Skip to main content

Table 2 Self-reported strengths and weaknesses of PAL: a comparison between first year (n-162) and final year (n-122) students

From: Peer assisted learning among Sri Lankan medical undergraduates: a cross sectional study

  Second year (%) Final year (%) Chi square value
Strengths
 Preference for small group learning 116 (75.3%) 72 (62.1%) 5.498
 Room to clarify doubts 118 (76.6%) 74 (63.8%) 5.302
 Convenient, flexible schedule 59 (38.3%) 48 (41.4%) 0.260
 Easier to concentrate 84 (54.5%) 67 (57.8%) 1.701
 Use of native language 95 (61.7%) 65 (56%) 0.876
 Help with exam preparation 132 (85.7%) 101 (87.1%) 0.103
 Easy to understand peer teaching 99 (64.3%) 60 (51.7%) 4.313
 Supplements formal teaching 114 (74%) 79 (68.1%) 1.139
 Non-threatening environment 118 (76.6%) 89 (76.6%) 0.000
 Summarizes important points 119 (77.3%) 94 (81%) 0.562
 Providing in-depth knowledge of the subject area 116 (75.3%) 102 (87.9%) 6.762*
Weaknesses
 Reliability of content 62 (40.8%) 39 (33.6%) 1.648
 Facts being unaccepted in examinations 63 (41.7%) 43 (37.1%) 1.028
 Promotion of exam oriented learning 70 (46.4%) 51 (44%) 0.585
 Irrelevant content 51 (33.6%) 15 (13%) 14.831*
  1. Strengths and weaknesses of PAL activities as indicated by the students with percentages presented in table
  2. * p < 0.05