Informal near-peer teaching in medical education: A scoping review.

IF 0.9 Q3 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Education for Health Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.4103/efh.EfH_20_18
Eleanor R Bowyer, Sebastian CK Shaw
{"title":"Informal near-peer teaching in medical education: A scoping review.","authors":"Eleanor R Bowyer,&nbsp;Sebastian CK Shaw","doi":"10.4103/efh.EfH_20_18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Near-peer teaching (NPT) has a longstanding history within medical education. While it is becoming increasingly recognized within medical curricula, its beginnings can be traced back to informal teaching among medical students. Informal NPT such as this is still commonplace. However, it is often overlooked within the literature and has remained hidden from the scrutiny of evidence-based education. There has been minimal research conducted surrounding NPT outside of formal teaching sessions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping PubMed search was conducted after identifying appropriate search terms. Directly relevant and high quality articles were included.</p><p><strong>Results/synthesis: </strong>Within this scoping review, we discuss the potential benefits and shortfalls of such teaching.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Benefits include the opportunity for tutors to consolidate their own learning while contributing to the medical school community. Their learners benefit from the opportunity for small group learning focused on a relevant level of knowledge. However, shortfalls include the lack of prerequites, lack of content monitoring, and lack of resources. These should be considered when discussing the efficacy of this teaching.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We also explore the wider culture of this informal NPT within medical education. We hope to promote further thought into this area, considering how guidance can be given to support both the near-peer teachers and their learners.</p>","PeriodicalId":46742,"journal":{"name":"Education for Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education for Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/efh.EfH_20_18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Background: Near-peer teaching (NPT) has a longstanding history within medical education. While it is becoming increasingly recognized within medical curricula, its beginnings can be traced back to informal teaching among medical students. Informal NPT such as this is still commonplace. However, it is often overlooked within the literature and has remained hidden from the scrutiny of evidence-based education. There has been minimal research conducted surrounding NPT outside of formal teaching sessions.

Methods: A scoping PubMed search was conducted after identifying appropriate search terms. Directly relevant and high quality articles were included.

Results/synthesis: Within this scoping review, we discuss the potential benefits and shortfalls of such teaching.

Results: Benefits include the opportunity for tutors to consolidate their own learning while contributing to the medical school community. Their learners benefit from the opportunity for small group learning focused on a relevant level of knowledge. However, shortfalls include the lack of prerequites, lack of content monitoring, and lack of resources. These should be considered when discussing the efficacy of this teaching.

Conclusion: We also explore the wider culture of this informal NPT within medical education. We hope to promote further thought into this area, considering how guidance can be given to support both the near-peer teachers and their learners.

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
医学教育中的非正式近同伴教学:范围综述。
背景:近同伴教学(NPT)在医学教育中有着悠久的历史。虽然它在医学课程中得到越来越多的认可,但它的起源可以追溯到医科学生的非正式教学。像这样的非正式《不扩散核武器条约》仍然很常见。然而,它在文献中经常被忽视,并且一直隐藏在基于证据的教育的审查中。在正式教学课程之外,围绕《不扩散核武器条约》进行的研究很少。方法:在确定合适的搜索词后进行PubMed范围搜索。包括直接相关和高质量的文章。结果/综合:在这个范围审查中,我们讨论了这种教学的潜在好处和不足。结果:好处包括导师有机会巩固自己的学习,同时为医学院社区做出贡献。他们的学习者受益于小组学习的机会,专注于相关水平的知识。然而,不足之处包括缺乏先决条件、缺乏内容监控和缺乏资源。在讨论这种教学的效果时,应该考虑到这些。结论:我们还探讨了医学教育中这种非正式NPT的更广泛文化。我们希望促进对这一领域的进一步思考,考虑如何给予指导,以支持近同伴教师和他们的学习者。
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
Education for Health
Education for Health EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
期刊介绍: Education for Health: Change in Learning and Practice (EfH) is the scholarly, peer-reviewed journal of The Network: Towards Unity for Health. Our readers are health professionals, health professions educators and learners, health care researchers, policymakers, community leaders and administrators from all over the world. We publish original studies, reviews, think pieces, works in progress and commentaries on current trends, issues, and controversies. We especially want to provide our international readers with fresh ideas and innovative models of education and health services that can enable them to be maximally responsive to the healthcare needs of the communities in which they work and learn.
期刊最新文献
The Way Forward for Integrated Health Sciences Degree Programs Education about Planetary Health and Sustainable Healthcare in low- and middle-income countries: Planetary Health Report Card assessment of perceptions at University of Cape Town Faculty of Health Sciences Lessons learned in development of vision and mission statements How do Educational Staff and Students in a Medical School Perceive Social Accountability? A Multi-Perspective Qualitative Interview Study Thank you, Michael Glasser!
×
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