Empowering Third-Year Medical Students to Detect Bias and Medical Misinformation Online via Experiential Learning of "Lateral Reading," A Fact-Checker's Technique.

IF 2.1 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Teaching and Learning in Medicine Pub Date : 2024-09-27 DOI:10.1080/10401334.2024.2405542
Zeke J McKinney, Katelyn M Tessier, Zachary R Shaheen, Gary Schwitzer, Andrew P J Olson, Johannah M Scheurer, Kristina M Krohn
{"title":"Empowering Third-Year Medical Students to Detect Bias and Medical Misinformation Online via Experiential Learning of \"Lateral Reading,\" A Fact-Checker's Technique.","authors":"Zeke J McKinney, Katelyn M Tessier, Zachary R Shaheen, Gary Schwitzer, Andrew P J Olson, Johannah M Scheurer, Kristina M Krohn","doi":"10.1080/10401334.2024.2405542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Problem</i></b>: Misleading health information is detrimental to public health. Even physicians can be misled by biased health information; however, medical students and physicians are not taught some of the most effective techniques for identifying bias and misinformation online. <b><i>Intervention</i></b>: Using the stages of Kolb's experiential learning cycle as a framework, we aimed to teach 117 third-year students at a United States medical school to apply a fact-checking technique for identifying bias and misinformation called \"lateral reading\" through a 50-minute learning cycle in a 90-minute class. Each student's <i>concrete experience</i> was to independently read a biased article and rate its credibility, demonstrating their baseline skills at identifying bias. Students were given structured opportunities for <i>reflective observation</i> through individual and large group discussion. Students were guided through <i>abstract conceptualization</i> to determine techniques and frameworks utilized by fact checkers, specifically \"lateral reading\"-utilizing the internet to research the background of the author, organization, and citations using independent sources before exploring the article itself in depth. Students' <i>active experimentation</i> included re-rating the credibility of the same article and discussing further implications with classmates and instructors. <b><i>Context</i></b>: In January 2020, sessions were offered to third-year medical students during their required, longitudinal transition-to-residency course. <b><i>Impact</i></b>: Compared to baseline, when using lateral reading, students deemed the article less credible. Students' active experimentation changed whether they identified the organization and sources behind the article as credible. Notably, 86% (53/62) of students who viewed the organization positively pre-intervention did not describe the organization positively post intervention. Similarly, 66% (36/55) of students who cited the sources as positive pre-exercise changed their assessment after the exercise. While three students mentioned the author negatively pre-intervention, none of the 21 students who described the author in a negative fashion post-intervention described the author negatively pre-intervention. Positively describing the organization, author, or sources pre-intervention correlated with differences in credibility rating after the intervention. These findings indicate that teaching students to read laterally may increase their ability to detect bias in online medical information. <b><i>Lessons Learned</i></b>: Further research is needed to determine whether students who learned lateral reading <i>via</i> experiential learning will apply this skill in their education and career. Additionally, research should assess whether this skill helps future physicians counter bias and misinformation in ways that improve health.</p>","PeriodicalId":51183,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2024.2405542","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Problem: Misleading health information is detrimental to public health. Even physicians can be misled by biased health information; however, medical students and physicians are not taught some of the most effective techniques for identifying bias and misinformation online. Intervention: Using the stages of Kolb's experiential learning cycle as a framework, we aimed to teach 117 third-year students at a United States medical school to apply a fact-checking technique for identifying bias and misinformation called "lateral reading" through a 50-minute learning cycle in a 90-minute class. Each student's concrete experience was to independently read a biased article and rate its credibility, demonstrating their baseline skills at identifying bias. Students were given structured opportunities for reflective observation through individual and large group discussion. Students were guided through abstract conceptualization to determine techniques and frameworks utilized by fact checkers, specifically "lateral reading"-utilizing the internet to research the background of the author, organization, and citations using independent sources before exploring the article itself in depth. Students' active experimentation included re-rating the credibility of the same article and discussing further implications with classmates and instructors. Context: In January 2020, sessions were offered to third-year medical students during their required, longitudinal transition-to-residency course. Impact: Compared to baseline, when using lateral reading, students deemed the article less credible. Students' active experimentation changed whether they identified the organization and sources behind the article as credible. Notably, 86% (53/62) of students who viewed the organization positively pre-intervention did not describe the organization positively post intervention. Similarly, 66% (36/55) of students who cited the sources as positive pre-exercise changed their assessment after the exercise. While three students mentioned the author negatively pre-intervention, none of the 21 students who described the author in a negative fashion post-intervention described the author negatively pre-intervention. Positively describing the organization, author, or sources pre-intervention correlated with differences in credibility rating after the intervention. These findings indicate that teaching students to read laterally may increase their ability to detect bias in online medical information. Lessons Learned: Further research is needed to determine whether students who learned lateral reading via experiential learning will apply this skill in their education and career. Additionally, research should assess whether this skill helps future physicians counter bias and misinformation in ways that improve health.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过体验式学习 "横向阅读"(一种事实核查技术),让三年级医学生能够在网上发现偏见和医疗错误信息。
问题:误导性健康信息不利于公众健康。即使是医生也可能被带有偏见的健康信息所误导;然而,医科学生和医生并没有在网上学到一些识别偏见和错误信息的最有效方法。干预措施我们将科尔布的体验式学习周期的各个阶段作为一个框架,目的是在 90 分钟的课堂上,通过 50 分钟的学习周期,教会美国一所医学院的 117 名三年级学生运用一种名为 "横向阅读 "的事实核查技术来识别偏见和错误信息。每个学生的具体体验是独立阅读一篇有偏见的文章,并对其可信度进行评分,展示他们识别偏见的基本技能。通过个人讨论和大组讨论,为学生提供了结构化的反思观察机会。在抽象概念的指导下,学生们确定了事实核查人员所使用的技术和框架,特别是 "横向阅读"--在深入探讨文章本身之前,利用互联网研究作者的背景、组织结构以及使用独立来源的引文。学生们的积极尝试包括重新评价同一篇文章的可信度,并与同学和教师讨论进一步的影响。背景:2020 年 1 月,在三年级医学生的必修课程中,为他们开设了向实习过渡的纵向课程。影响:与基线相比,使用横向阅读时,学生认为文章的可信度较低。学生们的积极尝试改变了他们对文章背后的组织和来源是否可信的认定。值得注意的是,86%(53/62)在干预前对该组织持正面看法的学生,在干预后对该组织的描述并不积极。同样,66%(36/55)在干预前认为文章来源可信的学生在干预后改变了他们的评价。虽然有三名学生在干预前对作者的评价是负面的,但在干预后对作者进行负面描述的 21 名学生中,没有一人在干预前对作者的评价是负面的。干预前对组织、作者或来源的正面描述与干预后可信度评分的差异相关。这些研究结果表明,教会学生横向阅读可以提高他们发现在线医疗信息中偏见的能力。经验教训:还需要进一步研究,以确定通过体验式学习学会横向阅读的学生是否会在其教育和职业生涯中应用这一技能。此外,研究还应评估这项技能是否有助于未来的医生以改善健康的方式抵制偏见和错误信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Teaching and Learning in Medicine
Teaching and Learning in Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Teaching and Learning in Medicine ( TLM) is an international, forum for scholarship on teaching and learning in the health professions. Its international scope reflects the common challenge faced by all medical educators: fostering the development of capable, well-rounded, and continuous learners prepared to practice in a complex, high-stakes, and ever-changing clinical environment. TLM''s contributors and readership comprise behavioral scientists and health care practitioners, signaling the value of integrating diverse perspectives into a comprehensive understanding of learning and performance. The journal seeks to provide the theoretical foundations and practical analysis needed for effective educational decision making in such areas as admissions, instructional design and delivery, performance assessment, remediation, technology-assisted instruction, diversity management, and faculty development, among others. TLM''s scope includes all levels of medical education, from premedical to postgraduate and continuing medical education, with articles published in the following categories:
期刊最新文献
Psychometric properties of the Ethiopian national licensing exam in medicine: an analysis of multiple-choice questions using classical test theory. Disability Education for Health Personnel and Impact on Health Outcomes for Persons with Autism: A Scoping Review. Examining Scientific Inquiry of Queerness in Medical Education: A Queer Reading. "I have established this support network": How Chosen Kin Support Women Medical Students During their First Two Years in Medical School. Applying the Panarchy Framework to Examining Post-Pandemic Adaptation in the Undergraduate Medical Education Environment: A Qualitative Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1