The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Helping each other to learn – a process evaluation of peer assisted learning
Open accessAbstract
Background: The benefits of Peer Assisted Learning (PAL) are well established with positive effects on examination scores, student satisfaction and personal and professional development reported. PAL is increasingly utilised as a resource within medical education where the restrictions on resources have forced teachers to look at creating new educational environments which can be delivered at a lower cost. This study sought to evaluate the processes at work as the emphasis of PAL research to date has largely been on the consideration of student outcomes. Methods: Fifth-year medical undergraduates, who had completed their communication skills modular training and attended a preparatory workshop, facilitated a role-play session for their second-year colleagues within an Early Patient Contact programme. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were used to collect data at different time points in order to establish the views of peer learners and tutors towards this new method of teaching. The data was analysed according to the principles framework analysis using N-vivo software. Themes were shared and debated with the multidisciplinary team of authors and a concordance of views on common themes was reached after discussion and debate. Results: Analysis of the data resulted in the emergence of three thematic categories: Learning Environment, Educational Exchange and Communication and Modelling. The data demonstrated a concordance of the views between peer tutors and learners on barriers and levers of this approach as well as a heightened awareness of the learning environment and the educational exchange occurring therein. Conclusion: The data is significant as it not only demonstrates a high level of acceptability among tutors and learners for PAL but also indicates the reciprocity of educational exchange that appears to occur within the PAL setting. This study highlights some of the unique characteristics of PAL and we recommend the development of further qualitative studies around peer learners and tutors views of this process.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Topping, K. J. (1996) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/bf00138870 · Cited by 1,166
Cited by
Understanding the experience of being taught by peers: the value of social and cognitive congruence
Lockspeiser, T. M., O’Sullivan, P., Teherani, A., & Muller, J. (2008) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-006-9049-8 · Cited by 622
Peer feedback as an aid to learning – What do we want? Feedback. When do we want it? Now!
Cushing, A., Abbott, S., Lothian, D., Hall, A., & Westwood, O. M. R. (2011) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2011.542522 · Cited by 121
Talwalkar, J. S., Murtha, T. D., Prozora, S., Fortin, A. H., Morrison, L. J., & Ellman, M. S. (2020) · Teaching and Learning in Medicine · doi:10.1080/10401334.2019.1704763 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Glynn, L. G., MacFarlane, A., Kelly, M., Cantillon, P., & Murphy, A. W.
- Venue
- BMC Medical Education
- Published
- 2006-03-08
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 18-18
- ISSN
- 1472-6920 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1530573234
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Helping each other to learn – a process evaluation of peer assisted learning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1472-6920-6-18
- The paper
- Glynn, L. G., MacFarlane, A., Kelly, M., Cantillon, P., & Murphy, A. W. (2006). Helping each other to learn – a process evaluation of peer assisted learning. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-6-18
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.