3.1 Students’ demographics
As shown in Table 1, 121 students completed the questionnaire that assessed their perceptions of PAL. Their mean age was 22 ± 1 years, 79 (65.3%) were female and 42 (34.7%) were male, and 95% were Saudis. The academic year was distributed as follows: 53.7% were third-year students, 28.9% were fourth-year students, and 17.4% were in their fifth year.
The majority of the students (94.2%) had not taken a course in “how to conduct scientific research.” Furthermore, only one-third (34.7%) had previous research experience; of these, 80% had participated as a data collector and 20% had participated as a co-author. Most of the respondents (95%) reported that they thought that the research methodology course was better when given by students (i.e., the peer tutors).
Table 1. Students’ demographic data (N = 121)
Characteristics
|
Frequency (Percentage)
|
Age/Year (Mean ± SD)
|
22 ± 1
|
Gender
|
Male
|
42 (34.7)
|
Female
|
79 (65.3)
|
Nationality
|
Saudi
|
115 (95)
|
Non-Saudi
|
6 (5)
|
Academic Year
|
Third Year
|
65 (53.7)
|
Fourth Year
|
35 (28.9)
|
Fifth Year
|
21 (17.4)
|
Previous Research Courses
|
Yes
|
7 (5.8)
|
No
|
114 (94.2)
|
Previous Research Experience
|
Yes
|
42 (34.7)
|
Data Collector
|
34 (80)
|
Co-Author
|
8 (20)
|
No
|
79 (65.3)
|
Research Methodology Preferences
|
Better when given by peer tutors
|
115 (95.0)
|
Better when given via traditional teaching
|
6 (5.0)
|
SD: standard deviation.
3.2 Students’ pre- and post-test knowledge
A total of 155 students completed the pre- and post-tests that evaluated their knowledge of clinical research methodology before and after taking the course. The students’ mean knowledge scores in the post-test were significantly higher than those in the pre-test for all knowledge items (19 ± 4 vs. 12 ± 5, respectively, p = 0.001) (Figure 2).
3.3 Students’ perceptions of peer teaching
Regarding the students’ perceptions of the tutors’ knowledge and skills, 94.2% agreed that the tutors’ knowledge was appropriate for the required level of teaching, and 92.6% agreed that their tutor provided the appropriate guidance that targeted their needs. Most of the participants (97.5%) thought that the tutor was approachable and happy to answer questions and that he/she created a welcoming learning environment. In general, 98.3% felt that they generally and adequately benefited from this experience/opportunity. Regarding the learners’ general perceptions of peer teaching and mentoring, 97.5% thought that PAL is an effective teaching strategy and 90.1% preferred being taught by a peer tutor rather than via traditional teaching. Table 2 shows the answers regarding the students’ perception of PAL.
As for the students’ opinions about the PAL experience, 99% responded that they would recommend this course to colleagues. When further questioned about if PAL would be useful for other activities/skills, 118 (97.5%) answered ”yes” for the research methodology course, 105 (86.8%) responded that they would prefer peer tutors to teach them clinical skills, and 108 (89.3) answered “yes” regarding extra-curricular activities. The other perceptions are shown in Table 3. Furthermore, the students’ most frequent opinions about the strengths and weaknesses of PAL are shown in Figure 3.
Insert Table 2 here
Table 3. Frequency distribution of the students’ opinions of peer teaching for other activities/skills
Activities/Skills for Which Peer-Assisted Teaching Would be Useful
|
Yes
|
No
|
No.
|
%
|
No.
|
%
|
SMLE
|
92
|
76.0
|
29
|
24.0
|
USMLE
|
89
|
73.6
|
32
|
26.4
|
Research Methodology
|
118
|
97.5
|
3
|
2.50
|
Clinical Skills
|
105
|
86.8
|
16
|
13.2
|
Communication Skills
|
101
|
83.5
|
20
|
16.5
|
Faculty's Tutorials
|
8
|
81.0
|
23
|
19.0
|
Extra-Curricular Activity
|
108
|
89.3
|
13
|
10.7
|
SMLE: Saudi Medical Licensure Examination; USMLE: United States Medical Licensure Examination.
|
Regarding the participants’ perceptions of PAL, 110 of the students had a good perception (90.9%), while only 11 students had a poor perception. As shown in Table 4, a significantly higher percent of students who were younger, in the third year, and who had a higher post-test mean knowledge score had a good perception of peer teaching. On the other hand, a non-significant relationship was found between the perception of peer teaching and the participants’ gender, experience of previous research, and pre-test mean knowledge score.
Table 4. Factors affecting students’ perceptions of peer teaching
Characteristics
|
Perceptions of Peer Teaching
|
P-value
|
Good Perception
(N = 110)
|
Poor Perception
(N = 11)
|
Age/Years (Mean ± SD)
|
21.6 ± 1.05
|
23.6 ± 1.02
|
0.001
|
Gender
|
Male
Female
|
38 (34.5)
72 (65.5)
|
4 (36.4)
7 (63.6)
|
0.904
|
Educational Level
|
Third year
Fourth year
Fifth year
|
63 (57.3)
31 (28.2)
16 (14.5)
|
2 (18.2)
4 (36.4)
5 (45.5)
|
0.014
|
Experience of Previous Research
|
Yes
No
|
39 (35.5)
71 (64.5)
|
3 (27.3)
8 (72.7)
|
0.746
|
Knowledge and Improvement Level
|
Knowledge Pre-Test
(Mean ± SD)
|
12.4 ± 5.08
|
11.4 ± 4.52
|
0.542
|
Knowledge Post-Test
(Mean ± SD)
|
19.1 ± 3.24
|
13.4 ± 7.52
|
0.006
|
Improvement Level (Knowledge Post-Test
- Knowledge Pre-Test)
|
6.7
|
2
|
No P-value
|
SD: standard deviation.
3.4 Tutors’ demographic data
The mean age of the tutors who participated in the PAL course was 22 years, three-quarters were female, and half were in the fifth academic year (Table 5). Most of the participants (97.4%) had engaged in previous courses in “how to conduct scientific research,” and 89.2% had previously attended the four-week methodology research course. The mean number of studies that they participated in was 3 ± 1. All of the tutors thought that this course was better when given by students.
Table 5. Tutor’s sociodemographic data
Characteristics (n = 38)
|
Age/Year
|
Mean
|
22
|
No Previous Research Experience
|
Mean ± SD
|
3 ± 1
|
Gender
|
Male 8 (21.1%)
Female 30 (78.9%)
|
Nationality
|
Saudi 38 (100.0%)
Non-Saudi 0 (0.0%)
|
Academic Year
|
Fourth Year 18 (47.4%)
Fifth Year 19 (50.0%)
Sixth Year 1 (2.6%)
|
Previous Research Courses
|
Yes 37 (97.4%)
Four-week methodology research course 34 (91.9%)
Other research summer school 3 (8.1%)
No 1 (2.6%)
|
Research Methodology Preferences
|
Better when given by peer tutors 38 (100.0%)
Better when given via traditional teaching 0 (0.0%)
|
SD: standard deviation.
3.5 Tutors’ perceptions of peer teaching
As for the tutors’ perceptions of this teaching and mentoring experience, 94.7% reported that they had the opportunity to consolidate their own knowledge, 92.1% said that being a peer tutor increased their confidence in their teaching and presentation skills, and 84.2% reported that they had a better understanding of teamwork and roles within the team (Table 6 and Table 7).
Insert Table 6 here
Insert Table 7 here
Interestingly, 65.5% of the tutors thought that being a peer teacher was a good idea. The strengths and weaknesses of the PAL experience from the tutors’ point of view are shown in Figure 4, and “having better communication skills” was the most frequently reported strength (44.7%).