Iram Riaz1. 1. Department of Community Medicine, Fatima Memorial Hospital, College of Medicine and Dentistry Shadman, Lahore.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of peer assisted learning versus expert assisted learning in terms of academic scores. STUDY DESIGN: Cross over-randomized control trial followed by a cross-sectional survey. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Fatima Memorial Hospital, College of Medicine and Dentistry, Lahore, during January to October 2012. METHODOLOGY: This study was conducted on 4th year MBBS students. The students were randomly divided in two groups by lottery method following their roll numbers. The groups A and B were dealt with Peer Assisted Learning (PAL) and Expert Assisted Learning (EAL) respectively. Effectiveness of both methods of learning was calculated on the basis of academic scores obtained in MCQ tests. One best answer type of MCQs were used and their construct validity was checked by other senior faculty members. After crossover of groups and altered teaching strategy, academic scores were compared again within the group and the comparable group. Student's views about this technique were measured by Likert's scale. P-values were obtained by applying independent and paired t-tests and considered statistically significant at ≥ 0.05. RESULTS: There were 70 students of 4th year MBBS which included 24 (34.3%) males and 46 (65.7%) females. TheCrohnbach's alpha value of these MCQs was 0.64. Scores of MCQ test were compared by applying independent t-test and p-value obtained was 0.971; after cross over p-value was 0.468 which was not significant between the results obtained by two learning strategies. Twenty five students (46.3%) said that PAL is an effective technique. Thirty eight (70.4%) students found it easy to communicate with a peer. For incorporation of PAL in curriculum of community medicine, 24 (44.4%) students voted in its favour. CONCLUSION:Peer assisted learning has proved of equivalent efficacy in terms of students score in MCQs test as expert assisted learning.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of peer assisted learning versus expert assisted learning in terms of academic scores. STUDY DESIGN: Cross over-randomized control trial followed by a cross-sectional survey. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Fatima Memorial Hospital, College of Medicine and Dentistry, Lahore, during January to October 2012. METHODOLOGY: This study was conducted on 4th year MBBS students. The students were randomly divided in two groups by lottery method following their roll numbers. The groups A and B were dealt with Peer Assisted Learning (PAL) and Expert Assisted Learning (EAL) respectively. Effectiveness of both methods of learning was calculated on the basis of academic scores obtained in MCQ tests. One best answer type of MCQs were used and their construct validity was checked by other senior faculty members. After crossover of groups and altered teaching strategy, academic scores were compared again within the group and the comparable group. Student's views about this technique were measured by Likert's scale. P-values were obtained by applying independent and paired t-tests and considered statistically significant at ≥ 0.05. RESULTS: There were 70 students of 4th year MBBS which included 24 (34.3%) males and 46 (65.7%) females. TheCrohnbach's alpha value of these MCQs was 0.64. Scores of MCQ test were compared by applying independent t-test and p-value obtained was 0.971; after cross over p-value was 0.468 which was not significant between the results obtained by two learning strategies. Twenty five students (46.3%) said that PAL is an effective technique. Thirty eight (70.4%) students found it easy to communicate with a peer. For incorporation of PAL in curriculum of community medicine, 24 (44.4%) students voted in its favour. CONCLUSION: Peer assisted learning has proved of equivalent efficacy in terms of students score in MCQs test as expert assisted learning.
Authors: Mansour L Alsulmi; Muath M Alqarni; Anwar A Althaqfi; Hattan H Bosy; Ruqayya A Azher; Marwan A Sabbagh; Basem H Bahakeem; Emad M Tashkandi Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2022-02 Impact factor: 1.422