Journal of Education and Health Promotion

Peer‑assisted teaching method to foster learning physiological basis of electrocardiography among 1st year medical graduate students: An interventional study

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

. Prathamesh Haridas Kamble
. Anupam Suhas Khare 1
. Shital Sopanrao Maske 2
. Gaurav Sharma
. Arun Narayan Kowale 1

1 Department of Physiology, BJGMC, Pune, Maharashtra, India

2 Department of Anatomy, Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan,

Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In peer‑assisted teaching (PAT) method, students are encouraged to prepare,
organize, and construct their learning program under the guidance of a teacher. The objective of the
present study is to assess the benefits and outcome of PAT on students’ understanding and knowledge
of one of the important and difficult topics, “physiological basis of electrocardiography (ECG).”
METHODS: A nonrandomized, interventional study was carried out in the department of physiology.
Five peer tutors were selected and trained in the basics of ECG by a senior faculty of physiology for
12–14 h sessions over the 6‑week period. These peer tutors then conducted a day‑long workshop
on five different subtopics of ECG, which was attended by 184 1st year medical students. Evaluation
of the workshop was done through pre/posttest 20‑item questionnaire score analysis and feedback
questionnaire using a 5‑point Likert scale items.
RESULTS: The average pre‑ and posttest scores were 6.6 ± 2.73 and 13.3 ± 4.73, respectively. The
average posttest scores were higher and statistically significant compared to pretest (R2
 = 0.4275;
P < 0.05). The class average normalized gain (g) for a posttest score was 101.5%. Of 184 students,
9.7% of students had >70% improvement from the pretest score, and 44.78% had more than 50%
improvement in their posttest scores.
CONCLUSION: We received a predominantly positive feedback for the usefulness of peer teaching
as a learning method. Thus, PAT was found to be a feasible and effective way of teaching the difficult
concepts in physiology.

Keywords

Learning
medical education technology
peer‑assisted teaching program
peer tutors
physiology teaching
  1. Escovitz ES. Using senior students as clinical skills teaching
    assistants. Acad Med 1990;65:733‑4.
    2. Henning JM, Weidner TG, Marty MC. Peer assisted learning
    in clinical education: Literature review. Athl Train Educ J
    2008;3:84‑90.
    3. Schuetz E, Obirei B, Salat D, Scholz J, Hann D, Dethleffsen K, et al.
    A large‑scale peer teaching programme – Acceptance and benefit.
    Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2017;125:71‑9.
    4. Leeper H, Chang E, Cotter G, MacIntosh P, Scott F, Apantaku L,
    et al. A student‑designed and student‑led sexual‑history‑taking
    module for second‑year medical students. Teach Learn Med
    2007;19:293‑301.
    5. Basheer A. Impact of assessment of medical students in India on
    assuring quality primary care. Australas Med J 2015;8:67‑9.
    6. Weyrich P, Schrauth M, Kraus B, Habermehl D, Netzhammer N,
    Zipfel S, et al. Undergraduate technical skills training guided by
    student tutors – Analysis of tutors’ attitudes, tutees’ acceptance
    and learning progress in an innovative teaching model. BMC Med
    Educ 2008;8:18.
  2. 7. Rodrigues J, Sengupta A, Mitchell A, Kane C, Kane C, Maxwell S,
    et al. The Southeast Scotland foundation doctor teaching
    programme – Is “near‑peer” teaching feasible, efficacious and
    sustainable on a regional scale? Med Teach 2009;31:e51‑7.
    8. Weyrich P, Celebi N, Schrauth M , M ö l t n e r A ,
    Lammerding‑Köppel M, Nikendei C, et al. Peer‑assisted versus
    faculty staff‑led skills laboratory training: A randomised
    controlled trial. Med Educ 2009;43:113‑20.
    9. Wong JG, WaldrepTD, SmithTG. Formal peer‑teaching in medical
    school improves academic performance: The MUSC supplemental
    instructor program. Teach Learn Med 2007;19:216‑20.
    10. LockspeiserTM, O’SullivanP, TeheraniA, MullerJ. Understanding
    the experience of being taught by peers: The value of social
    and cognitive congruence. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract
    2008;13:361‑72.
    11. 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.
    12. Williams B, Olaussen A, Peterson EL. Peer‑assisted teaching: An
    interventional study. Nurse Educ Pract 2015;15:293‑8.
    13. Sevenhuysen S, Thorpe J, Molloy E, Keating J, Haines T.
    Peer‑assisted learning in education of allied health professional
    students in the clinical setting: A systematic review. J Allied
    Health 2017;46:26‑35.
    14. Tai J, Molloy E, Haines T, Canny B. Same‑level peer‑assisted
    learning in medical clinical placements: A narrative systematic
    review. Med Educ 2016;50:469‑84.
    15. Ten Cate O, Durning S. Peer teaching in medical education:
    Twelve reasons to move from theory to practice. Med Teach
    2007;29:591‑9.
    16. NestelD, KiddJ. Peer assisted learning in patient‑centred interviewing:
    The impact on student tutors. Med Teach 2005;27:439‑44.
Journal of Education and Health Promotion
Volume 9, Issue 3
March 2019
Pages 1-6

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us