Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 191

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 access
Glynn, Liam G, MacFarlane, Anne, Kelly, Maureen, Cantillon, Peter, Murphy, Andrew W·2006·BMC Medical Education

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1472-6920-6-18

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 191

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.