Fig. 1
Interaction effect between the training approach and students’ course-specific prior knowledge
Table 1
Two conceptualised training approaches
|
Directive approach |
Facilitative approach | |
|---|---|---|
|
The peer trainer | ||
|
Starting the session |
Demonstrates the course content and objectives |
Asks a student to demonstrate the course content and objectives |
|
Spontaneous trainer actions, including sharing trainer’s own experiences |
Gives (extra) information concerning the course content and/or shares his own experiences to deepen understanding |
Questions and challenges students concerning the course content and/or his own experiences to deepen understanding |
|
Reaction to students’ questions |
Answers questions and insecurities with clear-cut answers |
Answers questions and insecurities with questions, hints and/or prompts |
|
Feedback |
Gives specific and immediate feedback |
Asks students to provide feedback themselves and/or their peers, supported by asking guiding questions |
|
Closing the session |
Summarizes the course content, points out important aspects, misconceptions, and/or the mistakes made by students at the end of the session |
Asks students to summarise the course content at the end of the session by pointing out one or more things they have learned during the session |
Table 2
Items and factor loadings of the two factor solution extracted from the exploratory factor analysis on the questionnaire concerning students’ perceptions of the training sessions
|
Items | |
|---|---|
|
Factor 1 (α = 0.91) |
Factor 2 (α = 0.88) |
|
I experienced the support from the peer trainers as being of a high-quality (0.80) |
The training sessions have prompted me to think for myself about the skills and the reasons behind these skills (0.72) |
|
I am satisfied with the support received from the peer trainers during the training sessions (0.78) |
I think that I learned a lot about the rationale behind certain skills and techniques (0.66) |
|
My peer trainers were extremely good in explaining things to us (0.77) |
The training sessions have stimulated me to think more critically about my own actions as a doctor when executing skills (0.66) |
|
I would rather have had a different type of training (−0.66) |
The training of the peer trainers has stimulated me to think about the rationale behind certain skills and techniques (0.64) |
|
I think that the peer tutors prepared me well for the OSCE (0.65) |
The peer trainers stimulated me to rethink my understanding of some aspects of the subject (0.60) |
|
I enjoyed the training of the peer trainers (0.61) |
The training sessions stimulated me to ask questions and to express concerns about the course (0.59) |
|
After finishing these training sessions, I feel well prepared for the OSCE (0.61) |
The training sessions have stimulated me to adopt a critical attitude as regards the skills to be learned (0.59) |
|
The peer trainers did their best to make the course content as interesting as possible (0.60) |
The training sessions have stimulated my interest for these skills (0.59) |
|
The peer trainers gave useful feedback on how I was progressing (0.59) |
The training sessions have stimulated me to think about my learning process, and more especially about how well I was learning and what still needed to improve (0.54) |
|
I learned a lot from the training sessions (0.59) |
Throughout the training sessions I learned the relevance of the course content to be learned (0.48) |
|
The training sessions added to a better preparation for the OSCE (0.58) |
The training sessions really tried to get the best out of all students (0.48) |
|
I think that I learned a lot about the skills and related techniques (0.58) |
The training sessions were enjoyable (0.43) |
|
My self-confidence concerning the skills to be acquired has grown due to the training sessions (0.44) | |
|
The peer trainers’ training approach allowed me to ask questions more easily (0.44) | |
|
The training sessions have given me a good overview of the skills (0.44) | |
|
The peer trainers spent a lot of time giving feedback on our progress (0.44) | |
Table 3
Students’ likes and dislikes about the training sessions (reference coding)
|
Directive trained students |
% |
Facilitative trained students |
% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Likes |
Opportunity to practice |
24.15 |
Opportunity to practice |
18.58 |
|
Peer trainers: friendly, helpful, motivated, easily accessible, ‘hands-on’ experts, and well prepared |
19.28 |
Being stimulated to adopt a critical attitude towards the course and deep-level learning |
10.62 | |
|
Clear explanations and clarifications |
12.34 |
Being stimulated to think further for myself |
9.07 | |
|
Good atmosphere during the training sessions |
7.71 |
Peer trainers: friendly, helpful, motivated |
8.85 | |
|
Possibility to ask questions |
6.17 |
Clear explanations and extra info of which students were unaware |
6.86 | |
|
Questioning strategies |
5.53 | |||
|
Dislikes |
Peer trainers: expertise and knowledge, and inter-individual differences |
11.02 |
Questioning and prompting of peer trainers |
21.22 |
|
Contradictions among peer trainers, within syllabus, and/or between syllabus and peer trainers. |
7.99 |
Lack of (uniform) explanations and information |
8.82 | |
|
Quality of syllabus |
8.26 |
Quality of syllabus |
6.09 | |
|
Infrastructure |
7.16 |
Frustration/irritation |
5.46 | |
|
Timing of sessions |
6.06 |
Limited practice time |
5.25 | |
|
Quality of information and clarifications |
5.79 |
Peer trainers: expertise and knowledge, and inter-individual differences |
5.25 |