Joanna Tai

Same-level peer-assisted learning in medical clinical placements: A narrative systematic review

Peer‐assisted learning (PAL) is increasingly used in medical education, and the benefits of this approach have been reported. Previous reviews have focused on the benefits of peer tutoring of junior students by senior students. Forms of PAL such as discussion groups and role‐playing have been neglected, as have alternative teacher‐learner configurations (e.g. same‐level PAL) and the effects on other stakeholders, including clinician educators and patients. This review examines the benefits of same‐level PAL for students, clinician educators and patients in pre‐registration clinical medical education.

A vertical study programme for medical students: peer-assisted learning in practice.

Background: Monash University employs a vertically-integrated curriculum with cumulative knowledge testing throughout the course. To facilitate cross-year level revision, a vertical study programme (VESPA) was established using the principles of peer-assisted learning (PAL). Aim: To implement and evaluate VESPA in relation to defined objectives. Methods: Following from a successful pilot, a working group organised five 2 h VESPA sessions over the course of 2009. Each was case-based and study materials were provided. Participants were allocated to a group of 10–15 students of all year levels, and pre-interns acted as facilitators. Sessions were evaluated using a 10-question survey. Results: A total of 647 evaluation surveys were completed overall and participant numbers ranged from 79 to 182 per session. Of these, 624 (96%) agreed the case materials were easy to follow and 562 (87%) believed they allowed students from all year levels to contribute; 552 (85%) felt VESPA helped them understand curriculum content. There were no significant differences between sessions. Conclusions: VESPA represents an innovative application of PAL that has been well received by students. Potential benefits to participants include academic revision, the development of mentoring relationships and enhanced teaching and facilitation skills. This model of a structured revision programme would suit other settings with vertically-integrated curricula and assessment.

Undertaking and reporting qualitative research

Editors’ note: As the authors of this informative toolbox article attest, many clinical teachers have been educated within a quantitative framework. We frequently come to qualitative research late in our training, and have to learn a new vocabulary and change the way that we gather, interpret, and report on data and evidence. This transition can be very challenging, particularly as some colleagues may consider qualitative methodologies an easier option. ‘Becoming qualitative’ opens up a whole new literature, a small part of which is cited in this toolbox article. At The Clinical Teacher we acknowledge the diffi culties of presenting qualitative work within our limited word count. We aim to publish innovative and practical studies, and therefore accept work that might not be as in-depth as is required by other journals that publish much lengthier articles. We do expect a rationale for methods, a clear description of data collection, a recognised (and referenced) way of analysing the data and a synthesis of fi ndings that does not need the reader to do the main work of interpretation, however. We hope this toolbox article is helpful for both reading and carrying out qualitative research.

Clinical supervision training across contexts.

Clinicians require specific skills to teach or supervise students in the workplace; however, there are barriers to accessing faculty member development, such as time, cost and suitability. The Clinical Supervision Support Across Contexts (ClinSSAC) programme was designed to provide accessible interprofessional educator training to clinical supervisors across a wide range of clinical settings.

What Should We Teach the Teachers? Identifying the Learning Priorities of Clinical Supervisors.

Clinicians who teach are essential for the health workforce but require faculty development to improve their educational skills. Curricula for faculty development programs are often based on expert frameworks without consideration of the learning priorities as defined by clinical supervisors themselves. We sought to inform these curricula by highlighting clinical supervisors own requirements through answering the research question: what do clinical supervisors identify as relative strengths and areas for improvement in their teaching practice? This mixed methods study employed a modified version of the Maastricht Clinical Teaching Questionnaire (mMCTQ) which included free-text reflections. Descriptive statistics were calculated and content analysis was conducted on textual comments. 481 (49%) of 978 clinical supervisors submitted their mMCTQs and associated reflections for the research study. Clinical supervisors self-identified relatively strong capability with interpersonal skills or attributes and indicated least capability with assisting learners to explore strengths, weaknesses and learning goals. The qualitative category ‘establishing relationships’ was the most reported strength with 224 responses. The qualitative category ‘feedback’ was the most reported area for improvement, with 151 responses. Key areas for curricular focus include: improving feedback practices; stimulating reflective and agentic learning; and managing the logistics of a clinical education environment. Clinical supervisors’ self-identified needs provide a foundation for designing engaging and relevant faculty development programs.

A Framework for Designing, Implementing, Communicating and Researching Peer Assessment.

ABSTRACT The term ‘peer assessment’ may apply to a range of student activities. This imprecision may impact on the uptake of peer assessment pedagogies. To better describe peer assessment approaches, typologies of peer assessment diversity were previously derived from the education literature. However, these typologies have not yet been tested with ‘real-life’ peer assessment examples, nor do they consider broader contextual matters. We present an augmented peer assessment framework, refined through analysing faculty accounts of their peer assessment practices. Our framework subsumes previous attempts to classify peer assessment, and extends them to include technology use, resources and policy, which were new features of our data not present in previous frameworks. In the current higher education climate, these considerations may be crucial for the scalability and success of peer assessment. The framework proposed in this paper provides both precision and concision for researchers and educators in studying and implementing peer assessment.

Peer assessment and professional behaviours: what should we be assessing, how, and why?

It has long been argued that professional behaviour is better assessed by peers than tutors. Although many studies published on peer assessment have focused on professional behaviour, concerns about the reliability and validity of student marking remain one of the widely discussed challenges. Roberts and colleagues’ work rightfully challenges the assumptions many of us have previously made about peer assessment of professional behaviour within medical education, namely that it can be a reliable and valid measurement for the purpose of grading. The paper raises further questions, tensions and issues around: (i) the purposes of peer assessment, (ii) contextual factors that have an impact on assessors and ratings, and (iii) standards of professional behaviour, which we will further explore.