The Impact of Primary Literature-Based, Critical Thinking Activities on Competency Enhancement for Pre-Health Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your article which I read with interest. I hope the following comments are helpful in refining your work.

 

Abstract: Generally clear. However, there is little mention of what critical thinking skills are being developed nor why they might be crucial for future healthcare professionals.

Diagram: Not sure this has much in the way of explanatory power. Should it be called Figure 1?

Lines 21 - 23: No mention of country/context? Can the reader assume it is the US? Are the findings translatable to other countries? 

Lines 26 - 29: Sentence is a little long-winded.

Line 31: What do you mean by 'co-curricular'? Might be worth defining for the lay reader.

Line 38: 'Learning the core content for a class can develop scientific competences'. - This is very generally stated and requires some explanation.

Lines 48-49: '... to apply a specific context to approach a task or problem' - not sure this makes sense.

Lines 49 - 55: Not sure the definitions of critical thinking are sufficiently precise. No mention of reasoning , judgement, analysis, evaluation, identifying flaws and assumptions, etc.

Lines 56-57: 'Analysis of primary literature is a pedagogical method ...' - How is this the case?

Line 61: '... various manners ...' maybe should say '... various ways ...'?

Lines 64-68: Not sure why this point is relevant here.

Lines 69-71: This appears to be a repetition of an earlier point.

Lines 71-72: whose immunology course?

Line 73: why does the sentence start with 'Lastly'? What is CREATE?

Line 96: Non-specific point. What critical thinking skills are they taught and how are their analysis skills developed?

Line 99: why do you mention 'student attitudes'?

Between lines 101 and 102: I would expect to see a research question or two.

Lines 103-104: 'in a small liberal arts college'. Why are you referring to the same context in a different way here?

Line 105: Repetition?

Lines 113-114: Why is demographic data important here?

Lines 118-119: Are you concerned about the number of responses for phase 2? Does this affect the credibility of your results in any way?

Table 2: Is any of this data significant to your findings and conclusions? There is a large disparity with regards gender for example.

Lines 148-152: Could there be a research question implied in here somewhere?

Lines 153-163: The significance of this data is not entirely clear without some description of what kinds of critical thinking skills are being taught and how.

Lines 203-205: Do we need research to draw this conclusion? It is generally the aim of any healthcare education, no? More discussion on the specific nuances of what has been found could be better drawn out here.

Table 3: It's not clear if the section on critical thinking contains all of the quotes that you gathered on this theme. If so, can you really draw any robust conclusions from a few statements?

Lines 244-252: Again, do we need research to draw these conclusions? This is standard in higher education. 

Lines 256-257: There remains no detail on what critical thinking skills are being taught and how so far in this paper.

Lines 264-268: As previous point. Without this detail these conclusions appear weak.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Generally fine with some areas lacking precision and clarity.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I enjoyed reading the manuscript. Here are a few constructive questions/comments:

(1) What is the population (enrollment) size of these three courses? Since it is a small college, the sample size is likely sufficient, but it is difficult to determine without knowing the population versus the response rate. 

(2) The term "phase" is somewhat misleading. To me, it infers that the survey was given to the same population, when in fact, it is to a different cohort; or that there were two distinct data collection methods, when in fact, Phase II also included Phase I-type data collection. It seems that the qualitative data in the second fall was an afterthought. The qualitative data would have been stronger if it had been collected in the fall and summer (of either academic year).

(3) Figure 1 would be better as a table. The figure shows an overview but does not provide data.

(4) This statement (lines 259-260) may be true for master's degree programs, but there is related literature available on the healthcare-related professional degree programs, "little has been studied regarding the impact of such pedagogical methods on healthcare profession-focused graduate students." You might consider some focused literature pulls for those programs since you also included undergraduate literature in your research.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a novel study examining student attitudes related to gaining competencies, skills, attributes, and attitudes in academic performance, especially in health profession programs. While the study offers intriguing insights, there are several areas where the argumentation and clarity could be strengthened. One significant issue is that the authors make an important error in presenting one characterization of critical thinking, yet the discourse in the paper about critical thinking seems at odds with the characterization they pull from the literature. Specifically, on lines 51-52, the authors speak about “critical thinking skills.” However, it is essential for the authors to note that this is at odds with both Willingham’s and Bailin et al.’s characterization of critical thinking.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for your revised article. The changes you made are reasonable, though I am left wondering about the transferability of your findings to other contexts. For me, there remains a lack of detail and nuance around what you did with the students and what kinds of competences you were trying to achieve. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The changes made greatly improved the clarity and argument of the paper. I look forward to it being published.