Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Peer Tutoring in Preclinical Medical Education: A Review of the Literature

  • Monograph
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Peer-assisted learning (PAL) is an educational method where students teach their peers. PAL has been increasingly integrated into medical education in various formats including near-peer tutoring (NPT), reciprocal-peer tutoring (RPT), and peer-to-peer tutoring. This review adds to current literature by focusing exclusively on outcomes from PAL peer tutoring programs implemented in conjunction with basic science courses in medical education. Although the programs differ in size, duration, course, resource availability, and method of evaluation and thus can be difficult to compare, PAL programs overall demonstrate benefits for both tutors and tutees and merit further investigation into optimal methods of implementation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Olaussen A, Reddy P, Irvine S, Williams B. Peer-assisted learning: time for nomenclature clarification. Med Educ Online. 2016;21:30974. https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v21.30974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ten Cate O, Durning S. Dimensions and psychology of peer teaching in medical education. Med Teach. 2007;29(6):546–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701583816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Provencio AB, Garcia CM, Roesch J. Peer-to-peer tutoring: reducing failure rates in medical school. Med Educ. 2018;52(11):1183. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jayakumar N, Albasha D, Annan D. One-to-one peer tutoring for failing medical students: a novel intervention. Med Teach. 2015;37(5):498. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.956071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Duran CE, Bahena EN, Rodriguez Mde L, Baca GJ, Uresti AS, Elizondo-Omana RE, et al. Near-peer teaching in an anatomy course with a low faculty-to-student ratio. Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5(3):171–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Burgess A, McGregor D, Mellis C. Medical students as peer tutors: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:115. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Evans DJ, Cuffe T. Near-peer teaching in anatomy: an approach for deeper learning. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2(5):227–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pasquinelli LM, Greenberg LW. A review of medical school programs that train medical students as teachers (MED-SATS). Teach Learn Med. 2008;20(1):73–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401330701798337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rhodes D, Fogg QA, Lazarus MD. Dissecting the role of sessional anatomy teachers: a systematic literature review. Anat Sci Educ. 2018;11(4):410–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lockspeiser TM, O'Sullivan P, Teherani A, Muller J. Understanding the experience of being taught by peers: the value of social and cognitive congruence. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008;13(3):361–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-006-9049-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nelson AJ, Nelson SV, Linn AM, Raw LE, Kildea HB, Tonkin AL. Tomorrow’s educators ... today? Implementing near-peer teaching for medical students. Med Teach. 2013;35(2):156–9. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.737961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shankar P, Singh B, Karki B, Thapa T. Student perception about peer-assisted learning sessions in a medical school in Nepal. WebMedCentral Med Educ. 2011;2(11):WMC002459.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Oda Y, Onishi H, Sakemi T. Effectiveness of student tutors in problem-based learning of undergraduate medical education. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2014;232(3):223–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sobral DT. Peer tutoring and student outcomes in a problem-based course. Med Educ. 1994;28(4):284–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hall S, Stephens J, Andrade T, Davids J, Powell M, Border S. Perceptions of junior doctors and undergraduate medical students as anatomy teachers: investigating distance along the near-peer teaching spectrum. Anat Sci Educ. 2014;7(3):242–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nagraj S, Miles S, Bryant P, Holland R. Medical students’ views about having different types of problem-based learning tutors. Med Sci Educ. 2019;29:93–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tayler N, Hall S, Carr N, Stephens J, Border S. Near peer teaching in medical curricula: integrating student teachers in pathology tutorials. Med Educ Online. 2015;20(1):e27921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bulte C, Betts A, Garner K, Durning S. Student teaching: views of student near-peer teachers and learners. Med Teach. 2007;29(6):583–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701583824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Carroll M. Peer tutoring: can medical students teach biochemistry? Biochem Educ. 1996;24(1):13–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cianciolo AT, Kidd B, Murray S. Observational analysis of near-peer and faculty tutoring in problem-based learning groups. Med Educ. 2016;50(7):757–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gallan AJ, Offner GD, Symes K. Vertical integration of biochemistry and clinical medicine using a near-peer learning model. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2016;44(6):507–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jackson TA, Evans DJ. Can medical students teach? A near-peer-led teaching program for year 1 students. Adv Physiol Educ. 2012;36(3):192–6. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00035.2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Alcamo AM, Davids AR, Way DP, Lynn DJ, Vandre DD, et al. Acad Med. 2010;85(10 Suppl):S45–S8. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ed1cb9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. ten Cate O, van de Vorst I, van den Broek S. Academic achievement of students tutored by near-peers. Int J Med Educ. 2012;3:6–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hurley KF, McKay DW, Scott TM, James BM. The supplemental instruction project: peer-devised and delivered tutorials. Med Teach. 2003;25(4):404–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159031000136743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kibble JD. A peer-led supplemental tutorial project for medical physiology: implementation in a large class. Adv Physiol Educ. 2009;33(2):111–4. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.90212.2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sammaraiee Y, Mistry RD, Lim J, Wittner L, Deepak S, Lim G. Peer-assisted learning: filling the gaps in basic science education for preclinical medical students. Adv Physiol Educ. 2016;40(3):297–303. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00017.2015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rengier F, Rauch PJ, Partovi S, Kirsch J, Nawrotzki R. A three-day anatomy revision course taught by senior peers effectively prepares junior students for their national anatomy exam. Ann Anat. 2010;192(6):396–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2010.02.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Batchelder AJ, Rodrigues CM, Lin LY, Hickey PM, Johnson C, Elias JE. The role of students as teachers: four years’ experience of a large-scale, peer-led programme. Med Teach. 2010;32(7):547–51. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.490861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Schaffer JL, Wile MZ, Griggs RC. Students teaching students: a medical school peer tutorial programme. Med Educ. 1990;24(4):336–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Morgan KM, Northey EE, Khalil MK. The effect of near-peer tutoring on medical students’ performance in anatomical and physiological sciences. Clin Anat. 2017;30(7):922–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.22954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Swindle N, Wimsatt L. Development of peer tutoring services to support osteopathic medical students’ academic success. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2015;115(11):e14–9. https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2015.140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Walker-Bartnick LA, Berger JH, Kappelman MM. A model for peer tutoring in the medical school setting. J Med Educ. 1984;59(4):309–15.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sawyer SJ, Sylvestre PB, Girard RA, Snow MH. Effects of supplemental instruction on mean test scores and failure rates in medical school courses. Acad Med. 1996;71(12):1357–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Horneffer A, Fassnacht U, Oechsner W, Huber-Lang M, Boeckers TM, Boeckers A. Effect of didactically qualified student tutors on their tutees’ academic performance and tutor evaluation in the gross anatomy course. Ann Anat. 2016;208:170–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2016.05.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Erie A, Starkman S, Pawlina W, Lachman N. Developing medical students as teachers: an anatomy-based student-as-teacher program with emphasis on core teaching competencies. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6:385–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Burgess A, Dornan T, Clarke AJ, Menezes A, Mellis C. Peer tutoring in a medical school: perceptions of tutors and tutees. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:85. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0589-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gottlieb Z, Epstein S, Richards J. Near-peer teaching programme for medical students. Clin Teach. 2017;14(3):164–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Amorosa JM, Mellman LA, Graham MJ. Medical students as teachers: how preclinical teaching opportunities can create an early awareness of the role of physician as teacher. Med Teach. 2011;33(2):137–44. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.531154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Reyes-Hernandez CG, Carmona Pulido JM, De la Garza Chapa RI, Serna Vazquez RP, Alcala Briones RD, Plasencia Banda PM, et al. Near-peer teaching strategy in a large human anatomy course: perceptions of near-peer instructors. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8(2):189–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Alvarez S, Schultz JH. Professional and personal competency development in near-peer tutors of gross anatomy: a longitudinal mixed-methods study. Anat Sci Educ. 2019;12(2):129–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wong JG, Waldrep TD, Smith TG. Formal peer-teaching in medical school improves academic performance: the MUSC supplemental instructor program. Teach Learn Med. 2007;19(3):216–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401330701364551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sobral DT. Cross-year peer tutoring experience in a medical school: conditions and outcomes for student tutors. Med Educ. 2002;36(11):1064–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kassab S, Abu-Hijleh MF, Al-Shboul Q, Hamdy H. Student-led tutorials in problem-based learning: educational outcomes and students’ perceptions. Med Teach. 2005;27(6):521–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590500156186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Moore F. Peer-led small groups: are we on the right track? Perspect Med Educ. 2017;6:325–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Agius A, Calleja N, Camenzuli C, Sultana R, Pullicino R, Zammit C, et al. Perceptions of first-year medical students towards learning anatomy using cadaveric specimens through peer teaching. Anat Sci Educ. 2018;11(4):346–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Trottier R. A peer-assisted learning system (‘PALS’) approach to teaching basic sciences. A model developed in basic medical pharmacology instruction. Med Teach. 1999;21(1):43–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Agius A, Stabile I. Undergraduate peer assisted learning tutors’ performance in summative anatomy examinations: a pilot study. Int J Med Educ. 2018;9:93–8. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.5aa3.e2a6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Bentley BS, Hill RV. Objective and subjective assessment of reciprocal peer teaching in medical gross anatomy laboratory. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2(4):143–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Manyama M, Stafford R, Mazyala E, Lukanima A, Magele N, Kidenya BR, et al. Improving gross anatomy learning using reciprocal peer teaching. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:95. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0617-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Krych AJ, March CN, Bryan RE, Peake BJ, Pawlina W, Carmichael SW. Reciprocal peer teaching: students teaching students in the gross anatomy laboratory. Clin Anat. 2005;18(4):296–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.20090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Steele DJ, Medder JD, Turner P. A comparison of learning outcomes and attitudes in student- versus faculty-led problem-based learning: an experimental study. Med Educ. 2000;34(1):23–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Abedini M, Mortazawi F, Javadinia S, Moonaghi H. New teaching approach in basic sciences: peer assisted learning. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2013;83:39–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Turk S, Mousavizadeh A, Roozbehi A. The effect of peer assisted learning on medical students’ learning in a limb anatomy course. Res Dev Med Educ. 2015;4(2):115–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Han ER, Chung EK, Nam KI. Peer-assisted learning in a gross anatomy dissection course. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0142988. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Peets AD, Coderre S, Wright B, Jenkins D, Burak K, Leskosky S, et al. Involvement in teaching improves learning in medical students: a randomized cross-over study. BMC Med Educ. 2009;9:55. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-9-55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Undergraduate Medical Education, New York Medical College, School of Medicine, 40 Sunshine Cottage Road, Valhalla, NY, 10595, USA

    Adele Shenoy

  2. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, New York Medical College, 40 Sunshine Cottage Road, Valhalla, NY, 10595, USA

    Kristina H. Petersen

Authors
  1. Adele Shenoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristina H. Petersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Both Adele Shenoy and Kristina Petersen performed literature reviews and participated in drafting the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristina H. Petersen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shenoy, A., Petersen, K.H. Peer Tutoring in Preclinical Medical Education: A Review of the Literature. Med.Sci.Educ. 30, 537–544 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00895-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00895-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation