DOES EXPERIENCE MATTER? A mixed methods study of medical student experiences of near-peer and senior clinician-led tutorials

Abstract

The primary aim of the study was to determine whether classroom-based acute care teaching delivered by junior doctors is comparable to that by senior doctors or faculty. This study reviews student opinions of near-peer and faculty led teaching on acute medicine to explore the differences and student preferences. Methods:This study aimed to evaluate the role of trainees as near-peer tutors in the acute medicine tutorial based setting by randomly allocating the sessions to a junior or senior doctor. Student opinions were then invited through questionnaires and focus groups. Results:There was no statistical difference in students' perception of the level, pace and usefulness of the sessions. All teachers were approachable and enthusiastic. Students felt that senior doctors were more knowledgeable and better able to explain concepts. Students felt that all sessions were useful to their learning. Conclusion:Students enjoyed and derived educational benefit from both types of teaching session. Students found that senior doctor-led tutorials were more beneficial to their technical medical knowledge but felt that they gained more practical advice from junior doctor-led teaching. Trainees could provide reassurance, advice and mentorship regarding their careers and role of a doctor. Students recognised the value of tutorials by junior and senior doctors and requested the inclusion of both in their undergraduate curriculum.

Possibilities and limits of a student‐led, near‐peer mentoring initiative for first‐year dental students

“…17,27 Peers are considered more approachable and have greater familiarity with challenges students face. 16,28 These findings are consistent with Lopez et al 19 who reported that incoming dental students value support from students who had recently gone through the same transition. However, some mentoring relationships were hindered by the informal program design as it relied on shared assumptions and motivations about mentoring roles and responsibilities.…”