Which peer teaching methods do medical students prefer?
Background: The beneficial effects of peer teaching in medical education have been well-described in the literature. However, it is unclear whether students prefer to be taught by peers in small or large group settings. This study′s aim was to identify differences in medical students′ preferences an...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Education for health (Abingdon, England) England), 2016-05, Vol.29 (2), p.142-147 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 147 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 142 |
| container_title | Education for health (Abingdon, England) |
| container_volume | 29 |
| creator | Jayakumar, Nithish Srirathan, Danushan Shah, Rishita Jakubowska, Agnieszka Clarke, Andrew Annan, David Albasha, Dekan |
| description | Background: The beneficial effects of peer teaching in medical education have been well-described in the literature. However, it is unclear whether students prefer to be taught by peers in small or large group settings. This study′s aim was to identify differences in medical students′ preferences and perceptions of small-group versus large-group peer teaching. Methods: Questionnaires were administered to medical students in Year 3 and Year 4 (first 2 years of clinical training) at one institution in the United Kingdom to identify their experiences and perceptions of small-and large-group peer teaching. For this study, small-group peer teaching was defined as a tutorial, or similar, taught by peer tutor to a group of 5 students or less. Large-group peer teaching was defined as a lecture, or similar, taught by peer tutors to a group of more than 20 students. Results: Seventy-three students (81% response rate) completed the questionnaires (54% males; median age of 23). Nearly 55% of respondents reported prior exposure to small-group peer teaching but a larger proportion of respondents (86%) had previously attended large-group peer teaching. Of all valid responses, 49% did not have a preference of peer teaching method while 47% preferred small-group peer teaching. The majority of Year 3 students preferred small-group peer teaching to no preference (62.5% vs 37.5%, Fisher′s exact test; P = 0.035) whereas most Year 4 students did not report a particular preference. Likert-scale responses showed that the majority of students held negative perceptions about large-group peer teaching, in comparison with small-group peer teaching, with respect to (1) interactivity, (2) a comfortable environment to ask questions, and (3) feedback received. Discussion: Most respondents in this study did not report a preference for small-versus large-group settings when taught by peers. More Year 3 respondents were likely to prefer small-group peer teaching as opposed to Year 4 respondents. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.4103/1357-6283.188764 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1813901769</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A461581610</galeid><sourcerecordid>A461581610</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c444g-17fc9c61613a24dda308f896546eebe6e43616a4889d02ee82ca48cf9119dce3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptks9vFCEUx4nR2Fq9ezKTmBg9zAoDw8DJNI0_mtSYaBOPhMKbHVp22AKT1f9exu1qxwgHHvD5Psj7PoSeE7xiBNO3hLZdzRtBV0SIjrMH6JgwLutWYPawxIfrI_QkpWtcBqPyMTpqupZJ3rJj1H0fnBmqLUCsMmgzuHFdbSAPwabKhhJaZ7SvUp4sjDlV2wg9xHdP0aNe-wTP7tYTdPnh_eXZp_riy8fzs9OL2jDG1jXpeiMNJ5xQ3TBrNcWiF_PTHOAKODBaLjUTQlrcAIjGlI3pJSHSGqAn6PU-7TaG2wlSVhuXDHivRwhTUkQQKjHpuCzoy3_Q6zDFsXxONU0rSIc7jP9Sa-1BubEPOWozJ1WnjJPCcTJTq_9QZVrYOBNG6F05XwjeLASFyfAjr_WUkjr_9nXJvrrHDqB9HlLwU3ZhTEsQ70ETQ0ql7mob3UbHn4pgNfuvZoPVbLDa-18kL-6KMF0V6_4IDoYX4PMe2AWfIaYbP-0gqsLejGG3SFzfS6wIa9TvVlFzq6hDq9BfDnm-2Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2258170700</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Which peer teaching methods do medical students prefer?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Medknow Open Access Medical Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><creator>Jayakumar, Nithish ; Srirathan, Danushan ; Shah, Rishita ; Jakubowska, Agnieszka ; Clarke, Andrew ; Annan, David ; Albasha, Dekan</creator><creatorcontrib>Jayakumar, Nithish ; Srirathan, Danushan ; Shah, Rishita ; Jakubowska, Agnieszka ; Clarke, Andrew ; Annan, David ; Albasha, Dekan</creatorcontrib><description>Background: The beneficial effects of peer teaching in medical education have been well-described in the literature. However, it is unclear whether students prefer to be taught by peers in small or large group settings. This study′s aim was to identify differences in medical students′ preferences and perceptions of small-group versus large-group peer teaching. Methods: Questionnaires were administered to medical students in Year 3 and Year 4 (first 2 years of clinical training) at one institution in the United Kingdom to identify their experiences and perceptions of small-and large-group peer teaching. For this study, small-group peer teaching was defined as a tutorial, or similar, taught by peer tutor to a group of 5 students or less. Large-group peer teaching was defined as a lecture, or similar, taught by peer tutors to a group of more than 20 students. Results: Seventy-three students (81% response rate) completed the questionnaires (54% males; median age of 23). Nearly 55% of respondents reported prior exposure to small-group peer teaching but a larger proportion of respondents (86%) had previously attended large-group peer teaching. Of all valid responses, 49% did not have a preference of peer teaching method while 47% preferred small-group peer teaching. The majority of Year 3 students preferred small-group peer teaching to no preference (62.5% vs 37.5%, Fisher′s exact test; P = 0.035) whereas most Year 4 students did not report a particular preference. Likert-scale responses showed that the majority of students held negative perceptions about large-group peer teaching, in comparison with small-group peer teaching, with respect to (1) interactivity, (2) a comfortable environment to ask questions, and (3) feedback received. Discussion: Most respondents in this study did not report a preference for small-versus large-group settings when taught by peers. More Year 3 respondents were likely to prefer small-group peer teaching as opposed to Year 4 respondents.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1357-6283</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-5804</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4103/1357-6283.188764</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27549654</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>India: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow Publications</publisher><subject>Adult ; Clinical training ; Curricula ; Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods ; Educational Environment ; Elementary school teachers ; Feedback ; Female ; Humans ; Learning ; Male ; Males ; Medical education ; Medical personnel training ; Medical students ; Methods ; Peer Group ; Peer Teaching ; Peer tutoring ; Perceptions ; Preferences ; Questionnaires ; Response rates ; Students ; Students, Medical - psychology ; Surveys ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Teaching ; Teaching methods ; Training ; Tutoring ; United Kingdom</subject><ispartof>Education for health (Abingdon, England), 2016-05, Vol.29 (2), p.142-147</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2016 Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd.</rights><rights>2016. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c444g-17fc9c61613a24dda308f896546eebe6e43616a4889d02ee82ca48cf9119dce3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,12846,27458,27924,27925,30999</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27549654$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jayakumar, Nithish</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Srirathan, Danushan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shah, Rishita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jakubowska, Agnieszka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clarke, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Annan, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Albasha, Dekan</creatorcontrib><title>Which peer teaching methods do medical students prefer?</title><title>Education for health (Abingdon, England)</title><addtitle>Educ Health (Abingdon)</addtitle><description>Background: The beneficial effects of peer teaching in medical education have been well-described in the literature. However, it is unclear whether students prefer to be taught by peers in small or large group settings. This study′s aim was to identify differences in medical students′ preferences and perceptions of small-group versus large-group peer teaching. Methods: Questionnaires were administered to medical students in Year 3 and Year 4 (first 2 years of clinical training) at one institution in the United Kingdom to identify their experiences and perceptions of small-and large-group peer teaching. For this study, small-group peer teaching was defined as a tutorial, or similar, taught by peer tutor to a group of 5 students or less. Large-group peer teaching was defined as a lecture, or similar, taught by peer tutors to a group of more than 20 students. Results: Seventy-three students (81% response rate) completed the questionnaires (54% males; median age of 23). Nearly 55% of respondents reported prior exposure to small-group peer teaching but a larger proportion of respondents (86%) had previously attended large-group peer teaching. Of all valid responses, 49% did not have a preference of peer teaching method while 47% preferred small-group peer teaching. The majority of Year 3 students preferred small-group peer teaching to no preference (62.5% vs 37.5%, Fisher′s exact test; P = 0.035) whereas most Year 4 students did not report a particular preference. Likert-scale responses showed that the majority of students held negative perceptions about large-group peer teaching, in comparison with small-group peer teaching, with respect to (1) interactivity, (2) a comfortable environment to ask questions, and (3) feedback received. Discussion: Most respondents in this study did not report a preference for small-versus large-group settings when taught by peers. More Year 3 respondents were likely to prefer small-group peer teaching as opposed to Year 4 respondents.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Clinical training</subject><subject>Curricula</subject><subject>Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods</subject><subject>Educational Environment</subject><subject>Elementary school teachers</subject><subject>Feedback</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Males</subject><subject>Medical education</subject><subject>Medical personnel training</subject><subject>Medical students</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Peer Group</subject><subject>Peer Teaching</subject><subject>Peer tutoring</subject><subject>Perceptions</subject><subject>Preferences</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Response rates</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Students, Medical - psychology</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Teaching</subject><subject>Teaching methods</subject><subject>Training</subject><subject>Tutoring</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><issn>1357-6283</issn><issn>1469-5804</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNptks9vFCEUx4nR2Fq9ezKTmBg9zAoDw8DJNI0_mtSYaBOPhMKbHVp22AKT1f9exu1qxwgHHvD5Psj7PoSeE7xiBNO3hLZdzRtBV0SIjrMH6JgwLutWYPawxIfrI_QkpWtcBqPyMTpqupZJ3rJj1H0fnBmqLUCsMmgzuHFdbSAPwabKhhJaZ7SvUp4sjDlV2wg9xHdP0aNe-wTP7tYTdPnh_eXZp_riy8fzs9OL2jDG1jXpeiMNJ5xQ3TBrNcWiF_PTHOAKODBaLjUTQlrcAIjGlI3pJSHSGqAn6PU-7TaG2wlSVhuXDHivRwhTUkQQKjHpuCzoy3_Q6zDFsXxONU0rSIc7jP9Sa-1BubEPOWozJ1WnjJPCcTJTq_9QZVrYOBNG6F05XwjeLASFyfAjr_WUkjr_9nXJvrrHDqB9HlLwU3ZhTEsQ70ETQ0ql7mob3UbHn4pgNfuvZoPVbLDa-18kL-6KMF0V6_4IDoYX4PMe2AWfIaYbP-0gqsLejGG3SFzfS6wIa9TvVlFzq6hDq9BfDnm-2Q</recordid><startdate>20160501</startdate><enddate>20160501</enddate><creator>Jayakumar, Nithish</creator><creator>Srirathan, Danushan</creator><creator>Shah, Rishita</creator><creator>Jakubowska, Agnieszka</creator><creator>Clarke, Andrew</creator><creator>Annan, David</creator><creator>Albasha, Dekan</creator><general>Wolters Kluwer - Medknow Publications</general><general>Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd</general><general>Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8A4</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160501</creationdate><title>Which peer teaching methods do medical students prefer?</title><author>Jayakumar, Nithish ; Srirathan, Danushan ; Shah, Rishita ; Jakubowska, Agnieszka ; Clarke, Andrew ; Annan, David ; Albasha, Dekan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c444g-17fc9c61613a24dda308f896546eebe6e43616a4889d02ee82ca48cf9119dce3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Clinical training</topic><topic>Curricula</topic><topic>Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods</topic><topic>Educational Environment</topic><topic>Elementary school teachers</topic><topic>Feedback</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Males</topic><topic>Medical education</topic><topic>Medical personnel training</topic><topic>Medical students</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Peer Group</topic><topic>Peer Teaching</topic><topic>Peer tutoring</topic><topic>Perceptions</topic><topic>Preferences</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Response rates</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Students, Medical - psychology</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Teaching</topic><topic>Teaching methods</topic><topic>Training</topic><topic>Tutoring</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jayakumar, Nithish</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Srirathan, Danushan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shah, Rishita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jakubowska, Agnieszka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clarke, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Annan, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Albasha, Dekan</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Periodicals</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Education for health (Abingdon, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jayakumar, Nithish</au><au>Srirathan, Danushan</au><au>Shah, Rishita</au><au>Jakubowska, Agnieszka</au><au>Clarke, Andrew</au><au>Annan, David</au><au>Albasha, Dekan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Which peer teaching methods do medical students prefer?</atitle><jtitle>Education for health (Abingdon, England)</jtitle><addtitle>Educ Health (Abingdon)</addtitle><date>2016-05-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>142</spage><epage>147</epage><pages>142-147</pages><issn>1357-6283</issn><eissn>1469-5804</eissn><abstract>Background: The beneficial effects of peer teaching in medical education have been well-described in the literature. However, it is unclear whether students prefer to be taught by peers in small or large group settings. This study′s aim was to identify differences in medical students′ preferences and perceptions of small-group versus large-group peer teaching. Methods: Questionnaires were administered to medical students in Year 3 and Year 4 (first 2 years of clinical training) at one institution in the United Kingdom to identify their experiences and perceptions of small-and large-group peer teaching. For this study, small-group peer teaching was defined as a tutorial, or similar, taught by peer tutor to a group of 5 students or less. Large-group peer teaching was defined as a lecture, or similar, taught by peer tutors to a group of more than 20 students. Results: Seventy-three students (81% response rate) completed the questionnaires (54% males; median age of 23). Nearly 55% of respondents reported prior exposure to small-group peer teaching but a larger proportion of respondents (86%) had previously attended large-group peer teaching. Of all valid responses, 49% did not have a preference of peer teaching method while 47% preferred small-group peer teaching. The majority of Year 3 students preferred small-group peer teaching to no preference (62.5% vs 37.5%, Fisher′s exact test; P = 0.035) whereas most Year 4 students did not report a particular preference. Likert-scale responses showed that the majority of students held negative perceptions about large-group peer teaching, in comparison with small-group peer teaching, with respect to (1) interactivity, (2) a comfortable environment to ask questions, and (3) feedback received. Discussion: Most respondents in this study did not report a preference for small-versus large-group settings when taught by peers. More Year 3 respondents were likely to prefer small-group peer teaching as opposed to Year 4 respondents.</abstract><cop>India</cop><pub>Wolters Kluwer - Medknow Publications</pub><pmid>27549654</pmid><doi>10.4103/1357-6283.188764</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1357-6283 |
| ispartof | Education for health (Abingdon, England), 2016-05, Vol.29 (2), p.142-147 |
| issn | 1357-6283 1469-5804 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1813901769 |
| source | MEDLINE; Medknow Open Access Medical Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); EBSCOhost Education Source |
| subjects | Adult Clinical training Curricula Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods Educational Environment Elementary school teachers Feedback Female Humans Learning Male Males Medical education Medical personnel training Medical students Methods Peer Group Peer Teaching Peer tutoring Perceptions Preferences Questionnaires Response rates Students Students, Medical - psychology Surveys Surveys and Questionnaires Teaching Teaching methods Training Tutoring United Kingdom |
| title | Which peer teaching methods do medical students prefer? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T04%3A04%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Which%20peer%20teaching%20methods%20do%20medical%20students%20prefer?&rft.jtitle=Education%20for%20health%20(Abingdon,%20England)&rft.au=Jayakumar,%20Nithish&rft.date=2016-05-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=142&rft.epage=147&rft.pages=142-147&rft.issn=1357-6283&rft.eissn=1469-5804&rft_id=info:doi/10.4103/1357-6283.188764&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA461581610%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2258170700&rft_id=info:pmid/27549654&rft_galeid=A461581610&rfr_iscdi=true |