Near-Peer Teaching and Exam Results: The Acceptability, Impact, and Assessment Outcomes of a Novel Biological Sciences Revision Programme Taught by Senior Medical Students
Table 2
Analysis of free text comments received on student evaluation forms.
Type of comment
Overwhelmingly positive/noncritical
Neutral/mixed
Overwhelmingly negative/critical
Total number of comments
41/98 (42%)
41/98 (42%)
16/98 (16%)
Example 1 [sic]
“Lots of time to ask questions well explained.”
“A lot of information that i didn't know, not suggesting that teaching was bad.”
“Too much to fit into given time. Maybe longer session or split into two.”
Example 2 [sic]
“Made me realise how to focus my revision and what to focus on”
“Allow fewer Questions to be asked.”
“Too long, hard to concentrate. Maybe have some sessions aimed at confident people and have some aimed at people who haven't got a clue”
Example 3 [sic]
“Really helpful + patient. Thanks”
“Have these sessions all year round.”
“A bit fast”
Example 4 [sic]
“Excellent, on previous forms i made clear that my confidence levels decreased. This is only because it was made clear how much i do not know.”
“It would be good if the bigger diagrams were printed on separate papers so that they were longer & cleaner.”
“Found it hard to follow because a lot of knowledge was assumed to already be known.”
Example 5 [sic]
“Brilliant!:) Good job”
“When asking audience questions repeat the response of the person answering, the whole lecture theatre cannot hear everything the lecturer can without a microphone”
