Extracurricular activity based on undergraduates – postgraduates peer learning to promote student’s academic research skills in developing countries higher education: experiences form Syria

Figures & data

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the chronological order of events in the study design and data collection.

Table 1. Demographic information of participants in the PL process (undergraduate students).

	Medicine	Pharmacy	Information technology	Economics	Total frequency (percentage)
	The pre course questionnaire
Total	77 (69%)	7 (6%)	22 (20%)	6 (5%)	112 (100%)
	The post-course questionnaire
Female	2 (10%)	3 (15%)	2 (10%)	3 (15%)	10 (50%)
Male	6 (30%)	1 (5%)	3 (15%)	0 (0%)	10 (50%)
Total	8 (40%)	4 (20%)	5 (25%)	3 (15%)	20 (100%)

Table 2. Student’s perception towards the academic research skills and self esteem after the PL process using Likert scale questions where, 1 = strongly disagree, 2 =  disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.

Questions “This method of teaching makes me—–”	Mode Mean ± STD
Academic research skills
more aware of the importance of doing research in my field of study	5
	4.60 ± 0.76
makes me more confident about how to create a research question in my field	5
	4.40 ± 0.76
this method of teaching is useful to learn material to conduct research relating my degree.	5
	4.40 ± 0.76
encouraged me to read more research articles during my studies	5
	4.20 ± 0.95
makes me more confident about how to create a research methodology in my field	4
	4.05 ± 0.89
makes me more confident about how to analyse and present research data in my field	4
	3.55 ± 0.95
Critical analysis and communication skills
more confident about how to look critically into published research in my field	4
	4.15 ± 0.75
more confident about how to discuss research findings in a scientific way in my field	4
	4.15 ± 1.04

Note: Data are presented by mode.

Figure 2. Student’s perception on skills improved and/or developed during the PL process (N = 20).

Table 3. Student’s perception on extra skills improved and/or developed during Peer learning process.

Frequency (Percentage)	Team working	Using PowerPoint
Female	1 (5%)	1 (5%)
Male	4 (20%)	2 (10%)
Specialty (Frequency)	Medicine (4) and information technology (1)	Medicine (2) and economy (1)

Notes: Additional skills were collected from open-ended questions and similar key words were grouped together.

Table 4. Examples of students’ positive and negative comments towards peer learning process.

Positive feedback received from the students		Total number of students frequency (percentage)
Role of facilitator
The interactive presentation of information during the sessions with the focus on practicality rather than simple theoretical concepts.	“Our facilitator was the best in this project, her sessions were very practical and relied on asking questions and brainstorming, she let us work with our hands.”	4 (20%)
	“I liked getting out of the theoretical presentation of information and working collectively”
Encouraging the initiation of scientific research	“I have benefited greatly through learning the right steps to get to the start-up phase of writing research”	3 (15%)
Team dynamic
The small number of individuals within a team	“The small number of each group was very excellent, and each had an opportunity to participate and interact with each session”	4 (20%)
	“The number was very perfect, and everyone was able to ask questions and listen to the other questions and discuss them, so the sessions were very effective”
The interdisciplinary nature of the peer learning process
Making relationships with researchers from other Specialization and variety of specializations	“The variety of specializations was a good point”	2 (10%)
Negative feedback received from the students
Learning commitment
Lack of commitment of course dates	“The delay of sessions repeated several times”	5 (25%)
	“Failure to comply with the assumed time to end the session”
Absence of a clear plan for all sessions since the start of the session	“The titles of the sessions were not clear to us”	3 (15%)
	“Not showing a complete plan for the program that will be followed, for example, we should have known the content of each session from the first day”
Team dynamic
Unequal level of students within a team	“All students in my team have experience and attended many courses in the research field and they have worked on research projects. For me, I was so weak in this field that I did not understand many terms and I did not want to interfere in the discussion”	1 (5%)
Missing Content
The method of creating a questionnaire is not covered	“I suggest adding a session on how to search for a questionnaire or how to design one and approach the validity of it because I expect three-quarters of all beginners depend on the questionnaire as a measurement tool”	2 (10%)

Notes: The percentages represent the number of students that mentioned the topic described in the first column.

Table 5. Assessment of students understanding of academic research concepts and basics before and after the workshop.

Question	Selected applicants before workshop (Mean mark)	Selected applicants after workshop (Mean mark)
If I need to find an accurate and up-to-date information related to my field of study, I usually search?	0.80 (SD: 1.47)	1.40 (SD: 1.314)
		p < 0.05
When you select information from literature, you judge the quality of articles by?	1.65 (SD: 1.18)	2.20 (SD: 0.77)
		p < 0.05
When I screen several articles to read, I pick the articles based on?	−0.4 (SD: 0.68)	0.3 (SD: 0.73)
		p < 0.05
Peer revision of academic research is designed to (…) of published research	2.7 (SD: 0.7)	3.0 (SD: 0)
		p > 0.05
Academic articles can be, pick the ones you know?	3.5 (SD: 1.28)	3.8 (SD: 0.95)
		p > 0.05
Which of the following is not an essential part of academic research article, Pick more than one option?	1.35 (SD: 1.53)	1.45 (SD: 1.5)
		p > 0.05
When I select an article to use for my work, I usual read?	3.35 (SD: 0.87)	3.60 (SD: 0.94)
		p > 0.05
If I need to find an accurate and up-to-date information related to my field of study, I usually read?	0.55 (SD: 0.94)	0.40 (SD: 0.68)
		p > 0.05
Peer-reviewed articles mean that the article was done (…) before being published	0.40 (SD: 0.94)	0.20 (SD: 1)
		p > 0.05

Notes: Selected students’ performance after the workshop was compared to their performance before the workshop (N = 20). Student T test was used for determining the mean value of answers and p value, results were regarded significantly different when p < 0.05.