Medical Students' Perceptions of Peer Assessment in a Problem-based Learning Curriculum

Factors That Determine the Perceived Effectiveness of Peer Feedback in Collaborative Learning: a Mixed Methods Design

INTRODUCTION

Peer assessment has been promoted as a valuable approach to formative assessment to support learning and peer professionalism. This mixed methods study employed a conceptual framework to explore the factors that enhance the perceived effectiveness of formative peer assessment in the context of team-based learning as a form of collaborative learning.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The volume and quality of written peer comments of two medical school classes at three time points were analyzed. Focus groups were then conducted to clarify issues that appeared in the quantitative data and to explore other emerging dimensions.

RESULTS

There was a notable deficiency in both the volume and quality of the comments provided, with no improvement over time. Several factors were identified, including some that are logistical and operational and can be corrected easily, such as the timing of the assignments. Others that stood out as major substantive issues and/or limitations related to the students' conceptions of the purpose of the peer assessment and to their interpersonal variables.

DISCUSSION

There were social disincentives for students to provide constructive feedback to peers with whom a continuing working relationship is necessary. There was also an inconsistency between the quality of the peer feedback being typically shallow and lacking in substance, and students considering it beneficial.

CONCLUSION

The findings identify factors that need to be addressed in order to ensure the quality and effectiveness of formative peer assessment among medical students.

The utilization of peer feedback during collaborative learning in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Peer evaluation can provide valuable feedback to medical students, and increase student confidence and quality of work. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the utilization, effectiveness, and quality of peer feedback during collaborative learning in medical education.

METHODS

The PRISMA statement for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analysis was used to guide the process of conducting the systematic review. Evaluation of level of evidence (Colthart) and types of outcomes (Kirkpatrick) were used. Two main authors reviewed articles with a third deciding on conflicting results.

RESULTS

The final review included 31 studies. Problem-based learning and team-based learning were the most common collaborative learning settings. Eleven studies reported that students received instruction on how to provide appropriate peer feedback. No studies provided descriptions on whether or not the quality of feedback was evaluated by faculty. Seventeen studies evaluated the effect of peer feedback on professionalism; 12 of those studies evaluated its effectiveness for assessing professionalism and eight evaluated the use of peer feedback for professional behavior development. Ten studies examined the effect of peer feedback on student learning. Six studies examined the role of peer feedback on team dynamics.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review indicates that peer feedback in a collaborative learning environment may be a reliable assessment for professionalism and may aid in the development of professional behavior. The review suggests implications for further research on the impact of peer feedback, including the effectiveness of providing instruction on how to provide appropriate peer feedback.

The Association Between Peer and Self-Assessments and Professionalism Lapses Among Medical Students

Peer and self-assessments are widely used to assess professionalism during medical school as part of a multisource feedback model. The purpose of this study was to examine the associations between peer and self-assessments and professionalism lapses at a large medical school. A retrospective case-control study design was used to compare peer and self-assessment scores from Years 1 to 3 of medical school for students who had been cited for professionalism lapses during medical school (case group; n = 78) with those of a randomly selected control group ( n = 230). Students in the case group had significantly lower peer assessment scores than students in the control group during all 3 years. Year 3 peer assessment scores showed the greatest difference (cases = 7.81 ± 0.65, controls = 8.22 ± 0.34, p < .01). Students with lower peer assessment scores were also significantly more likely to have been cited for a professionalism lapse (odds ratio = 6.25, 95% CI [3.13, 11.11], p < .01). This study reinforces the value of peer assessments of professionalism, which may be useful to help identify students who may be at risk for professionalism lapses during medical school.

Prescription Writing in Small Groups as a Clinical Pharmacology Educational Intervention: Perceptions of Preclerkship Medical Students

Medical students do not perform well in writing prescriptions, and the 3 variables-learner, teacher, and instructional method-are held responsible to various degrees. The objective of this clinical pharmacology educational intervention was to improve medical students' perceptions, motivation, and participation in prescription-writing sessions. The study participants were second-year medical students of the College of Medicine and Medical Sciences of the Arabian Gulf University, Bahrain. Two prescription-writing sessions were conducted using clinical case scenarios based on problems the students had studied as part of the problem-based learning curriculum. At the end of the respiratory system subunit, the training was conducted in small groups, each facilitated by a tutor. At the end of the cardiovascular system subunit, the training was conducted in a traditional large-group classroom setting. Data were collected with the help of a questionnaire at the end of each session and a focus group discussion. A majority of the students (95.3% ± 2.4%) perceived the small-group method better for teaching and learning of all aspects of prescription writing: analyzing the clinical case scenario, applying clinical pharmacology knowledge for therapeutic reasoning, using a formulary for searching relevant prescribing information, and in writing a complete prescription. Students also endorsed the small-group method for better interaction among themselves and with the tutor and for the ease of asking questions and clarifying doubts. In view of the principles of adult learning, where motivation and interaction are important, teaching and learning prescription writing in small groups deserve a serious consideration in medical curricula.