Assisted Learning Disadvantages

2.3 Disadvantages of Peer Assisted Learning

Even so there were a lot of benefits and advantages of peer assisted learning (PAL), the greatest limitation of PAL which is knowledge transfer have been reported by Glynn et al. (2006). In 2008, a study among medical students conducted by Hudson & Tonkin found that the peer leaders unable to provide clinical experience as doctors. Some of the peer leaders left many unanswered questions (Knobe et al. 2010) and there was a potential that the information conveyed were incorrect (Sole et al, 2012).

Other disadvantages of implementing PAL in HE were competition to other education demands, thus it is difficult to convince others the value of PAL not to mention to recruit others to involve in PAL (Soriano

(2010), a peer leader teaches a group of 6 -14 peer learner. In evaluation of effectiveness of teaching given by junior doctors, Rashid et al. (2011) designed and developed a neer peer teaching program in which a 25 final year medical students attend a seminar delivered by recent medical graduates. The lecture was more similar to traditional teaching method which normally involve one way communications. In PAL, the lecture given by the peer leader who were smaller age distance and same education or experiential level. The lecture teaching method increased the peer leader to peer learner ratio which might reduce the effetiveness of PAL in higher education.

The role-play had been applied in medical students when 5th year student act as a peer leader while 2nd year students act as peer learner (Glynn et al. 2006). In previous study by Iwasiw & Goldenberg (1993), the 2nd year nursing students in experimental group could interchange role between peer leader and peer learner. Similarly to a study conducted by Tolsgaard et al. (2015) which compared dyad and single practice during ultrasound simulation in medical students. Role-play provide 1:1 session that is suitable for clinical

Student assessed teachers competency, subjective evaluation of self competency and the evaluation of PAL system using items rated on 5-point Likert scale (5 = agree, 1 = disagree) (Knobe et al. 2010). Later in 2011, Rashid et al. used 5-point Likert questionnaire which consisted of 4 sections: pre-course questions, lecture and small group seminar feedback, free text comments and post-course feedback. While 6-point Likert scale(1 = completely agree, 6 = completely disagree) questionnaire had been used in skill lab evaluation by the students (Nikendei et al. 2014). The validity and reliabity of the questionnaire have not been reported in these studies. Iwasiw & Goldenberg (1993) and Henning et al. (2006) used a Clinical Teaching Experience Questionnaire (CTPQ) to evaluate students’ (peer learner) perception about PAL in clinical teaching. The CTPQ was a 10-item questionnaire which rate from a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. In 2011, McKenna & French investigated effectiveness of PAL in undergraduate nursing student by using the CTPQ and another questionnaire named Peer Teaching Experience Questionnaire (PTEQ) that consist of 14-statement. The authors adapted the PTEQ from Iwasiw & Goldenberg (1993) to evaluate the experience of students as the peer leader. PTEQ had adequate reliability among undergraduate nursing students (William et al. 2013) whereas CTPQ William &