EFFECTIVENESS OF HORIZONTAL PEER-ASSISTED LEARNING IN PHYSICAL EXAMINATION PERFORMANCE
AbstractBackground: All students cannot be individually trained in physical examination skills due to faculty and time limitations. Peer-assisted learning (PAL) can solve this dilemma if it is used in undergraduate curriculum. Empirical effectiveness of horizontal peer-assisted learning model has not been reported previously. The objective of this study was to compare horizontal peer-assisted learning (PAL) with expert-assisted learning (EAL) in teaching of physical examination skills. Methods: This is a randomized controlled study (Solomon four group design) carried out at a medical school. A total of 120 undergraduate year 5 students were randomized into two groups to undergo training in four areas of physical examination. Stratified random sampling technique was used. Group 1 was trained by EAL while Group 2 by PAL. Half students from both groups were given a pre-test to assess the testing effect. Both groups were given a post-test in the form of an OSCE. Independent samples t-test and paired sample t-test were used as tests of significance. Results: Group 2 scored significantly higher than Group 1. There was significant difference (p=.000) in mean post-test scores of Group-1 (69.98±5.6) and Group-2 (85.27±5.6). Difference in mean scores was not significant (p=.977) between students who had taken the pre-test and those who had not. Conclusion: This study has implications in curriculum development as it provides quantitative evidence indicating that horizontal PAL as a learning strategy can actually replace, rather than augment, expert-assisted learning in teaching clinical skills to undergraduate students.Keywords: Clinical education; horizontal PAL; Peer-assisted learning; Quantitative; Assessment; Randomized controlled trial; Solomon’s four group design
Buckley S, Coleman J, Davison I, Khan KS, Zamora J, Malick S, et al. The educational effects of portfolios on undergraduate student learning: a Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review. BEME Guide No. 11. Med Teach 2009;31(4):282–98.
Topping KJ, Ehly SW, editors. Peer-assisted learning. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1998. p.371.
Olaussen A, Reddy P, Irvine S, Williams B. Peer-assisted learning: time for nomenclature clarification. Med Educ Online 2016;21(1):30974.
Liew SC, Sow CF, Sidhu J, Nadharaja VD. The near-peer tutoring programme: embracing the “doctors-to-teach” philosophy – a comparison of the effects of participation between the senior and junior near-peer tutors. Med Educ Online 2015;20:27959.
Khaw C, Raw L. The outcomes and acceptability of near-peer teaching among medical students in clinical skills. Int J Med Educ 2016;7:188–94.
Preece R, Dickinson EC, Sherif M, Ibrahim Y, Ninan AS, Aildasani L, et al. Peer-assisted teaching of basic surgical skills. Med Educ Online 2015;20:27579.
Mortel TF, Silberberg PL, Ahern CM, Pitt SW. Supporting near-peer teaching in general practice: a national survey. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:143–54.
Riaz I. Peer assisted versus expert assisted learning: A Comparison of effectiveness in terms of academic scores. J Coll Physicians Surg Pakistan 2014;24(11):825–9.
Berghmans I, Druine N, Dochy F, Struyven K. A facilitative versus directive approach in training clinical skills? Investigating students’ clinical performance and perceptions. Perspect Med Educ 2012;1(3):104–18.
Burgess A, McGregor D, Mellis C. Medical students as peer tutors: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ 2014;14:115–22.
Menezes A, Burgess A, Clarke AJ, Mellis C. Peer-assisted learning in medical school: tutees’ perspective. Adv Med Educ Pract 2016;7:31–8.
Kodabux A, Hoolash BK. Peer learning strategies: Acknowledging lecturers’ concerns of the Student Learning Assistant scheme on a new higher education campus. J Peer Learn 2015;8(1):59–84.
Saleh M, Sinha Y, Weinberg D. Using peer-assisted learning to teach basic surgical skills: medical students’ experiences. Med Educ Online 2013;18(1):21065.
Weberschock TB, Ginn TC, Reinhold J, Strametz R, Krug D, Bergold M, et al. Change in knowledge and skills of Year 3 undergraduates in evidence-based medicine seminars. Med Educ 2005;39(7):665–71.
Ringsted C, Hodges B, Sherpbier A. ‘The research compass’: An introduction to research in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 56. Med Teach 2011;33(9):695–709.
Larsen DP, Butler AC, Roediger HL 3rd. Test-enhanced learning in medical education. Med Educ 2008;42(10):959–66.
Mayer R, Wittrock M. Problem-solving transfer. In: Berliner DC, American Psychological Association, editors. Handbook of educational psychology: a project of Division 15, The Division of Educational Psychology of the American Psychological Association. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2004. p.47–62.
Teddlie C, Yu F. Mixed Methods Sampling: A Typology with Examples. J Mix Methods Res 2007;1(1):77–100.
Fraenkel JR, Wallen NE, Hyun HH. How to design and evaluate research in education. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2012. p.642.
Dean AG, Sullivan KM, Soe MM. OpenEpi: Open Source Epidemiologic Statistics for Public Health. [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 31]. Available from: http://www.openepi.com/Menu/OE_Menu.htm
Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol 1975;28(4)563–75.
DeVon HA, Block ME, Moyle-Wright P, Ernst DM, Hayden SJ, Lazzara DJ, et al. A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. J Nurs Scholarsh 2007;39(2):155–64.
Bannerji M, Capozzoli M, McSweeney L, Sinha D. Beyond Kappa: A review of inter-rater agreement measures. Can J Stat 1999;27(1):3–23.
Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient and SEM. J Strength Cond Res 2005;19(1):231–40.
Viera JA, Garrett JM. Understanding inter-observer agreement: The Kappa Statistic. Fam Med 2005;37(5):360–3.
Blank WA, Blankenfeld H, Vogelmann R, Linde K, Schnieder A. Can near-peer medical students effectively teach a new curriculum in physical examination? BMC Med Educ 2013;13:165–70.
Bangert-Drowns RL, Kulik CC, Kulik JA, Morgan M. The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Rev Educ Res 1991;61(2):213–38.
Kang SH, McDermott KB, Roediger III HL. Test format and corrective feedback modulate the effect of testing on long-term retention. Eur J Cogn Psychol 2007;19(4-5):528–58.
Kulik JA, Kulik CC. Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Rev Educ Res 1988;58:79–97.
Pashler H, Cepeda NJ, Wixted JT, Rohrer D. When does feedback facilitate learning of words? J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 2005;31(1):3–8.
Sayma M, Williams HR. A new method for teaching physical examination to junior medical students. Adv Med Educ Pract 2016;7:91–7.
Hoad-Reddick G, Theaker E. Providing support for problem-based learning in dentistry: the Manchester experience. Eur J Dent Educ 2003;7(1):3–12.
Bibb CA, Lefever KH. Mentoring future dental educators through an apprentice teaching experience. J Dent Educ 2002;66(6):703–9.
Glynn LG, MacFarlane A, Kelly M, Cantillon P, Murphy AW. Helping each other to learn – A process evaluation of peer assisted learning. BMC Med Educ 2006;6:18.
Wadoodi A, Crosby JR. Twelve tips for peer-assisted learning: a classic concept revisited. Med Teach 2002;24(3):241–4.
Allikmets S, Vink JP. The benefits of peer-led teaching in medical education. Adv Med Educ Pract 2016;7:329–30.
Nestel D, Kidd J. Nurses’ perceptions and experiences of communication in the operating theatre: a focus group interview. BMC Nurs 2006;5:1–9.
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 Heal Sci Educ Theory Pract 2008;13(3):361–72.
Meller SM, Chen M, Chen R, Haeseler FD. Near-Peer Teaching in a Required Third-Year Clerkship. Yale J Biol Med 2013;86(4):583–9.