Premium
Students Becoming the Teacher: Questioning the Value of Peer‐Taught Lectures on Exam Performance
Author(s) -
Davis Nathan S,
Lee Lisa MJ
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.2019.33.1_supplement.606.33
Subject(s) - mathematics education , class (philosophy) , psychology , peer feedback , test (biology) , medical education , teaching method , medicine , computer science , paleontology , artificial intelligence , biology
Peer teaching, i.e. when students teach students, has been shown by literature, from various sources and levels of education, to be an effective educational tool. In anatomical sciences education, peer‐teaching in the gross anatomy laboratory has become the norm due to reduction in curricular hours and limitations associated with cadaver dissection laboratory access. While studies in the laboratory have shown that peer teaching can lead to increased student performance on examinations overall, its effect on the performance of the peer teachers, the learners, and compared to instructor taught content, remain to be elucidated. The aim of this COMIRB exempt (#15‐042), retrospective study was to assess the educational impact of peer teaching on learning outcomes of the peer teachers themselves and their peer students. Further, the assessment outcomes between the peer‐taught versus instructor‐taught contents were compared to determine the educational efficacy of peer teaching. During fall semesters of 2014–2016, students in an anatomical sciences graduate program were randomly assigned into groups of 3–4 students and assigned an embryology topic to teach the class. Learning objectives were provided to students by the course instructor; students were told exam questions would stem from learning objectives. All students took the same multiple‐choice exams throughout the course, and all exams were written by the course instructor to test both peer‐taught and instructor‐taught topics. At the end of the course, perceived values of peer teaching experience and peer‐taught lessons were assessed via surveys. 60 data sets were acquired for analyses. Performance of peer teachers on exam items related to their lecture topic was compared to the performance of students who attended the peer‐taught lecture using two‐tailed T tests. Peer teachers performed significantly better (P < 0.05) on exam items they taught than their peers. Students' average performance on peer‐taught exam items was compared to students' performance on instructor‐taught exam items using a paired two‐tailed T‐test which revealed that students performed significantly better (P < 0.05) on instructor‐taught exam items than on peer‐taught exam items. Survey analysis revealed that students perceive the peer‐teaching activity to be effective for their learning, but peer‐taught lectures were ineffective. Thematic analysis of the survey comments identified competencies such as deep learning, team work, self‐directed learning as the positive aspects of the peer‐teaching experience. Students indicated large time commitment for preparing the lecture, varied teaching effectiveness of peer teachers, ineffective group dynamics and desire to learn from the professional instructor, as negative aspects of the peer‐teaching project. The current study reveals that peer‐teaching is beneficial for the peer‐teachers but not as beneficial for the students compared to the instructor delivered lectures. Peer‐teaching activities may need reevaluation or standardization to ensure all student receive the high quality of instruction. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .