Nursing and medical students near-peer activity in the anatomy laboratory: format for success

Figures & data

Figure 1 Distribution of student participation in the AIP-NPLA.

Table 1 Medical student (Med 1 and Med 2) survey response data from the Peer Teaching Experience Questionnaire (PTEQ), Copyright © 1986. John Wiley and Sons. Adapted from Brown R, Condor S, Mathews A, Wade G, Williams J. Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. J Occup Psychol. 1986;59(4):273–286.³⁰ Data is reported as mean and standard error (S.E.). The asterisks represent statistically significant differences from Med 1 assessed by Student’s t-test (*p<0.05). After Bonferroni correction with the level of significance adjusted from 0.05 to 0.05/13=0.0038, no significant differences were found between survey responses obtained among the Med 1 and Med 2 students

Peer Teaching Experience Questionnaire (PTEQ)	Med 1		Med 2
	Mean	S.E.	Mean	S.E.
1. Teaching is an important role for a physician	4.8	0.2	4.75	0.25
2. The interprofessional near-peer teaching experience was time and effort well spent	5.0	0.0	5.0	0.0
3. The interprofessional near-peer teaching experience was personally rewarding	4.6	0.24	5.0	0.0
4. I was initially apprehensive about the interprofessional near-peer teaching opportunity	3.0	0.45	1.75*	0.48
5. I felt comfortable teaching the nursing students teaching basic anatomy	4.4	0.24	4.5	0.29
6. The interprofessional near-peer teaching experience allowed me to reflect on my own previous learning	4.8	0.2	4.75	0.25
7. I enjoyed working with the nursing students	4.8	0.2	5.0	0.0
8. I would be more confident teaching a clinical skill after this experience	4.4	0.24	4.75	0.25
8. There should be more opportunities for interprofessional near-peer teaching in the curriculum	5.0	0.0	5.0	0.0
9. Overall, did you enjoy teaching nursing students in this setting?	5.0	0.0	5.0	0.0
10. Overall, did you feel helpful/useful as a near peer instructor?	4.4	0.24	4.75	0.25
11. Did you feel sufficiently knowledgeable to be teaching this topic to this audience?	4.2	0.2	4.5	0.29
12. Did you learn more about the topic by participating as a near peer instructor?	4.4	0.4	5.0*	0.0

Table 2 Nursing student group (BNI and BScN) responses to the Clinical Teaching Preference Questionnaire (CTPQ), Copyright © 1993. John Wiley and Sons. Adapted from Iwasiw CL, Goldenberg D. Peer teaching among nursing students in the clinical area: effects on student learning. J Adv Nurs. 1993;18(4):659–668.³¹ Data is reported as mean and standard error (S.E.). The asterisks represent statistically significant differences from BNI assessed by Student’s t-test (*p<0.05). After Bonferroni correction with the level of significance adjusted from 0.05 to 0.05/16=0.0031, both significant differences (Q11 and Q15) were maintained

Clinical Teaching Preference Questionnaire (CTPQ)	BNI		BScN
	Mean	S.E.	Mean	S.E.
1. My ability to problem solve improves more from instructor teaching than from my near-peers	3.29	0.16	3.29	0.15
2. Being taught anatomy by my near-peers increases my interaction and collaboration with other students more than when being taught by my instructor	4.38	0.12	4.06	0.14
3. Being taught anatomy by my instructor increases my sense of responsibility more than by being taught by my near-peers	2.94	0.19	2.87	0.18
4. I can communicate more freely with my near-peers than with my instructor	4.15	0.10	4.00	0.14
5. I am more self-confident and able to perform independently because of being taught by my near-peers, more so than by my instructor	3.56	0.12	3.42	0.14
6. Overall, did you enjoy having medical students as near peer instructors?	4.59	0.09	4.52	0.15
7. Overall, did you feel the medical students were helpful/useful as near peer instructors?	4.53	0.11	4.19	0.16
8. Do you feel that the medical students were sufficiently knowledgeable to be teaching this topic as near peer instructors?	4.38	0.11	4.13	0.12
9. I gained a better understanding of the importance of anatomy for my future collaboration in interprofessional teams	4.47	0.11	4.35	0.13
10. I feel more prepared to apply anatomy principles and knowledge	4.35	0.11	4.00	0.15
11. Both near peer teaching sessions provided me with alternative strategies to correctly identify important anatomical concepts	4.39	0.12	3.89*	0.19
12. Before I started I was apprehensive about entering the dissecting room	3.06	0.27	2.87	0.19
13. After the sessions, I feel comfortable in the dissecting room	4.26	0.13	4.00	0.19
14. To have been more self-directed than tutor-led in the anatomy laboratory would be more effective	2.42	0.22	2.77	0.18
15. The amount of time devoted to the anatomy laboratory was too much	1.77	0.18	2.80*	0.26
16. To have undertaken dissection would have helped my understanding of anatomy	3.94	0.20	3.50	0.27

Figure 2 Distribution of the scores for question 7 of the Professional Self-Identity scale. The asterisks represent statistically significant differences from Med 1 assessed by Student’s t-test (*p<0.05; ***p<0.0001). After Bonferroni correction with the level of significance adjusted from 0.05 to 0.05/9=0.005, the significant differences found between survey responses obtained among the Med 2 and BNI and BNI and BScN were maintained.

Table 3 Effect of clinical experience on interactivity between group of students with different Professional Self-Identity scores (responses from the Clinical Teaching Preference Questionnaire (CTPQ), Copyright © 1993. John Wiley and Sons. Adapted from Iwasiw CL, Goldenberg D. Peer teaching among nursing students in the clinical area: effects on student learning. J Adv Nurs. 1993;18(4):659–668.³¹ Data is reported as mean and standard error (S.E.). The asterisks represent statistically significant differences from each individual questions of the questionnaire assessed by Student’s t-test (*p<0.05)

Clinical Teaching Preference Questionnaire (CTPQ)	BNI
	Mean	S.E.
1. I enjoyed learning from medical students	4.59	0.11
2. Second year medical students were very knowledgeable about Head and Neck Anatomy	4.63*	0.13
3. First year medical students were very knowledgeable about thoracic anatomy	4.30	0.17
4. The presentation of the patient done by the second year medical students was very helpful at the beginning of the first session on Head and Neck	4.50	0.13
5. The presentation of the patient done by the first year medical students was very helpful at the beginning of the second session on thorax	4.26	0.17
6. The level of difficulty for the material presented in session 1 (Head and Neck) was right for the amount of time that was devoted for the session	4.06	0.17
7. The level of difficulty for the material presented in session 2 (thorax) was right for the amount of time that was devoted for the session	4.26	0.11

Table 4 Comparison of the different combination of BScN with Med 1 or BScN and BNI with Med 1 and determination of most effective format. Data is reported as mean and standard error (S.E.). The asterisks represent statistically significant differences from BScN assessed by Student’s t-test (**p<0.001). After Bonferroni correction with the level of significance adjusted from 0.05 to 0.05/6=0.0083, the significant difference found for question 4 was maintained

Comparison of the interprofessional near-peer teaching experiences from both learner and teacher perspectives	BScN		Med 1
	Mean	S.E.	Mean	S.E.
1. Both peer teaching sessions provided me with alternative strategies to correctly identify important anatomical concepts.	3.87	0.19	4.25	0.22
2. The level of difficulty for the material presented in session 1 (Thorax) was right for the amount of time that was devoted for the session	4.17	0.12	4.54	0.16
3. The level of difficulty for the material presented in session 2 (Abdomen) was right for the amount of time that was devoted for the session	3.93	0.17	3.90	0.23
4. Comparing session 1 (Thorax) to session 2 (Abdomen), the mixing of BNI and BScN students in the second session was more interactive	2.27	0.30	3.14**	0.14
5. Comparing session 1 (Thorax) to session 2 (Abdomen), how many medical students should be present per table to teach a group of nursing students?	1.33	0.11	1.4	0.16
6. Comparing session 1 (Thorax) to session 2 (Abdomen), the ratio of medical students to nursing students around a given table was more effective in session 2 (ratio of 1/10) than in session 1 (ratio 2 to 15)?	3.50	0.29	4.00	0.40

Brown R, Condor S, Mathews A, Wade G, Williams J. Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. J Occup Psychol. 1986;59(4):273–286. doi:10.1111/joop.1986.59.issue-4

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Iwasiw CL, Goldenberg D. Peer teaching among nursing students in the clinical area: effects on student learning. J Adv Nurs. 1993;18(4):659–668.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar