Near-peer Teaching in Histology Laboratory

  • María de los Ángeles Cambrón-Carmona Department of Morphological Sciences, Section of Histology, Faculty of Medicine and Nursing, University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain.
  • Carmen Natalia Tallón de Lara Department of Morphological Sciences, Section of Histology, Faculty of Medicine and Nursing, University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain.
  • Ignacio Ruz Caracuel Department of Morphological Sciences, Section of Histology, Faculty of Medicine and Nursing, University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain
  • Fernando Leiva Cepas Department of Morphological Sciences, Section of Histology, Faculty of Medicine and Nursing, University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain.
  • Rubén Giovanetti González Department of Morphological Sciences, Section of Histology, Faculty of Medicine and Nursing, University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain.
  • Soledad Zurita Lozano Department of Morphological Sciences, Section of Histology, Faculty of Medicine and Nursing, University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain.
  • Juan Cámara Pérez Department of Morphological Sciences, Section of Histology, Faculty of Medicine and Nursing, University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain.
  • Julia Casado Ruiz Department of Morphological Sciences, Section of Histology, Faculty of Medicine and Nursing, University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain.
  • José Peña Department of Morphological Sciences, Section of Histology, Faculty of Medicine and Nursing, University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain.
Keywords: Histology, Laboratories, Education, Medical, Undergraduate

Abstract

Background: Near-peer teaching is an educational method based on being taught by one or more students who are more advanced in one specific area of the same curriculum. The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes and medical students’ reactions to near-peer teaching in Histology Laboratory session. Methods: Histology Laboratory session was firstly designed as a practical session driven by academic staff, while in our new approach was driven by Histology intern students, which are upper year students in Medicine curriculum. Our near-peer teaching was evaluated using a multiple choice test when half of students had attended the session, the results of which were compared with those from traditional teaching. A reaction evaluation survey was also administered at the end of the course. Results: Multiple choice test results did not showed statistical differences between near-peer and traditional teaching strategies. Results from the reaction evaluation were mostly positive, especially with regard to feeling comfortable in the session taught by intern students and how intern students managed to transmit the information properly. Conclusion: Near-peer teaching in Histology Laboratory practical session is an effective alternative teaching method, with outcomes equivalent to traditional design, and highly valued by undergraduate medical students

Author Biographies

María de los Ángeles Cambrón-Carmona, Department of Morphological Sciences, Section of Histology, Faculty of Medicine and Nursing, University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain.

María de los Ángeles is a fifth-year medical student at University of Córdoba of a six-year program. She has been a Histology intern student for three years.

Carmen Natalia Tallón de Lara, Department of Morphological Sciences, Section of Histology, Faculty of Medicine and Nursing, University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain.

 María de los Ángeles is a fifth-year medical student at University of Córdoba of a six-year program. She has been a Histology intern student for three years.

References

1. Nouns Z, Schauber S, Witt C, Kingreen H, Schüttpelz-Brauns K. Develop¬ment of knowledge in basic sciences: a comparison of two medical curricula. Med Educ. 2012 Dec;46(12):1206-14.
2. Bloodgood RA, Ogilvie RW. Trends in histology laboratory teaching in United States medical schools. Anat Rec B New Anat. 2006 Sep;289(5):169-75.
3. Ten Cate O, Durning S. Dimensions and psychology of peer teaching in medical education. Med Teach. 2007 Sep;29(6):546-52.
4. Andrew Jay E, Starkman SJ, Pawlina W, Lachman N. Developing medi¬cal students as teachers: an anatomy-based student-as-teacher program with emphasis on core teaching competencies. Anat Sci Educ. 2013 Nov- Dec;6(6):385-92.
5. Lawry GV 2nd, Schuldt SS, Kreiter CD, Densen P, Albanese MA. Teaching a screening musculoskeletal examination: a randomized, controlled trial of different instructional methods. Acad Med. 1999 Feb;74(2):199-201.
6. Tolsgaard MG, Gustafsson A, Rasmussen MB, Høiby P, Müller CG, Ringsted C. Student teachers can be as good as associate professors in teaching clini¬cal skills. Med Teach. 2007 Sep;29(6):553-7.
7. Blank WA, Blankenfeld H, Vogelmann R, Linde K, Schneider A. Can near-peer medical students effectively teach a new curriculum in physical exami¬nation? BMC Med Educ. 2013 Dec;13:165.
8. De Juan Herrero J. [Introduction to university education: educational re¬sources for teacher training]. Madrid: Dykinson S.L.; 1996. Spanish
9. Meller SM, Chen M, Chen R, Haeseler FD. Near-peer teaching in a required third-year clerkship. Yale J Biol Med. 2013 Dec;86(4):583-9.
10. Vidic B, Weitlauf HM. Horizontal and vertical integration of academic disciplines in the medical school curriculum. Clin Anat. 2002 May;15(3):233-5.
11. Peña Amaro J, Jimena Medina I, Leiva Cepas F, Ruz Caracuel I. [Strate¬gy and learning activities in the practical teaching of medical histology in the UCO]. XIII Jornadas de Redes de Investigación en Docencia Universitaria. 2015;2089-102. Spanish
12. Burke J, Fayaz S, Graham K, Matthew R, Field M. Peer-assisted learning in the acquisition of clinical skills: a supplementary approach to musculoskele¬tal system training. Med Teach. 2007 Sep;29(6):577-82.
13. Ten Cate O, Durning S. Peer teaching in medical education: twelve reasons to move from theory to practice. Med Teach. 2007 Sep;29(6):591-9.
14. Fraser BJ. Classroom environment instruments: development, validity and
applications. Learn Environ Res. 1998 Jan;1(1):7-33.
15. Dandavino M, Snell L, Wiseman J. Why medical students should learn how to teach. Med Teach. 2007 Sep;29(6):558-65.
16. Topping KJ. Trends in peer learning. Educ Psych. 2005 Dec;25(6):631-45.
17. Bulte C, Betts A, Garner K, Durning S. Student teaching: views of student near-peer teachers and learners. Med Teach. 2007 Sep;29(6):583-90.
18. Lockspeiser TM, O’Sullivan P, Teherani A, Muller J. Understanding the experience of being taught by peers: the value of social and cognitive con¬gruence. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008 Aug;13(3):361-72.
19. Rashid MS, Sobowale O, Gore D. A near-peer teaching program designed, developed and delivered exclusively by recent medical graduates for final year medical students sitting the final objective structured clinical examina¬tion (OSCE). BMC Med Educ. 2011 Mar 17;11:11.
20. Strasser N. Using Prezi in higher education. J Coll Teach Learn. 2014;11(2):95-8.
21. Virtanen P, Myllärniemi J, Wallander H. Diversifying higher education: facilitating different ways of learning. Campus-Wide Information Systems. 2013;30(3):201-11.
Published
2016-04-30
How to Cite
Cambrón-Carmona, M. de los Ángeles, Tallón de Lara, C. N., Ruz Caracuel, I., Leiva Cepas, F., González, R. G., Zurita Lozano, S., Cámara Pérez, J., Casado Ruiz, J., & Peña, J. (2016). Near-peer Teaching in Histology Laboratory. International Journal of Medical Students, 4(1), 14-18. https://doi.org/10.5195/ijms.2016.144
Section
Original Article