Evaluation of the peer teaching program at the University Children´s Hospital Essen - a single center experience.

GMS Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Ausbildung Pub Date : 2013-05-15 Print Date: 2013-01-01 DOI:10.3205/zma000868
Rainer Büscher, Dominik Weber, Anja Büscher, Maite Hölscher, Sandra Pohlhuis, Bernhard Groes, Peter F Hoyer
{"title":"Evaluation of the peer teaching program at the University Children´s Hospital Essen - a single center experience.","authors":"Rainer Büscher, Dominik Weber, Anja Büscher, Maite Hölscher, Sandra Pohlhuis, Bernhard Groes, Peter F Hoyer","doi":"10.3205/zma000868","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Since 1986 medical students at the University Children's Hospital Essen are trained as peers in a two week intensive course in order to teach basic paediatric examination techniques to younger students. Student peers are employed by the University for one year. Emphasis of the peer teaching program is laid on the mediation of affective and sensomotorical skills e.g. get into contact with parents and children, as well as manual paediatric examination techniques. The aim of this study is to analyse whether student peers are able to impart specific paediatric examination skills as good as an experienced senior paediatric lecturer. 123 students were randomly assigned to a group with either a senior lecturer or a student peer teacher. Following one-hour teaching-sessions in small groups students had to demonstrate the learned skills in a 10 minute modified OSCE. In comparison to a control group consisting of 23 students who never examined a child before, both groups achieved a significantly better result. Medical students taught by student peers almost reached the same examination result as the group taught by paediatric teachers (21,7±4,1 vs. 22,6±3,6 of 36 points, p=0,203). Especially the part of the OSCE where exclusively practical skills where examined revealed no difference between the two groups (7,44±2,15 vs. 7,97±1,87 of a maximum of 16 points, p=0,154). The majority of students (77%) evaluated peer teaching as stimulating and helpful. The results of this quantitative teaching study reveal that peer teaching of selected skills can be a useful addition to classical paediatric teaching classes.</p>","PeriodicalId":30054,"journal":{"name":"GMS Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Ausbildung","volume":"30 2","pages":"Doc25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/7e/f8/ZMA-30-25.PMC3671321.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GMS Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Ausbildung","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3205/zma000868","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2013/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since 1986 medical students at the University Children's Hospital Essen are trained as peers in a two week intensive course in order to teach basic paediatric examination techniques to younger students. Student peers are employed by the University for one year. Emphasis of the peer teaching program is laid on the mediation of affective and sensomotorical skills e.g. get into contact with parents and children, as well as manual paediatric examination techniques. The aim of this study is to analyse whether student peers are able to impart specific paediatric examination skills as good as an experienced senior paediatric lecturer. 123 students were randomly assigned to a group with either a senior lecturer or a student peer teacher. Following one-hour teaching-sessions in small groups students had to demonstrate the learned skills in a 10 minute modified OSCE. In comparison to a control group consisting of 23 students who never examined a child before, both groups achieved a significantly better result. Medical students taught by student peers almost reached the same examination result as the group taught by paediatric teachers (21,7±4,1 vs. 22,6±3,6 of 36 points, p=0,203). Especially the part of the OSCE where exclusively practical skills where examined revealed no difference between the two groups (7,44±2,15 vs. 7,97±1,87 of a maximum of 16 points, p=0,154). The majority of students (77%) evaluated peer teaching as stimulating and helpful. The results of this quantitative teaching study reveal that peer teaching of selected skills can be a useful addition to classical paediatric teaching classes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
埃森大学儿童医院同伴教学项目评估 - 单中心经验。
自 1986 年起,埃森大学儿童医院的医科学生在为期两周的强化课程中接受同伴培训,以便向低年级学生传授基本的儿科检查技术。学生同伴受雇于埃森大学一年。同伴教学计划的重点在于情感和感觉技能的调解,例如与家长和儿童的接触,以及手工儿科检查技术。本研究旨在分析学生同伴在传授特定儿科检查技能方面是否能与经验丰富的资深儿科讲师相媲美。123 名学生被随机分配到由资深讲师或学生同伴教师组成的小组。在一小时的小组教学后,学生必须在 10 分钟的改良 OSCE 考试中展示所学技能。与由 23 名从未给儿童做过检查的学生组成的对照组相比,两组学生的成绩都有明显提高。由同学教导的医学生与由儿科教师教导的学生几乎达到了相同的考试成绩(36 分中的 21,7±4,1 分 vs. 22,6±3,6 分,P=0,203)。特别是在 OSCE 考试中专门考察实践技能的部分,两组学生的成绩没有差异(7,44±2,15 vs. 7,97±1,87,最高分 16 分,P=0,154)。大多数学生(77%)认为同伴教学具有激励性和帮助性。这项定量教学研究的结果表明,对选定技能的同伴教学可以成为经典儿科教学课堂的有益补充。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
8th meeting of the medical assessment consortium UCAN: "Collaborative Perspectives for Competency-based and Quality-assured Medical Assessment". Influence of a revision course and the gender of examiners on the grades of the final ENT exam--a retrospective review of 3961 exams. The Final Oral/Practical State Examination at Freiburg Medical Faculty in 2012--Analysis of grading to test quality assurance. The new final Clinical Skills examination in human medicine in Switzerland: Essential steps of exam development, implementation and evaluation, and central insights from the perspective of the national Working Group. Electronic acquisition of OSCE performance using tablets.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1