The Effect of In-Class Formality during a Peer-Teaching Activity on Student’s Satisfaction, Perceived Participation and Learning Gain — Oak Academic Publishing
Research ArticleOpen AccessGoogle Scholar indexed
The Effect of In-Class Formality during a Peer-Teaching Activity on Student’s Satisfaction, Perceived Participation and Learning Gain
Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
,
Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
,
Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
,
Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
1 Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
2 Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
3 Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
4 Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Background: It was hypothesized that cooperation would be stimulated in small groups preparing for peer-teaching when the required formality level of the subsequent actual peer-teaching event would be higher. This higher formality level was supposed to increase the appeal on the individual accountability of the students to the shared result, being the preparation of the execution of peer- teaching. Aim: This study explores whether in-class formality during peer-teaching in a small group stimulates perceived participation, satisfaction and learning gain. Methods: Four in-class formality levels of peer-teaching (A-D) were defined and practiced in thirty group assignments of about 15 students, using a randomized cluster design with four arms: A) absence of peer-teaching, B) informal peer-teaching, C) and D) peer-teaching with the use of a frontal class presentation. Peer-teacher selection was either executed by the peers (B and C) or by throwing a dice just prior to the presentation (D). All students took a pretest, a post-test and a follow-up test and completed a questionnaire. The Friedman test, Wilcoxon’s signed ranks test and ANOVA were used to analyze the questionnaires. Learning gain was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA. Results: The overall scores on the satisfaction and perceived participation increased significantly from A to D ( p = 0.000) and the students in D scored higher than those in C ( p = 0.007). For 10 out of 19 individual questions a significant difference was found. Mostly A scored lower than D or than C and D, but also differences between B, C and D were found in which D scored highest. The learning gain did not differ significantly between the arms. Conclusion: This study shows that, although student’s perceived participation and satisfaction rise with in-class formality level, the learning gains do not increase simultaneously.
KeywordsPeer-TeachingFormality LevelParticipation and SatisfactionLearning Outcome
Badger, K. (2010). Peer Teaching and Review: A Model for Writing Development and Knowledge Synthesis. Social Work Education, 29, 6-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02615470902810850
Barg, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the Cognitive Benefits of Teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 593-604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.72.5.593
Billington, H. L. (1997). Poster Presentations and Peer Assessment: Novel Forms of Evaluation and Assessment. Journal of Biological Education, 31, 218-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1997.9655566
Brueckner, J. F., & Macpherson, B. R. (2004). Benefits from Peer-Teaching in the Dental Gross Anatomy Laboratory. European Journal of Dental Education, 8, 72-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0579.2003.00333.x
Bulte, C., Betts, A., Garner, K., & Durning, S. (2007). Student Teaching: Views of Student Near-Peer Teachers and Learners. Medical Teacher, 29, 583-590. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01421590701583824
Campolo, M., Maritz, C. A., Thielman, G., & Packel, L. (2013). An Evaluation of Peer Teaching across the Curriculum: Student Perspectives. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 2, 1-7.
Chollet, M. B., Teaford, M. F., Garofalo, E. V., & De Leon, V. B. (2009). Student Laboratory Presentations as a Learning Tool in Anatomy Education. Anatomical Sciences Education, 2, 260-264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ase.111
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001001
Dandavino, M., Snell, L., & Wiseman, J. (2007). Why Medical Students Should Learn How to Teach. Medical Teacher, 29, 558-565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01421590701477449
Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & Schmidt, H. J. (2006). What Do We Know about Cognitive and Motivational Effects of Small Group Tutorials in Problem Based Learning. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11, 321-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-006-9012-8
Edmunds, S., & Brown, G. (2010). Effective Small Group Learning: AMEE Guide No. 48. Medical Teacher, 32, 715-726. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.505454
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2013). The Relative Benefits of Learning Teaching and Teaching Expectancy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 281-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.06.001
Gregory, A., Walker, I., McLaughlin, K., & Peets, A. (2011). Both Preparing to Teach and Teaching Positively Impact Learning Outcomes for Peer Teachers. Medical Teacher, 33, e417-e422. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.586747
Hendelman, W. J., & Boss, M. (1986). Reciprocal Peer-Teaching by Medical Students in the Gross Anatomy Laboratory. Journal of Medical Education, 61, 674-680. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001888-198608000-00007
Higgins-Opitz, S. B., & Tufts, M. (2010). Student Perceptions of the Use of Presentations as a Method of Learning Endocrine Gastrointestinal Pathophysiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 34, 75-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00105.2009
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. J. (1999). Making Cooperative Learning Work. Theory into Practice, 38, 67-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405849909543834
Johnson, J. H. (2002). Importance of Dissection in Learning Anatomy: Personal Dissection versus Peer-Teaching. Clinical Anatomy, 15, 38-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ca.1090
Joughin, G. (2007). Student Conceptions of Oral Presentation. Studies in Higher Education, 32, 323-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070701346873
Kagesten, O., & Engelbracht, J. (2007). Student Group Presentations: A Learning Instrument in Undergraduate Mathematics for Engineering Students. European Journal of Engineering Education, 32, 303-314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043790701276833
Kassab, S., Abu-Hijleh, M. F., Al-Shboul, Q., & Hamdy, H. (2005). Student-Led Tutorials in Problem Based Learning: Educational Outcomes and Student Perceptions. Medical Teacher, 27, 521-526. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01421590500156186
Kitto, K. L. (2009). Using Cooperative Writing and Oral Presentations as Peer Teaching—Evaluating the Effectiveness of Elements of Inductive Teaching and Social Constructivism on Student Outcomes. Proceedings of the 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. 1-7). IEEE. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/fie.2009.5350848
Kooloos, J. G. M., Klaassen, T. P. F. M., Vereijken, M. W. C., van Kuppeveld, S. M. H. F., Bolhuis, S., & Vorstenbosch, M. A. T. M. (2011). Collaborative Group Work: Effects of Group Size and Assignment Structure on Learning Gain, Student Satisfaction and Perceived Participation. Medical Teacher, 33, 983-988. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.588733
Krych, A. J., March, C. N., Bryan, R. E., Peak, B. J., Pawlina, W., & Carmichael, S. W. (2005). Reciprocal Peer-Teaching: Students Teaching Students in the Gross Anatomy Laboratory. Clinical Anatomy, 18, 296-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ca.20090
Lockspeiser, T. M., O’Sullivan, P., Teherani, A., & Muller, J. (2008). Understanding the Experience of Being Taught by Peers: The Value of Social and Cognitive Congruence. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13, 361-372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-006-9049-8
Mohamad, N., Bakar, N. A., Zulkifli, S. M., Lasman, N., Hao, T. W., & Khing, S. S. (2012). Implementation of Peer Teaching among Medical Students. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 60, 529-533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.418
Nelson, A. J., Nelson, S. V., Linn, A. M. J., Raw, L. E., Kildea, H. B., & Tonkin, A. L. (2013). Tomorrow’s Educators…Today? Implementing Near-Peer Teaching for Medical Students. Medical Teacher, 35, 156-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.737961
Nestel, D., & Kidd, J. (2003). Peer-Tutoring in Patient-Centered Interviewing Skills: Experience of a Project for First-Year Students. Medical Teacher, 25, 398-403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0142159031000136752
Nnodim, J. O., Ohanak, E. C., & Osuji, C. U. (1996). A Follow-Up Comparative Study of Two Modes of Learning Human Anatomy: by Dissection and from Prosections. Clinical Anatomy, 9, 258-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2353(1996)9:4 3.0.CO;2-A
Peets, A., Coderre, S., Wright, B., Jenkins, D., Burak, K., Leskosky, S., & McLaughlin, K. (2009). Involvement in Teaching Improves Learning in Medical Students. A Randomized Cross-Over Study. BMC Medical Education, 9, 55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-9-55
Peppler, R. D., Kwasogroch, T. E., & Houghland, M. W. (1985). Evaluation of Simultaneous Teaching of Extremities in Gross Anatomy Program. Journal of Medical Education, 60, 635-639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001888-198508000-00007
Ramaswamy, S., Harris, I., & Tschirner, U. (2001). Student Peer-Teaching: An Innovative Approach to Instruction in Science and Engineering Education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10, 165-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009421231056
Raupach, T., Hanneforth, N., Anders, S., Pukrop, T., Ten Cate, O., & Harendza, S. (2010). Impact of Teaching and Assessment Format on Electrocardiogram Interpretation Skills. Medical Education, 44, 731-740. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03687.x
Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Understanding Tutor Learning: Knowledge Building and Knowledge Telling in Peer Tutors’ Explanations and Questions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 534-574. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654307309920
Secomb, J. (2008). A Systematic Review of Peer-Teaching and Learning in Clinical Education. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17, 703-716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.01954.x
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement: What We Know, What We Need to Know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0004
Smith, K. A. (1996). Cooperative Learning: Making “Groupwork” Work. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 67, 71-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966709
Ten Cate, O., & Durning, S. (2007a). Peer Teaching in Medical Education: Twelve Reasons to Move from Theory to Practice. Medical Teacher, 29, 591-599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01421590701606799
Ten Cate, O., & Durning, S. (2007b). Dimensions and Psychology of Peer-Teaching in Medical Education. Medical Teacher, 29, 546-552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01421590701583816
Topping, K. J. (1996). The Effectiveness of Peer Tutoring in Further and Higher Education: A Typology and Review of the Literature. Higher Education, 32, 321-345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00138870
Tyler, K. M. (2006). Peer-Level Multiple Source Feedback for Fitness to Practice. Medical Education, 40, 482-483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02430.x