Descriptive analysis develops a critical thinking emulation model in education, suggesting improved outcomes.
Background/Purpose Gaps exist between critical thinking importance and an organized agenda for the development of critical thinking learning outcomes. Multiple critical thinking skill sets were developed by the authors, forming a symbiotic network. The key concept for each critical thinking exercise follows one learning model emulating the master clinician's thinking. The purpose is to enhance symbiosis in a pedagogical framework for individual exercises with a common outcomes‐based assessment; internalization of each skill set is followed by nuance exploration—“learning moments.” Methods Descriptive analyses for (1) a symbiotic network of patient‐based, student‐led demonstrations of thinking and judgment with expanded opportunities for critical thinking, (2) a common outcomes‐based assessment for patient‐based student‐led demonstrations of thinking and judgment, and (3) learning moments for each skill set: periodontics, operative dentistry (caries), geriatrics, ethics, pediatrics, TMD, and technology decision‐making. Results Two factors were seen to contribute to interactions/sharing/symbiosis of learning guides among different departments: using a common emulation‐learning model and using a common outcomes‐based assessment. The use of a learning guide based on a designated thought process, combined with the use of a common outcomes‐based assessment were also associated with subsequent rich and varied learning moments distinctive for each exercise. Conclusions With little literature on learning outcomes for critical thinking, the development of an emulation learning model based on the thought processes of the master clinician led to the development initially of multiple critical thinking skill sets, followed by interactions of exercises. The result was a symbiotic network with rigorous demonstration of a skill set followed by a rich exploration of nuances.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Johnsen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: