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* |