Medical students-as-teachers: a systematic review of peer-assisted teaching during medical school

Tzu-Chieh Yu, Nichola C Wilson, Primal P Singh, Daniel P Lemanu, Susan J Hawken, Andrew G Hill, Tzu-Chieh Yu, Nichola C Wilson, Primal P Singh, Daniel P Lemanu, Susan J Hawken, Andrew G Hill

Abstract

Introduction: International interest in peer-teaching and peer-assisted learning (PAL) during undergraduate medical programs has grown in recent years, reflected both in literature and in practice. There, remains however, a distinct lack of objective clarity and consensus on the true effectiveness of peer-teaching and its short- and long-term impacts on learning outcomes and clinical practice.

Objective: To summarize and critically appraise evidence presented on peer-teaching effectiveness and its impact on objective learning outcomes of medical students.

Method: A literature search was conducted in four electronic databases. Titles and abstracts were screened and selection was based on strict eligibility criteria after examining full-texts. Two reviewers used a standard review and analysis framework to independently extract data from each study. Discrepancies in opinions were resolved by discussion in consultation with other reviewers. Adapted models of "Kirkpatrick's Levels of Learning" were used to grade the impact size of study outcomes.

Results: From 127 potential titles, 41 were obtained as full-texts, and 19 selected after close examination and group deliberation. Fifteen studies focused on student-learner outcomes and four on student-teacher learning outcomes. Ten studies utilized randomized allocation and the majority of study participants were self-selected volunteers. Written examinations and observed clinical evaluations were common study outcome assessments. Eleven studies provided student-teachers with formal teacher training. Overall, results suggest that peer-teaching, in highly selective contexts, achieves short-term learner outcomes that are comparable with those produced by faculty-based teaching. Furthermore, peer-teaching has beneficial effects on student-teacher learning outcomes.

Conclusions: Peer-teaching in undergraduate medical programs is comparable to conventional teaching when utilized in selected contexts. There is evidence to suggest that participating student-teachers benefit academically and professionally. Long-term effects of peer-teaching during medical school remain poorly understood and future research should aim to address this.

Keywords: medical school; medical student; near-peer teaching; peer-assisted learning; peer-teaching.

References

    1. Cornwall MG. Students as teachers: Peer teaching in higher education. Amsterdam: Centrum Onderzoek Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs; 1980.
    1. Schmidt HG, Moust JH. What makes a tutor effective? A structural-equations modeling approach to learning in problem-based curricula. Acad Med. 1995;70(8):708–714.
    1. Ten Cate O, Durning S. Dimensions and psychology of peer teaching in medical education. Med Teach. 2007;29(6):546–552.
    1. Bruffee KA. Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. 2nd ed. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1999.
    1. Secomb J. A systematic review of peer teaching and learning in clinical education. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17(6):703–716.
    1. Nestel D, Kidd J. Peer tutoring in patient-centred interviewing skills: experience of a project for first-year students. Med Teach. 2003;25(4):398–403.
    1. Solomon P, Crowe J. Perceptions of student peer tutors in a problem-based learning programme. Med Teach. 2001;23(2):181–186.
    1. Morris D, Turnbull P. Using student nurses as teachers in inquiry-based learning. J Adv Nurs. 2004;45(2):136–144.
    1. Ross MT, Cummings AD. Peer assisted learning. In: Harden RM, Dent JA, editors. A Practical Guide for Medical Teachers. 2nd ed. Edinburgh, UK: Elsevier; 2005.
    1. Rogers DA, Regehr G, Gelula M, Yeh KA, Howdieshell TR, Webb W. Peer teaching and computer-assisted learning: An effective combination for surgical skill training? J Surg Res. 2000;92(1):53–55.
    1. Morris J. Peer assessment: a missing link between teaching and learning? A review of the literature. Nurse Educ Today. 2001;21(7):507–513.
    1. Wong JG, Holmboe ES, Huot SJ. Teaching and learning in an 80-hour work week: A novel day-float rotation for medical residents. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(5 Pt 2):519–523.
    1. GMC Tomorrow’s Doctors: Recommendations on Undergraduate Medical Education. London: General Medical Council; 2003.
    1. Soriano RP, Blatt B, Coplit L, et al. Teaching medical students how to teach: a national survey of students-as-teachers programs in US medical schools. Acad Med. 2010;85(11):1725–1731.
    1. Pasquinelli LM, Greenberg LW. A review of medical school programs that train medical students as teachers (MED-SATS) Teach Learn Med. 2008;20(1):73–81.
    1. Topping KJ. The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher education: a typology and review of the literature. Higher Education. 1996;32(3):321–345.
    1. Whitman NA. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education. Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghiudse on Higher Education; 1988. Peer teaching: to teach is to learn twice.
    1. Lockspeiser TM, O’Sullivan P, Teherani A, Muller J. Understanding the experience of being taught by peers: the value of social and cognitive congruence. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008;13(3):361–372.
    1. Dandavino M, Snell L, Wiseman J. Why medical students should learn how to teach. Med Teach. 2007;29(6):558–565.
    1. Ten Cate O, Durning S. Peer teaching in medical education: twelve reasons to move from theory to practice. Med Teach. 2007;29(6):591–599.
    1. Haist SA, Wilson JF, Brigham NL, Fosson SE, Blue AV. Comparing fourth-year medical students with faculty in the teaching of physical examination skills to first-year students. Acad Med. 1998;73(2):198–200.
    1. Kirkpatrick DL. Evaluating Training Programs: the Four Levels. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler; 1994.
    1. Freeth D, Hammick M, Koppel I, et al. A Critical review of evaluations of interprofessional education. London: Higher Education Academy Learning and Teaching Support Network for Health Sciences and Practice; 2003.
    1. Steinert Y, Mann K, Centeno A, et al. A sytematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education: BEME guide no. 8. Med Teach. 2006;28(6):497–526.
    1. Batchelder AJ, Rodrigues CM, Lin LY, Hickey PM, Johnson C, Elias JE. The role of students as teachers: four years’ experience of a large-scale, peer-led programme. Med Teach. 2010;32(7):547–551.
    1. Burke J, Fayaz S, Graham K, Matthew R, Field M. Peer-assisted learning in the acquisition of clinical skills: a supplementary approach to musculoskeletal system training. Med Teach. 2007;29(6):577–582.
    1. Graham K, Burke JM, Field M. Undergraduate rheumatology: can peer-assisted learning by medical students deliver equivalent training to that provided by specialist staff? Rheumatology (Oxford) 2008;47(5):652–655.
    1. Hughes TC, Jiwaji Z, Lally K, et al. Advanced Cardiac Resuscitation Evaluation (ACRE): a randomised single-blind controlled trial of peerled vs. expert-led advanced resuscitation training. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2010;18:3.
    1. Kassab S, Abu-Hijleh MF, Al-Shboul Q, Hamdy H. Student-led tutorials in problem-based learning: educational outcomes and students’ perceptions. Med Teach. 2005;27(6):521–526.
    1. Hudson JN, Tonkin AL. Clinical skills education: outcomes of relationships between junior medical students, senior peers and simulated patients. Med Educ. 2008;42(9):901–908.
    1. Haist SA, Wilson JF, Fosson SE, Brigham NL. Are fourth-year medical students effective teachers of the physical examination to first-year medical students? J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12(3):177–181.
    1. Sobral DT. Peer tutoring and student outcomes in a problem-based course. Med Educ. 1994;28(4):284–289.
    1. Wong JG, Waldrep TD, Smith TG. Formal peer-teaching in medical school improves academic performance: the MUSC supplemental instructor program. Teach Learn Med. 2007;19(3):216–220.
    1. Knobe M, Munker R, Sellei RM, et al. Peer teaching: a randomised controlled trial using student-teachers to teach musculoskeletal ultrasound. Med Educ. 2010;44(2):148–155.
    1. Steele DJ, Medder JD, Turner P. A comparison of learning outcomes and attitudes in student- versus faculty-led problem-based learning: an experimental study. Med Educ. 2000;34(1):23–29.
    1. Heckmann JG, Dutsch M, Rauch C, Lang C, Weih M, Schwab S. Effects of peer-assisted training during the neurology clerkship: a randomized controlled study. Eur J Neurol. 2008;15(12):1365–1370.
    1. Peets AD, Coderre S, Wright B, et al. Involvement in teaching improves learning in medical students: a randomized cross-over study. BMC Med Educ. 2009;9:55.
    1. Rengier F, Julian Rauch P, Partovi S, Kirsch J, Nawrotzki R. A three-day anatomy revision course taught by senior peers effectively prepares junior students for their national anatomy exam. Ann Anat. 2010;192(6):396–399.
    1. Weyrich P, Celebi N, Schrauth M, Moltner A, Lammerding-Koppel M, Nikendei C. Peer-assisted versus faculty staff-led skills laboratory training: a randomised controlled trial. Med Educ. 2009;43(2):113–120.
    1. Nestel D, Kidd J. Peer assisted learning in patient-centred interviewing: the impact on student tutors. Med Teach. 2005;27(5):439–444.
    1. Tolsgaard MG, Gustafsson A, Rasmussen MB, Hoiby P, Muller CG, Ringsted C. Student teachers can be as good as associate professors in teaching clinical skills. Med Teach. 2007;29(6):553–557.
    1. Blatt B, Greenberg L. A multi-level assessment of a program to teach medical students to teach. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2007;12(1):7–18.
    1. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. Consort. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2001;1:2.
    1. Smith KL, Petersen DJ, Soriano R, Friedman E, Bensinger LD. Training Tomorrow’s Teachers Today: a national medical student teaching and leadership retreat. Med Teach. 2007;29(4):328–334.
    1. Fincher RM, Simpson DE, Mennin SP, et al. Scholarship in teaching. An imperative for the 21st century. Acad Med. 2000;75(9):887–894.
    1. GMC. The New Doctor: Recommendations on General Clinical Training. London: General Medical Council; 2003.
    1. Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. Surgical Competence and Performance: A Guide by The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. Melbourne, Australia: The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons; 2008.
    1. Ziliak ST, McCloskey DN. The Cult of Statistical Significance: How the Standard Error Costs Us Jobs, Justice, and Lives. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; 2008.
    1. Davis DA, Mazmanian PE, Fordis M, Van Harrison R, Thorpe KE, Perrier L. Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review. JAMA. 2006;296(9):1094–1102.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit