Peer learning in the UNSW Medicine program

BMC Medical Education

H. Patrick McNeil³  Philip D. Jones²  Patrick Boyle¹  Anthony J. O’Sullivan²  Helen A. Scicluna² 

[1] Q Associates, UNSW Australia, Sydney, Australia;UNSW Medicine, UNSW Australia, Sydney, Australia;Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

关键词: Deep learning;    Leadership;    Teamwork;    Near-peer teaching;    Peer learning;   

Others  :  1228672
DOI  :  10.1186/s12909-015-0450-y

 received in 2015-06-16, accepted in 2015-09-22,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The UNSW Australia Medicine program explicitly structures peer learning in program wide mixing of students where students from two adjoining cohorts complete the same course together, including all learning activities and assessment. The purpose of this evaluation is to explore the student experience of peer learning and determine benefits and concerns for junior and senior students.

Methods

All medical students at UNSW Australia in 2012 (n = 1608) were invited to complete the Peer Learning Questionnaire consisting of 26 fixed-response items and 2 open-ended items exploring vertical integration and near-peer teaching. Assessment data from vertically integrated and non-vertically integrated courses were compared for the period 2011–2013.

Results

We received valid responses from 20 % of medical students (n = 328). Eighty percent of respondents were positive about their experience of vertical integration. Year 1 students reported that second year students provided guidance and reassurance (87.8 %), whilst year 2 students reported that the senior role helped them to improve their own understanding, communication and confidence (84 %). Vertical integration had little effect on examination performance and failure rates.

Conclusions

This evaluation demonstrates that vertical integration of students who are one year apart and completing the same course leads to positive outcomes for the student experience of learning. Students benefit through deeper learning and the development of leadership qualities within teams. These results are relevant not only for medical education, but also for other professional higher education programs.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Scicluna et al.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]McNeil HP, Hughes CS, Toohey SM, Dowton SB. An innovative outcomes-based medical education program built on adult learning principles. Med Teach. 2006; 28(6):527-34.
• [2]Simpson PL, Scicluna HA, Jones PD, Cole AMD, O’Sullivan AJ, Harris PG et al.. Predictive validity of a new integrated selection process for medical school admission. BMC Med Educ. 2014; 14(1):86. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]McNeil HP, Scicluna HA, Boyle P, Grimm MC, Gibson KA, Jones PD. Successful development of generic capabilities in an undergraduate medical education program. High Educ Res Dev. 2012; 31(4):525-39.
• [4]Hughes CS, Toohey S, Velan G. eMed Teamwork: a self-moderating system to gather peer feedback for developing and assessing teamwork skills. Med Teach. 2008; 30:5-9.
• [5]Hunt JE, Scicluna HA, McNeil HP. Development and evaluation of a mandatory research experience in a medical education program: The Independent Learning Project at UNSW. Medical Science Educator. 2011; 21(1s):78-85.
• [6]Toohey SM, Kumar RK. A new program of assessment for a new medical program. Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-disciplinary Journal. 2003; 5(2):23-33.
• [7]O’Sullivan AJ, Harris P, Hughes CS, Toohey SM, Balasooriya C, Velan G et al.. Linking assessment to undergraduate student capabilities through portfolio examination. Assess Eval High Educ. 2012; 37(3):379-91.
• [8]O’Sullivan AJ, Howe AC, Miles S, Harris P, Hughes CS, Jones P et al.. Does a summative portfolio foster the development of capabilities such as reflective practice and understanding ethics? An evaluation from two medical schools. Med Teach. 2012; 34(1):e21-8.
• [9]ten Cate O, Durning S. Peer teaching in medical education: twelve reasons to move from theory to practice. Med Teach. 2007; 29(6):591-9.
• [10]Shulman LS. Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus. 2005; 134(3):52-9.
• [11]Ho K, Jarvis-Selinger S, Borduas F, Frank B, Hall P, Handfield-Jones R et al.. Making interprofessional education work: the strategic roles of the academy. Acad Med. 2008; 83(10):934-40.
• [12]Lerner S, Magrane D, Friedman E. Teaching teamwork in medical education. Mt Sinai J Med. 2009; 76(4):318-29.
• [13]Gillan C, Lovrics E, Halpern E, Wiljer D, Harnett N. The evaluation of learner outcomes in interprofessional continuing education: a literature review and an analysis of survey instruments. Med Teach. 2011; 33(9):e461-70.
• [14]Lockspeiser T, O’Sullivan P, Teherani A, Muller J. Understanding the experience of being taught by peers: the value of social and cognitive congruence. Advances in Health Science Education. 2008; 13:361-72.
• [15]Balasooriya CD, Toohey S, Hughes C. The cross over phenomenon: unexpected patterns of change in students’ approaches to learning. Stud High Educ. 2009; 34(7):781-94.
• [16]Baeten M, Dochy F, Struyven K. Enhancing students’ approaches to learning: the added value of gradually implementing case-based learning. Eur J Psychol Educ. 2013; 28(2):315-36.
• [17]Sobral DT. Cross-year peer tutoring experience in a medical school: conditions and outcomes for student tutors. Med Educ. 2002; 36(11):1064-70.
• [18]Evans D, Cuffe T. Near-peer teaching in anatomy: an approach for deeper learning. Anat Sci Educ. 2009; 2(5):227-33.
• [19]Silbert BI, Lake FR. Peer-assisted learning in teaching clinical examination to junior medical students. Med Teach. 2012; 34(5):392-7.
• [20]Fox A, Stevenson L, Connelly P, Duff A, Dunlop A. Peer-mentoring undergraduate accounting students: the influence on approaches to learning and academic performance. Act Learn High Educ. 2010; 11(2):145-56.
• [21]Kellehear A. The unobtrusive researcher: a guide to methods. Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards, Australia; 1993.
• [22]Boyle P, Grimm MC, McNeil HP, Scicluna HA. The UNSW Medicine Student Experience Questionnaire (MedSEQ): a synopsis of its development, features and utility. UNSWorks 2009, (30 October 2009).
• [23]Secomb J. A systematic review of peer teaching and learning in clinical education. J Clin Nurs. 2008; 17(6):703-16.
• [24]Kumar RK, Freeman B, Velan GM, de Permentier PJ. Integrating histology and histopathology teaching in practical classes using virtual slides. The Anatomical Record Part B: The New Anatomist. 2006; 289B(4):128-33.
• [25]Topping KJ. Trends in peer learning. Educ Psychol. 2005; 25(6):631-45.
• [26]Silbert BI, Lam SJ, Henderson RD, Lake FR. Students as teachers. The Medical Journal of Australia. 2013; 199(3):164-5.
• [27]Whitman NA. Peer teaching: to teach is to learn twice. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.4. Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE), Washington DC; 1988.
• [28]Topping KJ. The effectiveness of peer tutoring in higher and further education: a typology and review of the literature. High Educ. 1996; 32(3):321-45.
• [29]Scicluna HA, Grimm M, O’Sullivan AJ, Harris P, Pilotto L, Jones P et al.. Clinical capabilities of graduates of an outcomes-based integrated medical program. BMC Med Educ. 2012; 12(1):23. BioMed Central Full Text
• [30]Dandavino M, Snell L, Wiseman J. Why medical students should learn how to teach. Med Teach. 2007; 29(6):558-65.
• [31]Bulte C, Betts A, Garner K, Durning S. Student teaching: views of student near-peer teachers and learners. Med Teach. 2007; 29(6):583-90.
• [32]Amorosa JMH, Mellman LA, Graham MJ. Medical students as teachers: how preclinical teaching opportunities can create an early awareness of the role of physician as teacher. Med Teach. 2011; 33(2):137-44.