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