Peer learning and teaching
Receiving feedback from peers: medical students’ perceptions Annette Burgess and Craig Mellis Sydney Medical School – Central, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
SUMMARY Background: During peer assessment activities, students are often required to provide feedback to their peers. The quality of such feedback can be perceived by recipients to be superior, and better received, than feedback given by academic staff. The aim of this study was to investigate students’ views on receiving verbal feedback from their peers during their formative long case examination. Methods: During 2013, year–4 students (n = 48) were assessed
on their formative long case presentation and discussion by a student examiner, alongside an academic co-examiner. The student examinee was then provided with verbal feedback by both the student examiner and the academic co-examiner. To gain insight into students’ views on receiving feedback from their peers, two focus groups were held. Results: Of the 48 participants, 35 per cent (17/48) attended focus groups. Students did not like receiving peer feedback during the scheduled examination time, in
the presence of the academic co-examiner. They did value peer feedback, but preferred to receive this in a relaxed environment, after the examination. Conclusion: In the formative examination, students perceived the feedback given by their peer co-examiner to be less constructive, less accurate and less helpful than the feedback given by the academic co-examiner. These findings may have implications for the feedback process for future iterations of the formative long case examination.
Students are often required to provide feedback to their peers
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. THE CLINICAL TEACHER 2015; 12: 203–207 203
tct_12260.indd 203
5/5/2015 11:43:05 AM
We sought to investigate students’ perceptions of receiving verbal feedback from their peers
INTRODUCTION
D
uring formative peer assessment activities in medical education, students often receive feedback from their peers.1 Feedback within the clinical context has been defined as ‘Specific information about the comparison between a trainee’s observed performance and a standard, given with the intent to improve the trainee’s performance’.2 Listening to peer feedback can provide an effective and positive learning experience for students, creating more reflective learners, who consciously think about and analyse their performance.3 The aim of the feedback is for the recipient to reflect on their peer’s comments, and make improvements in order to reduce the gap between actual and desired performance.4 The recipients’ perception of the quality of the feedback is therefore important in eliciting a positive attitude towards change.4 The quality of feedback given by peers has been reported in several studies as being perceived by students as more valuable and relevant than feedback given by academic staff.5 There are potentially negative aspects to receiving feedback from peers, however. When feedback is not accurate, there is a risk that critical areas of performance will remain unchanged.6 Also, if feedback is perceived as judgemental, and not relayed appropriately, it may result in a deterioration of performance.6 Some studies have found that students receiving peer feedback are fearful of being criticised by their peers.7 Appropriate student peer feedback may not occur for several reasons, including: social discomfort when identifying a peer’s weakness; the associated responsibility; inadequate knowledge; and insufficient training.8
CONTEXT The clinical school in which the study took place is a large tertiary teaching hospital, where students were allocated in the final two years of a 4–year graduate-entry medical programme. As part of the assessment strategy, year–4 students were required to undertake a formative long case clinical examination. These formative examinations are designed to inform the students of their strengths and weaknesses in preparation for their summative long case examination. Students were jointly examined by a peer examiner and by an academic examiner, and immediately following the examination received verbal feedback on their performance from both examiners. We have previously established that formulating and giving feedback to peers in formative long case examinations is perceived by student examiners as beneficial in their development of knowledge, skills and professional attributes.9 In the present study, we sought to investigate students’ perceptions of receiving verbal feedback from their peers within the same context.
METHODS In 2013 all year–4 students based at the teaching hospital
were allocated to co-examine their peers, alongside an academic co-examiner, and also to be examined (n = 48). Prior to the assessment, all students were provided with a 1–hour briefing, to familiarise them with the examination process, and to receive training in the provision of feedback, using Pendleton’s positive critique model.10 The academic examiners (n = 10) were all experienced in long case examinations, and were not provided with specific training in the examination process or provision of feedback. After completion of the formative long cases, these students were invited to attend a focus group. The focus group questions were designed to explore students’ perceptions of receiving feedback from their peers. Focus group data were transcribed verbatim, with each participant being assigned an anonymous identifier (S1–S17). Thematic analysis was used to build an understanding of the students’ experience in receiving peer feedback. A portion of the data were read by the first author and analysed to identify initial themes. Following negotiation of meaning with the second author, a coding framework was
204 © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. THE CLINICAL TEACHER 2015; 12: 203–207
tct_12260.indd 204
5/5/2015 11:43:06 AM
developed and applied to the full data set.11 NVIVO qualitative data analysis software was used for data analysis. Ethics approval was obtained from The University of Sydney Ethics Committee.
RESULTS Qualitative data consisted of transcripts from two focus groups, in which 35 per cent (17/48) of students participated. Analysis of the data revealed that students’ experience of receiving peer feedback on their formative long case examination performance was occurring within two different settings, evoking distinct experiences in each setting. As such, analysis of the data is categorised by two main themes: experiences of peer feedback inside the examination room, and experiences of peer feedback outside of the examination room. A summary, descriptive account of each theme follows. Inside the examination room Collectively, student examinees reported that they did not find the feedback they received from their student peer examiner inside the examination room to be constructive or useful. As one participant noted:
…nice in theory, but I usually felt like I was just getting pats on the back. S5 Students felt that the reason for this was that they themselves would be reluctant to bring their peer’s misgivings to the attention of an academic, particularly in a formal examination setting, where failure will create more work in revision and reexamination for their peer. In fact, student examinees were generally not interested in hearing the student peer examiner’s feedback during the examination format, and placed much greater value on feedback from the
academic examiner. For example, one participant commented:
you have a tough other [academic] examiner. S9
…the feedback they gave (academic) was what I took away rather than my class mate’s. S12
Outside the examination room Although student examinees did not want to receive feedback from their peer examiner inside the examination room, they were grateful to receive feedback from them after the exam had finished, and away from the academic examiner. Students found peer feedback in this setting to be constructive and useful.
Students found the feedback from the academic co-examiner to be more motivating. They knew that they must perform well in the upcoming high-stakes summative long case examination, and were keen to hear specific criticism, even though they were anxious about their performance in front of an academic. For example, participants commented:
There’s no way a student can replicate the fear an academic can put in you. S13
Students found the feedback from the academic co-examiner to be more motivating
…just informally, I got quite good feedback. S3 …you are in a better frame of mind to receive feedback from your peer – more relaxed, away from the consultant, so you can better listen. S5 Students found the year–4
peers to be knowledgeable: There was a very big contrast between my peer’s …in fourth [compared feedback and the doctor – he kind of tore me apart. S1 with third] year I was more willing to listen to the feedback from my peers… Students felt that receiving feedback from their peer in the in fourth year it was more examination room took precious accurate. S9 time away from the feedback given by the academic co-examiner.
…I think it takes up valuable time with the consultant…that could be better spent learning what you’re not doing right. S1 Despite the lack of regard for their peer’s feedback in this examination setting, students collectively reported that simply having another student in the room made them feel supported and more relaxed. As one participant commented:
It was nice to have them in the room and as a bit of support, especially if
Students went as far to say that they would like to have a scheduled ‘student-only feedback session’ after the examination, without the academic. One student commented:
I think there should be a session directly afterwards without the consultant there. S3 DISCUSSION Analysis of our data disclosed some interesting insights into students’ perceptions of their experiences in receiving feedback from their peers following the formative long case examination. Peer feedback within the
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. THE CLINICAL TEACHER 2015; 12: 203–207 205
tct_12260.indd 205
5/5/2015 11:43:07 AM
Students were also afraid that their peer could draw the academic’s attention to their weaknesses
scheduled examination time was negatively valued by the student examinees, yet was welcomed outside of the examination room. Clearly, students did not want to receive peer feedback during the examination when the academic examiner was present. They felt that this took away valuable time that could be spent receiving more accurate feedback from the expert academic examiner. Students were also afraid that their peer could draw the academic’s attention to their weaknesses, which may otherwise have gone either unnoticed or unaddressed during the feedback session. In contrast to many previous studies relating to peer assessment within clinical settings,5 our study showed that students perceive feedback by the academic co-examiner inside the examination room to be much more valuable to them than feedback given by peer co-examiners. This highlights the benefit of having an academic examiner present during these formative examinations, despite the resource intensiveness of the activity.9 The value that our students placed on feedback by the academic co-examiner may be linked to the importance of the summative long case examination for which our students were preparing. Again, unlike other studies,8 our students did not report experiencing social discomfort or embarrassment at receiving negative feedback from their academic examiners in front of their peers. It seems that students were averse to receiving critical feedback from their peers in front of the academic examiner, not because of social embarrassment, but rather because of possible future assessment ramifications. In fact, student examinees found comfort in having a peer present in the examination room.12 Perhaps in
part the students’ openness with their peers is attributed to the supportive peer-assisted learning environment within the clinical school that has been previously reported.13,14
likely to outweigh any negative outcomes.9 Our findings have implications for the feedback process for future iterations of the formative long case examination.
Our students felt that their fellow students had adequate knowledge to provide worthwhile feedback; however, they felt the quality, honesty and accuracy of the feedback was increased when it is given away from the academic, and in a more relaxed setting. Perhaps being more ‘cognitively congruent’, peer examiners are able to express their feedback in terms that target the students’ level of understanding.15 Indeed, it has been suggested that the student experience of receiving feedback from peers may provide a qualitatively different learning experience than receiving feedback from academics, enhancing both the quantity and the meaningfulness of the feedback.16
REFERENCES
LIMITATIONS This is a small study, with only 35 per cent of one cohort taking part in the focus groups; therefore, it is possible that our findings are not generalisable to the whole study cohort. The study only considers the perceptions of students receiving feedback, and the student feedback itself was not observed or assessed.
CONCLUSION In summary, we found that in the formative examination students perceived their peer examiner’s feedback to be less constructive, accurate and helpful than the academic examiner’s feedback. Students preferred to receive peer examiner feedback subsequently in an informal context; however, the exercise of students giving feedback in a formal context has many benefits on students’ learning and professionalism that is
1. Yu TC, Wilson NC, Singh PP, Lemanu DP, Hawken SJ, Hill AG. Medical students-as-teachers: a systematic review of peer-assisted teaching during medical school. Adv Med Educ Pract 2011;2:157–172. 2. Van den Berg I, Admiraal W, Pilot A. Peer assessment in university teaching: Evaluating seven course designs. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 2006;31:19–36. 3. Taras M. Summative and formative assessment – some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Education Studies 2005;13:466–478. 4. Topping KJ. Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology 2005;25:631–645. 5. English R, Brookes ST, Avery K, Blazeby JM, Ben-Shlomo Y. The effectiveness and reliability of peer-marking in first-year medical students. Med Educ 2006;40:965–972. 6. Cantillon P, Sargeant J. Giving feedback in clinical settings. BMJ 2008;13:a1961. 7. Wen M, Tsai C. University students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward (online) peer assessment. Higher Education 2006;51:27–44. 8. Cassidy S. Developing employability skills: peer assessment in higher education. Education and Training 2006;48:508–517. 9. Burgess A, Roberts C, Black K, Mellis C. Senior medical student perceived ability and experience in giving feedback in formative long case examinations. BMC Medical Education 2013;13:79. 10. Pendleton D, Schofield T, Tate P, Havelock P. The new consultation: developing doctor–patient communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003. 11. Creswell J. Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Merrill; 2002. 12. Topping KJ. The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher
206 © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. THE CLINICAL TEACHER 2015; 12: 203–207
tct_12260.indd 206
5/5/2015 11:43:07 AM
education: A typology and review of the literature. Higher Education 1996;32:321–345. 13. Burgess A, Clark T, Chapman R, Mellis C. Senior medical students as peer examiners in an OSCE. Med Teach 2013;35:58–62.
14. Burgess A, Clark T, Chapman R, Mellis C. Medical student experience as simulated patients in the OSCE. Clin Teach 2013;10: 246–250. 15. Moust JC, Schmidt HG. Effects of staff and student tutors on student
achievement. Higher Education 1994;28:471–482. 16. Nestel D, Kidd J. Peer tutoring in patient-centred interviewing skills: experience of a project for first-year students. Med Teach 2003;25:398–444.
Corresponding author’s contact details: Annette Burgess, Sydney Medical School – Central The University of Sydney, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Level 4, Building 63, Missenden Road, Camperdown, New South Wales 2050, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Funding: None. Conflict of interest: None. Acknowledgements: None. Ethical approval: Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee. doi: 10.1111/tct.12260
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. THE CLINICAL TEACHER 2015; 12: 203–207 207
tct_12260.indd 207
5/5/2015 11:43:07 AM
Receiving feedback from peers: medical students’ perceptions Annette Burgess and Craig Mellis Sydney Medical School – Central, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
SUMMARY Background: During peer assessment activities, students are often required to provide feedback to their peers. The quality of such feedback can be perceived by recipients to be superior, and better received, than feedback given by academic staff. The aim of this study was to investigate students’ views on receiving verbal feedback from their peers during their formative long case examination. Methods: During 2013, year–4 students (n = 48) were assessed
on their formative long case presentation and discussion by a student examiner, alongside an academic co-examiner. The student examinee was then provided with verbal feedback by both the student examiner and the academic co-examiner. To gain insight into students’ views on receiving feedback from their peers, two focus groups were held. Results: Of the 48 participants, 35 per cent (17/48) attended focus groups. Students did not like receiving peer feedback during the scheduled examination time, in
the presence of the academic co-examiner. They did value peer feedback, but preferred to receive this in a relaxed environment, after the examination. Conclusion: In the formative examination, students perceived the feedback given by their peer co-examiner to be less constructive, less accurate and less helpful than the feedback given by the academic co-examiner. These findings may have implications for the feedback process for future iterations of the formative long case examination.
Students are often required to provide feedback to their peers
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. THE CLINICAL TEACHER 2015; 12: 203–207 203
tct_12260.indd 203
5/5/2015 11:43:05 AM
We sought to investigate students’ perceptions of receiving verbal feedback from their peers
INTRODUCTION
D
uring formative peer assessment activities in medical education, students often receive feedback from their peers.1 Feedback within the clinical context has been defined as ‘Specific information about the comparison between a trainee’s observed performance and a standard, given with the intent to improve the trainee’s performance’.2 Listening to peer feedback can provide an effective and positive learning experience for students, creating more reflective learners, who consciously think about and analyse their performance.3 The aim of the feedback is for the recipient to reflect on their peer’s comments, and make improvements in order to reduce the gap between actual and desired performance.4 The recipients’ perception of the quality of the feedback is therefore important in eliciting a positive attitude towards change.4 The quality of feedback given by peers has been reported in several studies as being perceived by students as more valuable and relevant than feedback given by academic staff.5 There are potentially negative aspects to receiving feedback from peers, however. When feedback is not accurate, there is a risk that critical areas of performance will remain unchanged.6 Also, if feedback is perceived as judgemental, and not relayed appropriately, it may result in a deterioration of performance.6 Some studies have found that students receiving peer feedback are fearful of being criticised by their peers.7 Appropriate student peer feedback may not occur for several reasons, including: social discomfort when identifying a peer’s weakness; the associated responsibility; inadequate knowledge; and insufficient training.8
CONTEXT The clinical school in which the study took place is a large tertiary teaching hospital, where students were allocated in the final two years of a 4–year graduate-entry medical programme. As part of the assessment strategy, year–4 students were required to undertake a formative long case clinical examination. These formative examinations are designed to inform the students of their strengths and weaknesses in preparation for their summative long case examination. Students were jointly examined by a peer examiner and by an academic examiner, and immediately following the examination received verbal feedback on their performance from both examiners. We have previously established that formulating and giving feedback to peers in formative long case examinations is perceived by student examiners as beneficial in their development of knowledge, skills and professional attributes.9 In the present study, we sought to investigate students’ perceptions of receiving verbal feedback from their peers within the same context.
METHODS In 2013 all year–4 students based at the teaching hospital
were allocated to co-examine their peers, alongside an academic co-examiner, and also to be examined (n = 48). Prior to the assessment, all students were provided with a 1–hour briefing, to familiarise them with the examination process, and to receive training in the provision of feedback, using Pendleton’s positive critique model.10 The academic examiners (n = 10) were all experienced in long case examinations, and were not provided with specific training in the examination process or provision of feedback. After completion of the formative long cases, these students were invited to attend a focus group. The focus group questions were designed to explore students’ perceptions of receiving feedback from their peers. Focus group data were transcribed verbatim, with each participant being assigned an anonymous identifier (S1–S17). Thematic analysis was used to build an understanding of the students’ experience in receiving peer feedback. A portion of the data were read by the first author and analysed to identify initial themes. Following negotiation of meaning with the second author, a coding framework was
204 © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. THE CLINICAL TEACHER 2015; 12: 203–207
tct_12260.indd 204
5/5/2015 11:43:06 AM
developed and applied to the full data set.11 NVIVO qualitative data analysis software was used for data analysis. Ethics approval was obtained from The University of Sydney Ethics Committee.
RESULTS Qualitative data consisted of transcripts from two focus groups, in which 35 per cent (17/48) of students participated. Analysis of the data revealed that students’ experience of receiving peer feedback on their formative long case examination performance was occurring within two different settings, evoking distinct experiences in each setting. As such, analysis of the data is categorised by two main themes: experiences of peer feedback inside the examination room, and experiences of peer feedback outside of the examination room. A summary, descriptive account of each theme follows. Inside the examination room Collectively, student examinees reported that they did not find the feedback they received from their student peer examiner inside the examination room to be constructive or useful. As one participant noted:
…nice in theory, but I usually felt like I was just getting pats on the back. S5 Students felt that the reason for this was that they themselves would be reluctant to bring their peer’s misgivings to the attention of an academic, particularly in a formal examination setting, where failure will create more work in revision and reexamination for their peer. In fact, student examinees were generally not interested in hearing the student peer examiner’s feedback during the examination format, and placed much greater value on feedback from the
academic examiner. For example, one participant commented:
you have a tough other [academic] examiner. S9
…the feedback they gave (academic) was what I took away rather than my class mate’s. S12
Outside the examination room Although student examinees did not want to receive feedback from their peer examiner inside the examination room, they were grateful to receive feedback from them after the exam had finished, and away from the academic examiner. Students found peer feedback in this setting to be constructive and useful.
Students found the feedback from the academic co-examiner to be more motivating. They knew that they must perform well in the upcoming high-stakes summative long case examination, and were keen to hear specific criticism, even though they were anxious about their performance in front of an academic. For example, participants commented:
There’s no way a student can replicate the fear an academic can put in you. S13
Students found the feedback from the academic co-examiner to be more motivating
…just informally, I got quite good feedback. S3 …you are in a better frame of mind to receive feedback from your peer – more relaxed, away from the consultant, so you can better listen. S5 Students found the year–4
peers to be knowledgeable: There was a very big contrast between my peer’s …in fourth [compared feedback and the doctor – he kind of tore me apart. S1 with third] year I was more willing to listen to the feedback from my peers… Students felt that receiving feedback from their peer in the in fourth year it was more examination room took precious accurate. S9 time away from the feedback given by the academic co-examiner.
…I think it takes up valuable time with the consultant…that could be better spent learning what you’re not doing right. S1 Despite the lack of regard for their peer’s feedback in this examination setting, students collectively reported that simply having another student in the room made them feel supported and more relaxed. As one participant commented:
It was nice to have them in the room and as a bit of support, especially if
Students went as far to say that they would like to have a scheduled ‘student-only feedback session’ after the examination, without the academic. One student commented:
I think there should be a session directly afterwards without the consultant there. S3 DISCUSSION Analysis of our data disclosed some interesting insights into students’ perceptions of their experiences in receiving feedback from their peers following the formative long case examination. Peer feedback within the
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. THE CLINICAL TEACHER 2015; 12: 203–207 205
tct_12260.indd 205
5/5/2015 11:43:07 AM
Students were also afraid that their peer could draw the academic’s attention to their weaknesses
scheduled examination time was negatively valued by the student examinees, yet was welcomed outside of the examination room. Clearly, students did not want to receive peer feedback during the examination when the academic examiner was present. They felt that this took away valuable time that could be spent receiving more accurate feedback from the expert academic examiner. Students were also afraid that their peer could draw the academic’s attention to their weaknesses, which may otherwise have gone either unnoticed or unaddressed during the feedback session. In contrast to many previous studies relating to peer assessment within clinical settings,5 our study showed that students perceive feedback by the academic co-examiner inside the examination room to be much more valuable to them than feedback given by peer co-examiners. This highlights the benefit of having an academic examiner present during these formative examinations, despite the resource intensiveness of the activity.9 The value that our students placed on feedback by the academic co-examiner may be linked to the importance of the summative long case examination for which our students were preparing. Again, unlike other studies,8 our students did not report experiencing social discomfort or embarrassment at receiving negative feedback from their academic examiners in front of their peers. It seems that students were averse to receiving critical feedback from their peers in front of the academic examiner, not because of social embarrassment, but rather because of possible future assessment ramifications. In fact, student examinees found comfort in having a peer present in the examination room.12 Perhaps in
part the students’ openness with their peers is attributed to the supportive peer-assisted learning environment within the clinical school that has been previously reported.13,14
likely to outweigh any negative outcomes.9 Our findings have implications for the feedback process for future iterations of the formative long case examination.
Our students felt that their fellow students had adequate knowledge to provide worthwhile feedback; however, they felt the quality, honesty and accuracy of the feedback was increased when it is given away from the academic, and in a more relaxed setting. Perhaps being more ‘cognitively congruent’, peer examiners are able to express their feedback in terms that target the students’ level of understanding.15 Indeed, it has been suggested that the student experience of receiving feedback from peers may provide a qualitatively different learning experience than receiving feedback from academics, enhancing both the quantity and the meaningfulness of the feedback.16
REFERENCES
LIMITATIONS This is a small study, with only 35 per cent of one cohort taking part in the focus groups; therefore, it is possible that our findings are not generalisable to the whole study cohort. The study only considers the perceptions of students receiving feedback, and the student feedback itself was not observed or assessed.
CONCLUSION In summary, we found that in the formative examination students perceived their peer examiner’s feedback to be less constructive, accurate and helpful than the academic examiner’s feedback. Students preferred to receive peer examiner feedback subsequently in an informal context; however, the exercise of students giving feedback in a formal context has many benefits on students’ learning and professionalism that is
1. Yu TC, Wilson NC, Singh PP, Lemanu DP, Hawken SJ, Hill AG. Medical students-as-teachers: a systematic review of peer-assisted teaching during medical school. Adv Med Educ Pract 2011;2:157–172. 2. Van den Berg I, Admiraal W, Pilot A. Peer assessment in university teaching: Evaluating seven course designs. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 2006;31:19–36. 3. Taras M. Summative and formative assessment – some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Education Studies 2005;13:466–478. 4. Topping KJ. Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology 2005;25:631–645. 5. English R, Brookes ST, Avery K, Blazeby JM, Ben-Shlomo Y. The effectiveness and reliability of peer-marking in first-year medical students. Med Educ 2006;40:965–972. 6. Cantillon P, Sargeant J. Giving feedback in clinical settings. BMJ 2008;13:a1961. 7. Wen M, Tsai C. University students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward (online) peer assessment. Higher Education 2006;51:27–44. 8. Cassidy S. Developing employability skills: peer assessment in higher education. Education and Training 2006;48:508–517. 9. Burgess A, Roberts C, Black K, Mellis C. Senior medical student perceived ability and experience in giving feedback in formative long case examinations. BMC Medical Education 2013;13:79. 10. Pendleton D, Schofield T, Tate P, Havelock P. The new consultation: developing doctor–patient communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003. 11. Creswell J. Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Merrill; 2002. 12. Topping KJ. The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher
206 © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. THE CLINICAL TEACHER 2015; 12: 203–207
tct_12260.indd 206
5/5/2015 11:43:07 AM
education: A typology and review of the literature. Higher Education 1996;32:321–345. 13. Burgess A, Clark T, Chapman R, Mellis C. Senior medical students as peer examiners in an OSCE. Med Teach 2013;35:58–62.
14. Burgess A, Clark T, Chapman R, Mellis C. Medical student experience as simulated patients in the OSCE. Clin Teach 2013;10: 246–250. 15. Moust JC, Schmidt HG. Effects of staff and student tutors on student
achievement. Higher Education 1994;28:471–482. 16. Nestel D, Kidd J. Peer tutoring in patient-centred interviewing skills: experience of a project for first-year students. Med Teach 2003;25:398–444.
Corresponding author’s contact details: Annette Burgess, Sydney Medical School – Central The University of Sydney, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Level 4, Building 63, Missenden Road, Camperdown, New South Wales 2050, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Funding: None. Conflict of interest: None. Acknowledgements: None. Ethical approval: Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee. doi: 10.1111/tct.12260
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. THE CLINICAL TEACHER 2015; 12: 203–207 207
tct_12260.indd 207
5/5/2015 11:43:07 AM
