Students as anatomy near-peer teachers: A double-edged sword for an ancient skill

Nomy Dickman, Alon Barash, Shmuel Reis, David Karasik*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

25 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: A near-peer instructors (NPI) program was designed for 1st year medical students who successfully finished the Anatomy course, in order to develop their didactic ability and teaching skills, mostly for cadaver dissection. Methods: Graduates of the training program were administered a voluntary survey at the end of the program, annually. Best graduates of the training program were offered a NPI position in the next academic year. They were evaluated by the first-year students, at the end of the Anatomy block. Results: In a debriefing questionnaire at the end of the NPI training, on the five-point Likert scale (1 = lowest to 5 = highest), the overall rating ranged from 3.63 in 2013 to 3.71 in 2015. Learning prosection and anatomy demonstration skills scored on average from 4.30 to 4.36, respectively. The NPIs were then evaluated by first-year students at the end of the next year's Anatomy block. On the Likert scale, the average score of NPIs ranged from 4.10 in 2014 to 4.75 in 2016, on the par with the general satisfaction score for the professional preclinical teachers during the same period (which ranged from 3.80 to 4.26). Conclusions: It is suggested that students as near-peer instructors can make a valuable contribution to the teaching faculty, especially in a new medical school.

Original languageEnglish
Article number156
JournalBMC Medical Education
Volume17
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 8 Sep 2017

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 The Author(s).

Keywords

  • Near-peer teaching
  • Preclinical courses
  • Student instructors
  • Undergraduate medical education

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Students as anatomy near-peer teachers: A double-edged sword for an ancient skill'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this