Medical Students' Views About Having Different Types of Problem-Based Learning Tutors.
Near-peer tutoring
Peer-assisted learning
Problem-based learning
Undergraduate medical education
Journal
Medical science educator
ISSN: 2156-8650
Titre abrégé: Med Sci Educ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101625548
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Mar 2019
Historique:
entrez:
30
8
2021
pubmed:
14
11
2018
medline:
14
11
2018
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
At Norwich Medical School, Year 3 or 4 medical students taking a year out of the 5-year undergraduate MBBS degree to do a master's degree in clinical education worked as near-peer problem-based learning (PBL) tutors for students in Year 2. Peer-assisted learning has been shown to benefit both peer tutors and tutees; in this study, experiences of students with near-peer PBL tutors were compared to students with other types of PBL tutor. Using existing student evaluation data, we compared student views about PBL tutor performance, PBL group functioning, and overall satisfaction with PBL learning experience according to whether their PBL tutor/s were (1) a single near-peer tutor (later-year MB BS student), (2) a single staff tutor, (3) multiple staff tutors, or (4) multiple newly qualified doctor tutors. Results indicated that students' evaluation of tutor performance was more positive for near-peer PBL tutors compared to both groups of staff tutors for most areas evaluated. Additionally, students' evaluation of overall satisfaction with PBL was more positive for near-peer PBL tutors compared to multiple staff tutors. Tutor performance for multiple staff tutors was evaluated less positively compared to both single staff and multiple newly qualified doctor groups. But there were no statistically significant differences between the four groups regarding PBL group functioning. Near-peer PBL tutors perform comparably or better to staff PBL tutors in salient measures of tutor performance and group functioning. We conclude that medical students find near-peer PBL tutors to be an acceptable addition to the PBL tutor workforce.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
At Norwich Medical School, Year 3 or 4 medical students taking a year out of the 5-year undergraduate MBBS degree to do a master's degree in clinical education worked as near-peer problem-based learning (PBL) tutors for students in Year 2. Peer-assisted learning has been shown to benefit both peer tutors and tutees; in this study, experiences of students with near-peer PBL tutors were compared to students with other types of PBL tutor.
METHODS
METHODS
Using existing student evaluation data, we compared student views about PBL tutor performance, PBL group functioning, and overall satisfaction with PBL learning experience according to whether their PBL tutor/s were (1) a single near-peer tutor (later-year MB BS student), (2) a single staff tutor, (3) multiple staff tutors, or (4) multiple newly qualified doctor tutors.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Results indicated that students' evaluation of tutor performance was more positive for near-peer PBL tutors compared to both groups of staff tutors for most areas evaluated. Additionally, students' evaluation of overall satisfaction with PBL was more positive for near-peer PBL tutors compared to multiple staff tutors. Tutor performance for multiple staff tutors was evaluated less positively compared to both single staff and multiple newly qualified doctor groups. But there were no statistically significant differences between the four groups regarding PBL group functioning.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Near-peer PBL tutors perform comparably or better to staff PBL tutors in salient measures of tutor performance and group functioning. We conclude that medical students find near-peer PBL tutors to be an acceptable addition to the PBL tutor workforce.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34457456
doi: 10.1007/s40670-018-00634-9
pii: 634
pmc: PMC8360235
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
93-100Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2018.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interestThe authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Références
Anat Sci Educ. 2014 May-Jun;7(3):242-7
pubmed: 24170449
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008 Aug;13(3):361-72
pubmed: 17124627
Med Educ. 2016 Jul;50(7):757-67
pubmed: 27295480
Med Educ. 2009 May;43(5):475-6
pubmed: 19422498
Med Teach. 2007 Sep;29(6):546-52
pubmed: 17978967
Med Teach. 2005 Sep;27(6):521-6
pubmed: 16199359
Tohoku J Exp Med. 2014;232(3):223-7
pubmed: 24646957
Med Teach. 2007 Sep;29(6):591-9
pubmed: 17922354
Med Educ. 1994 Jul;28(4):284-9
pubmed: 7861998
Surg Radiol Anat. 2016 Dec;38(10):1217-1223
pubmed: 27225186
Med Educ. 2000 Jan;34(1):23-9
pubmed: 10607275