The near-peer tutoring programme: embracing the ‘doctors-to-teach’ philosophy – a comparison of the effects of participation between the senior and junior near-peer tutors

Background: While there is an increasing pool of literature documenting the benefits of near-peer tutoring programme, little is known about the benefits for junior and senior peer tutors. Knowledge of the peer tutors’ perceived benefits at different levels of seniority will aid in the development of a near-peer tutoring programme that will better fulfil both curricula and personal aspirations of near-peer tutors. We, therefore, investigated the perceived benefits of participation in a near-peer tutoring programme for junior as well as senior near-peer tutors. Methods: Pre- and post-participation questionnaires were distributed to near-peer tutors after their clinical skills teaching sessions with Phase I undergraduate medical students. The Peer Tutor Assessment Instrument questionnaires were distributed to the 1) students, and to the 2) near-peer tutors (junior and senior) after each teaching and learning session for self-evaluation. Results: The senior near-peer tutors felt that their participation in the programme had enhanced their skills (p=0.03). As a whole, the near-peer tutors were more motivated (Pre 5.32±0.46; Post 5.47±0.50; p=0.210) to participate in future teaching sessions but did not expect that having teaching experiences would make teaching as their major career path in the future (Pre 4.63±1.07; Post 4.54±0.98; p=0.701). The senior near-peer tutors were evaluated significantly higher by the students (p=0.0001). Students’ evaluations of near-peer tutors on the domain of critical analysis was higher than self-evaluations (p=0.003). Conclusions: Generally, the near-peer tutors perceived that they have benefited most in their skills enhancement and these near-peer tutors were scored highly by the students. However, senior near-peer tutors do not perceive that the programme has a lasting impact on their choice of career path

The near-peer tutoring programme: embracing the ‘doctors-to-teach’ philosophy – a comparison of the effects of participation between the senior and junior near-peer tutors

Background: While there is an increasing pool of literature documenting the benefits of near-peer tutoring programme, little is known about the benefits for junior and senior peer tutors. Knowledge of the peer tutors’ perceived benefits at different levels of seniority will aid in the development of a near-peer tutoring programme that will better fulfil both curricula and personal aspirations of near-peer tutors. We, therefore, investigated the perceived benefits of participation in a near-peer tutoring programme for junior as well as senior near-peer tutors. Methods: Pre- and post-participation questionnaires were distributed to near-peer tutors after their clinical skills teaching sessions with Phase I undergraduate medical students. The Peer Tutor Assessment Instrument questionnaires were distributed to the 1) students, and to the 2) near-peer tutors (junior and senior) after each teaching and learning session for self-evaluation. Results: The senior near-peer tutors felt that their participation in the programme had enhanced their skills (p=0.03). As a whole, the near-peer tutors were more motivated (Pre 5.32±0.46; Post 5.47±0.50; p=0.210) to participate in future teaching sessions but did not expect that having teaching experiences would make teaching as their major career path in the future (Pre 4.63±1.07; Post 4.54±0.98; p=0.701). The senior near-peer tutors were evaluated significantly higher by the students (p=0.0001). Students’ evaluations of near-peer tutors on the domain of critical analysis was higher than self-evaluations (p=0.003). Conclusions: Generally, the near-peer tutors perceived that they have benefited most in their skills enhancement and these near-peer tutors were scored highly by the students. However, senior near-peer tutors do not perceive that the programme has a lasting impact on their choice of career path

What does the multiple mini interview have to offer over the panel interview?

Introduction: This paper compares the panel interview (PI) performance with the multiple mini interview (MMI) performance and indication of behavioural concerns of a sample of medical school applicants. The acceptability of the MMI was also assessed. Materials and methods: All applicants shortlisted for a PI were invited to an MMI. Applicants attended a 30-min PI with two faculty interviewers followed by an MMI consisting of ten 8-min stations. Applicants were assessed on their performance at each MMI station by one faculty. The interviewer also indicated if they perceived the applicant to be a concern. Finally, applicants completed an acceptability questionnaire. Results: From the analysis of 133 (75.1%) completed MMI scoresheets, the MMI scores correlated statistically significantly with the PI scores (r=0.438, p=0.001). Both were not statistically associated with sex, age, race, or pre-university academic ability to any significance. Applicants assessed as a concern at two or more stations performed statistically significantly less well at the MMI when compared with those who were assessed as a concern at one station or none at all. However, there was no association with PI performance. Acceptability scores were generally high, and comparison of mean scores for each of the acceptability questionnaire items did not show statistically significant differences between sex and race categories. Conclusions: Although PI and MMI performances are correlated, the MMI may have the added advantage of more objectively generating multiple impressions of the applicant's interpersonal skill, thoughtfulness, and general demeanour. Results of the present study indicated that the MMI is acceptable in a multicultural context