Can criticism lead to constructive dialogue? Reaffirming a novel study

Abstract

This letter takes a unique approach to the complex relationship between criticism and constructive dialogue, specifically in response to issues raised by a recent original article publication. While criticism is often viewed negatively, this article uncovers its potential to stimulate meaningful and productive discussions, particularly in novel studies. By examining certain misinterpretations, the article aims to demonstrate how criticism, when approached with openness and respect, can deepen the understanding and appreciation of original works, and inspire future research on lecture playback speeds. Drawing from specific matters arising based on one writer’s Letter to the Editor, this response highlights the importance of cultivating a culture of constructive criticism in educational settings through a thorough response where criticism has led to fruitful dialogue, enabling readers to engage critically with texts and explore diverse interpretations. Ultimately, this article underscores the transformative potential of criticism as a tool for intellectual growth, by reaffirming the value of novel studies as sites for critical inquiry and potential constructive dialogue rather than a deterrent to meaningful engagement. It endeavors to provide practical insights and recommendations for writers, offering strategies for leveraging criticism to foster deeper collaboration and enrich future scholarly works.

Introduction

The authors were intrigued and confused by Nakhostin-Ansari’s, (the writer) critique on the reported findings of the novel work. The abstract of the original article simply aimed to present findings to initiate filling in the gap in the literature on lecture playback speed [1]. The writer misinterpreted points and disassembles the article into out-of-context arguments against the credibility of the study. The novel study revealed preliminary findings with results based on a single snapshot of one school with a new, post-pandemic educational tool as a springboard for continued research in this fast-evolving field [1]. The implication that unstated limitations in the article misleads the audience to a tailored interpretation of the study is unfounded. The writer’s reanalysis of the data has the same conclusions as presented in the study being criticized, and while certain points had some basis of merit, these were fundamental misinterpretations of the purpose of the study. The original findings were not meant to insinuate generalizability to all medical students across the globe; rather, they were meant to provide the basis for future studies [1].

Participants

The writer begins by pointing out the lack of participant demographics included in the study, stating each student has their own strengths and weaknesses with learning and corresponding academic performances, each having an optimum speed at which they learn best. Although this is a salient point in education, this detracts from the aim of the original article. The writer suggests that the study should have considered these demographics as there is a possibility of an overrepresentation of high-performing medical students or specific gender, which would impact the data collected. This study was simplified to two sample questions from a full set collected due to having only the demographics of one cohort of medical students at the authors’ institution. Thus, positing overrepresentations distract from the relevance of the study.

The writer’s points on demographics are broadly important to the field and may impact how students learn via lecture playback speeds. A follow-up manuscript to the original is in production which focuses on the impact demographics and past experiences may play on medical students’ memory and concentration, pertaining to different lecture playback speeds. Reiterating, the specificity of demographics is out of scope for the original article given its purpose; the follow-up article will assess these factors and their impacts on medical students’ learning.

Confounders

The writer states there is no listed post-intervention assessment timing, stating this detail is important and may impact the findings. As the writer noted, one may assume that assessments were performed immediately after the intervention, but declared that it should have been clearly stated in the manuscript. The original article may have preemptively expected that the readers would be able to make such an assumption without it being plainly stated, just as no specific timeframe was given to when the pre-intervention assessment was conducted; yet this point was not added to the list of potential confounders.

The writer declared that Kıyak et al.’s study was well-done and published around the same time as the article [2]. The authors were perplexed at the argument made as the writer clearly states it is a similar study which arrived at the same conclusion as the study in question without criticizing the integrity of it [2].

The writer also remarked on words spoken per minute in the lecture videos not being noted and taken into consideration. The point states that the number of words per minute may impact students’ ability to comprehend information; although this may be true, it holds little influence in the context of this study. The argument could also be made that medical lectures use larger words with more syllables, technically less words per minute, and not necessarily corresponding to increased comprehension. There may also be myriads of acronyms, abbreviations, images, etc. included in the lectures; both examples proving that this variable is near impossible to account for if there is desire to be so specific, which would not be the focus of this novel study.

Control Group

The next point states there is no proper control group as the 1.5x speed group was selected to be the control in place of 1x speed, a true control. The writer stated that 77% of the participants usually watched lectures at 1.5x playback speed or faster, and correctly implied that many may have already adapted to faster lecture viewing. This statement is the exact rationale as to why 1.5x speed was chosen as the control, because anything less than 1.5x would be even further from a true control in the context of the participants of this study. It is not unheard of for a study to adjust the control based on the context of the participants’ baseline, and as this study was limited to the population of medical students available at one institution, 1.5x speed became the logical control [3].

The argument is that Song, et al.’s study itself is supposedly not statistically sound, and yet, the writer provides a third example of similar findings that showcased no significant differences between 1x and 1.5x playback speeds [4]. As there is limited information on the topic, Song et al.’s study was the justification behind allowing 1.5x speed to serve as the control for the current study supported by the available literature [4].

Statistical analyses

The final point is a critique on the study’s statistical tests as the writer presents reasons why the statistical tests used were not adequate, only to state that by performing different statistical tests, the writer arrived at an identical conclusion based on the data provided. As can be seen in many medical education studies, the tests utilized in the original article were common and appropriate for the type and level of study conducted [5]. A colloquial analogy in comparing a Volkswagen to a BMW in aiming to travel from point A to point B can be made. It is reasonable that both will adequately complete the intended task, and thus unnecessary to state why Volkswagen is not the better vehicle in the scenario. When taken out of context, it would be easy to agree the BMW is the better vehicle by many measures, but in context of the task (i.e., moving from point A to B), it is unnecessary to attack the Volkswagen’s ability to travel simply because one believes a BMW is better.

Conclusions

The original goal of this novel research was to generate an amicable curiosity to conduct further research to better understand these post-pandemic educational tools. Although a fascination with the writer’s views provided numerous examples of similar research all leading to identical conclusions, the authors would like to remind the audience that understanding the focus and context of a paper matters greatly in its interpretation. Misinterpreting and misunderstanding are parts of growing as researchers, educators, and clinicians, but when collaboration is replaced by criticizing work being done to address paucity in the literature, then true discovery stops. The original authors are grateful for the opportunity the writer has provided and invite Nakhostin-Ansari to collaborate on this topic to continue the pursuit of discovery, not criticism.

Author contributions

Z.I.M. wrote the main manuscript text. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Z.I.M., M.M., & M.P.M.H. edited the manuscript text.

Funding

Not applicable.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All required parties have given ethics approval and consent to participate where necessary.

Consent for publication

All required parties have given consent to publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.