↓ Skip to main content

Peer tutoring in a medical school: perceptions of tutors and tutees

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Peer tutoring in a medical school: perceptions of tutors and tutees
Published in
BMC Medical Education, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0589-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annette Burgess, Tim Dornan, Antonia J. Clarke, Audrey Menezes, Craig Mellis

Abstract

Peer tutoring has been described as "people from similar social groupings who are not professional teachers helping each other to learn and learning themselves by teaching". Peer tutoring is well accepted as a source of support in many medical curricula, where participation and learning involve a process of socialisation. Peer tutoring can ease the transition of the junior students from the university class environment to the hospital workplace. In this paper, we apply the Experienced Based Learning (ExBL) model to explore medical students' perceptions of their experience of taking part in a newly established peer tutoring program at a hospital based clinical school. In 2014, all students at Sydney Medical School - Central, located at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital were invited to voluntarily participate in the peer tutoring program. Year 3 students (n = 46) were invited to act as tutors for Year 1 students (n = 50), and Year 4 students (n = 60) were invited to act as tutors for Year 2 students (n = 51). Similarly, the 'tutees' were invited to take part on a voluntary basis. Students were invited to attend focus groups, which were held at the end of the program. Framework analysis was used to code and categorise data into themes. In total, 108/207 (52 %) students participated in the program. A total of 42/106 (40 %) of Year 3 and 4 students took part as tutors; and of 66/101 (65 %) of Year 1 and 2 students took part as tutees. Five focus groups were held, with 50/108 (46 %) of students voluntarily participating. Senior students (tutors) valued the opportunity to practice and improve their medical knowledge and teaching skills. Junior students (tutees) valued the opportunity for additional practice and patient interaction, within a relaxed, small group learning environment. Students perceived the peer tutoring program as affording opportunities not otherwise available within the curriculum. The peer teaching program provided a framework within the medical curriculum for senior students to practice and improve their medical knowledge and teaching skills. Concurrently, junior students were provided with a valuable learning experience that they reported as being qualitatively different to traditional teaching by faculty.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 165 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 15%
Student > Master 24 14%
Lecturer 10 6%
Researcher 9 5%
Other 8 5%
Other 43 26%
Unknown 47 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 41%
Social Sciences 11 7%
Psychology 7 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 57 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 March 2016.
All research outputs
#4,486,417
of 24,983,099 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#751
of 3,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,141
of 305,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#18
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,983,099 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,876 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 305,703 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.