Comparing the Status of Critical Thinking and Its Associated Factors in Students

A. Dargahi, M. Vosoughi, Yousef Hamidzadeh Arbabi, H. Sadeghi, Robab Hosseinpour
{"title":"Comparing the Status of Critical Thinking and Its Associated Factors in Students","authors":"A. Dargahi, M. Vosoughi, Yousef Hamidzadeh Arbabi, H. Sadeghi, Robab Hosseinpour","doi":"10.32598/ahs.10.4.38.16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background & Aims of the Study: By being aware of the state of critical thinking and the factors affecting it in students, it is possible to help improve the planning and quality of education. This study aimed to comparatively determine the status of critical thinking and the factors affecting it in students. Materials and Methods: The present cross-sectional study’s population and the sample consisted of health disciplines students of Ardabil University of Medical Sciences in Ardabil City, Iran. All students of the two entrances of 2017 and 2020 were enrolled in the study by completing a virtual questionnaire. According to the relevant results, 155 individuals completed the questionnaire. Descriptive and analytical tests in SPSS v. 20 analyzed the collected data. Results: The minimum score of critical thinking was 4, the maximum was 16, and the Mean±SD essential score of thinking was 10.17±2.56 in all students. Among the studied variables, only the relationship between the subscales of inference and inductive reasoning with the year of entry of the studied students was significant (P=0.02) and (P=0.026). In other cases, there was no significant correlation between demographic variables, such as age, gender, the year of entry, native or non-native, the field of study, and grade point average with the overall scores of critical thinking and its subscales (P>0.05). Conclusion: The current study results indicated that the critical thinking skills of health students of Ardabil University of Medical Sciences are poor in all dimensions and subscales. Considering the importance of critical thinking in the development, progress, and well-being of individuals and societies, reviewing and correcting the curriculum, training and empowering teachers concerning critical thinking skills, and teaching it in higher education and academic centers.","PeriodicalId":8299,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Hygiene Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Hygiene Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32598/ahs.10.4.38.16","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background & Aims of the Study: By being aware of the state of critical thinking and the factors affecting it in students, it is possible to help improve the planning and quality of education. This study aimed to comparatively determine the status of critical thinking and the factors affecting it in students. Materials and Methods: The present cross-sectional study’s population and the sample consisted of health disciplines students of Ardabil University of Medical Sciences in Ardabil City, Iran. All students of the two entrances of 2017 and 2020 were enrolled in the study by completing a virtual questionnaire. According to the relevant results, 155 individuals completed the questionnaire. Descriptive and analytical tests in SPSS v. 20 analyzed the collected data. Results: The minimum score of critical thinking was 4, the maximum was 16, and the Mean±SD essential score of thinking was 10.17±2.56 in all students. Among the studied variables, only the relationship between the subscales of inference and inductive reasoning with the year of entry of the studied students was significant (P=0.02) and (P=0.026). In other cases, there was no significant correlation between demographic variables, such as age, gender, the year of entry, native or non-native, the field of study, and grade point average with the overall scores of critical thinking and its subscales (P>0.05). Conclusion: The current study results indicated that the critical thinking skills of health students of Ardabil University of Medical Sciences are poor in all dimensions and subscales. Considering the importance of critical thinking in the development, progress, and well-being of individuals and societies, reviewing and correcting the curriculum, training and empowering teachers concerning critical thinking skills, and teaching it in higher education and academic centers.
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
学生批判性思维的现状及其影响因素的比较
研究背景与目的:通过了解学生批判性思维的状态和影响学生批判性思维的因素,可以帮助改善教育的规划和质量。本研究旨在比较确定学生批判性思维的现状及其影响因素。材料和方法:本横断面研究的人群和样本包括伊朗阿达比尔市阿达比尔医科大学卫生学科的学生。2017年和2020年两个入口的所有学生都通过填写一份虚拟问卷参与了这项研究。根据相关结果,155人完成了问卷调查。在SPSS v. 20中进行描述性和分析性测试,分析收集到的数据。结果:所有学生的批判性思维得分最低为4分,最高为16分,思维基本得分均值±SD为10.17±2.56分。在研究的变量中,只有推理和归纳推理的分量表与被研究学生的入学年份有显著的关系(P=0.02)和(P=0.026)。在其他情况下,年龄、性别、入学年份、母语或非母语、学习领域和平均绩点等人口统计学变量与批判性思维及其子量表的总分之间没有显著相关性(P < 0.05)。结论:目前的研究结果表明,阿达比尔医科大学卫生专业学生的批判性思维能力在各维度和各分量表上都较差。考虑到批判性思维在个人和社会的发展、进步和福祉中的重要性,审查和修改课程,培训和增强教师的批判性思维技能,并在高等教育和学术中心教授。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
2 weeks
期刊最新文献
Investigating Response Priorities in Oil Pollution Emergencies in an Unloading and Loading Dock Using McKinsey’s 7s Gap Analysis Method Investigation of Antioxidant and Antibacterial Effect of Chemical Compounds Cardamine uliginosa Plant Macroscopic and Microscopic Survey of Sarcocystis spp. Infection in Slaughtered Cattle and Sheep in Tabriz, Iran Relationship Between Severity of Multiple Sclerosis and Fear of Falling Mediated by Cognitive and Physical Factors Relationship between Job Stress and Burnout of Psychiatric Nurses: The Mediating Role of Psychological Capital
×
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