitra Zolfaghari, Rita Mojtahedzadeh, Aeen Mohammadi, Atoosa Gharib |
| Abstract |
With the increasing popularity of e-learning programs, educational stakeholders are attempting to promote critical thinking in the virtual education system. This study aimed to explore the experiences of both the instructors and the students about critical thinking promotion within the virtual education system. This qualitative study recruited the instructors and students from four academic disciplines provided by the Virtual School of Tehran University of Medical Sciences (Tehran, Iran). All programs were master's degree programs and utilized a blended (combination of e-learning and face to face) training. Semistructured interviews with the participants were used to collect data. The participants had a variety of experiences about how to promote critical thinking. These experiences were conceptualized in four main themes, namely, instructional design, educational leadership and management, local evidence, and belief systems. The present study clarified the factors affecting critical thinking promotion in e-learning. Not only the instructors but also the educational designers and leaders can benefit from our findings to improve the quality of virtual education programs and promote critical thinking. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 115 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 25 | 21% |
| Unknown | 39 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 14 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 11 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 9% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 22 | 19% |
| Unknown | 46 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 June 2016.
All research outputs
#23,100,963
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,439
of 312,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.2. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,718 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them