従来，1年次基盤実習では，少数の教員による講義方式で実習指導を行ってきた．2013年度より5年生が2年生を指導し，2年生が1年生を支援・指導する，屋根瓦式教育を取り入れたピアサポート方式を導入した．本方式の確立を目指し，2013年度から2016年度まで改善を重ねてきた．本論文では，改善してきた実践結果とその効果について報告する．本方式の効果を検証するために，ピアサポート後にアンケート調査およびルーブリックの自己評価を行った．
2013年度の2年生は，支援・指導する上で事前の実習講義だけでは不十分と感じた．
2014年度より，事前学習にプレ実習，指導マニュアル，SGD，事後に5年生によるフィードバックを導入するなどの改善を重ねた．改善されたピアサポートは，2年生に実習支援する上での知識，指導方法の共有化，指導意欲，1年生に基盤実習の知識や技能，実習の面白さをもたらした．本方式は，効果的な実習方法であることが示唆された．
The model/core curriculum for pharmacology education are revised by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT)1). Based on this revise, in the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Setsunan University, one of the eight qualities that should be acquired by the time of graduation (the diploma policy)2) is “lifelong self-improvement, career development, and teaching competency.” These attributes are necessary in order to help students learn about medical progress and respond to the demands of the public as a pharmacist; pharmacists must commit to the profession, to continue to improve themselves throughout their lives, and foster the growth of the next generation. In recent years, learning has become more focused on the student; universities that establish an environment where students support other students not only in school work, but also in student life (peer support)3–5), are increasing. Moreover, peer support activities have been shown to promote the development of student communication skills, thinking skills, and most importantly, learning motivation6–8).
In 2013, our university introduced a required subject for second-year students, Career Development I9)—self-improvement/participative learning, first-year laboratory practice (qualitative and quantitative measurement of biological components), and support (hereafter, “peer support”).
Previously, the first-year basic laboratory practice at our university was administered by two or three instructors who trained about 60 first-year students using a lecture format (the left on Fig. 1). This method did not allow for one-on-one interaction with students, which hindered instructors’ careful attention to the students and evaluation of the students’ performance. For this reason, our university introduced a peer support system, where second-year students provide direct support to first-year students. Previous peer support systems have had issues and problems such as “a lack of training for supporters,”10) “difference in supporters’ knowledge and instruction methods,” and “burdens on instructors,”11) and in order to solve these problems, we adopted the peer support program (hereafter, “this program”) incorporating the “multi-layered style” education12), where fifth-year students (students doing graduation research in the lab) provide support and instruction to second-year students (the right on Fig. 1). It is expected that this program enables fifth-year students to develop their teaching ability following our university’s diploma policy.
Lecture formations of the first-year basic laboratory practice.
This paper reports on the process and results of this program conducted from 2013 to 2016.
An outline of this program is shown in Table 1. Second-year students (the students supporting first-year students in laboratory practice) supported/instructed first-year students (students enrolled in laboratory practice) in their learning (in 2013: 24 second-year students and 245 first-year students; in 2014: 25 and 222; in 2015: 28 and 215; in 2016: 27 and 210). Each second-year student was in charge of training instruction and support for 6–8 first-year students (duration: 3 days, 5 hours (13:20–18:10) per day). The training was on the following topics: Day 1: certainty and precision of measuring equipment, Day 2: isolating/qualitatively analyzing biological components, Day 3: qualitative protein analysis.
;%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.open();%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.write('<img src=%22./Graphics/2_2018-016_3.jpg%22>');%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.close();%0A%09%09) |
The fifth-year students received the pre-training (the first-year basic laboratory training) prior to the program. During the training, they provided support and instruction to the second-year students (from 2013 to 2016: three to four students). The instructors provided the pre-training to the fifth-year students. During the training, they exchanged opinions with the fifth-year students, and conducted assessment of the second-year students based on their observation record. They also provided an introductory lecture and evaluation using observation record and oral assessment for the first-year students (from 2013 to 2016: three students).
2. Survey questionnaireBetween 2013 and 2016, first- and second-year students filled out a survey questionnaire after completion of the peer support program. Questionnaire contents from second- and first-year students are shown in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively. We not only improved the peer support program the next year according to the questionnaire findings, but also added more question items. As for the questionnaire of second-year students, starting in 2014, Q2.14 to Q2.16 were added as shown in Table 2, and starting in 2015, Q2.17 to Q2.22 were added. Furthermore, starting in 2015, in order to investigate the ways in which first-year students interacted with second-year students, questions Q1.4 to Q1.11 were added, as shown in Table 3. The survey completion percentages of the questionnaire were as follows: 92% of second-year students and 99% of first-year students in 2013; 83% and 99% in 2014; 92% and 96% in 2015, and 96% and 99% in 2016. To inspect the improvement effect, the results of the questionnaire survey between the current year and the previous year were compared.
;%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.open();%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.write('<img src=%22./Graphics/2_2018-016_4.jpg%22>');%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.close();%0A%09%09) |
A significant difference estimated by Fisher’s exact test (* p < 0.05, **,## p < 0.01).
;%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.open();%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.write('<img src=%22./Graphics/2_2018-016_5.jpg%22>');%0A%09%09%09newWindow.document.close();%0A%09%09) |
A significant difference estimated by Fisher’s exact test (* p < 0.05, **,## p < 0.01).
In 2014 and 2015, self-evaluation using the rubric prepared in 2014 was conducted on the second-year students after completion of the peer support program (Fig. 2). In 2016, self-evaluation using the rubric prepared in 2016 was conducted before and after the peer support program (Fig. 2). The response rate was 83% in 2014, 92% in 2015, and 96% in 2016.
Rubrics for peer support program from 2014 to 2016.
After the conclusion of the peer support program, Fisher’s exact test was conducted for the data collected through the questionnaires filled out by first- and second-year students. A significance level of 5% was used to determine statistical significance.
5. Ethical considerationsStatistical processing of the completed questionnaires for research purposes was conducted with care given to keeping the personal information of the participating students private. It was explained verbally and in writing to the participating students that the results of the survey may be presented at an academic conference and in a research article, and the researchers obtained student consent.
The questionnaire results of second-year students and first-year students after peer support are shown in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively. Results of self-evaluation using a rubric conducted after peer support are shown in Table 4.
| 2014, 2015 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion\Level | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |||
| A. Attitude to tackle basic practical training | 2014 | (post) | n = 20 | 14 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | (post) | n = 26 | 12 | 11 | 3 | 0 | 0 | |
| B. Creativity and ingenuity | 2014 | (post) | n = 20 | 6 | 11 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | (post) | n = 26 | 2 | 16 | 7 | 1 | 0 | |
| C. Problem-solving skills | 2014 | (post) | n = 20 | 3 | 10 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | (post) | n = 26 | 1 | 12 | 10 | 3 | 0 | |
| D. Community formation | 2014 | (post) | n = 20 | 7 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | (post) | n = 26 | 1 | 15 | 9 | 1 | 0 | |
| 2016 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion\Level | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |||
| A. Self-learning/ information gathering and assessment | 2016 | (pre) | n = 26 | 0 | 1 | 11 | 7 | 7 |
| (post) | n = 26 | 0 | 8 | 16 | 2 | 0 | ||
| B. Education skills | 2016 | (pre) | n = 26 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 14 |
| (post) | n = 26 | 0 | 9 | 16 | 1 | 0 | ||
| C. Creativity and ingenuity | 2016 | (pre) | n = 26 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 5 | 11 |
| (post) | n = 26 | 1 | 13 | 12 | 0 | 0 | ||
| D. Problem-solving skills | 2016 | (pre) | n = 26 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 6 | 10 |
| (post) | n = 26 | 0 | 6 | 17 | 3 | 0 | ||
| E. Community formation | 2016 | (pre) | n = 26 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 6 | 9 |
| (post) | n = 26 | 3 | 12 | 11 | 0 | 0 | ||
As shown in Table 1, in 2013, the second-year students participated in a training lecture to help with training support before beginning the peer support sessions. This lecture was conducted by one instructor for 24 second-year students.
More than 80% of first-year students answered that “Second-year students’ involvement brought about good results (Q1.3).” And more than 80% of the students providing peer support in 2013 gave affirmative answers regarding the following descriptors: “I participated with positive feelings (Q2.1),” “I proactively engaged with first-year students (Q2.2).” However, in terms of self-directed study, only about 30% of second-year students answered that “I studied enough by myself beforehand to prepare for the supplemental instruction (Q2.12).” Moreover, sentiments such as “I would like to be taught about how to use the instruments and what to watch out for before training begins,” and “I would like training with only second-year students before conducting training support in order to find points for improvement” were expressed in the written questionnaire.
2. Results in 2014We improved this program in 2014 from the questionnaire results of 2013 received from the second-year students and first-year students. Starting in 2014, in addition to taking a training lecture, studying and pre-training (first-year basic training) were carried out in accordance with a teaching manual. Prior learnings were conducted in one day for a total of about six hours. These were conducted by three fifth-year students and one instructor for 25 second-year students. Furthermore, a rubric13–16) was introduced, which outlined performance standards (Fig. 2). As post learning, self-evaluation using a rubric was performed after implementing peer support. The rubric prepared in 2014 included Criterion A: “Attitude toward basic laboratory training,” Criterion B: “Creativity and ingenuity,” Criterion C: “Problem-solving skills,” and Criterion D: “Community building,” and included five levels scoring from 0 to 4. The teaching manual is a booklet that the fifth-year students prepared. The pre-training is a set of all the experiment operations conducted over three days in the first-year basic laboratory training.
In 2014, as a result of this improvement, 90% of second-year students answered that “I studied enough by myself beforehand to prepare for the supplemental instruction (Q2.12),” and “I would like to participate in the instruction of first-year students again as a senior student if there is another opportunity (Q2.13),” and they showed significantly high values compared to 2013 (p = 0.00046 and p = 0.00155 respectively). Moreover, the proportion of second-year students who said that they thought supplemental instruction by second-year students was necessary for first-year students (Q2.10); that they studied on their own beforehand (Q2.11); increased from about 60% in 2013 to almost 100% in 2014. For the introduced pre-training, all the second-year students gave positive answers (Q2.14). In the self-evaluation using a rubric conducted after peer support (Table 4), every student chose Level 3 or higher in Criterion A and Criterion D, and Level 2 or higher in Criterion B and Criterion C.
On the other hand, more than 80% of first-year students receiving peer support evaluated second-year student participation (Q1.3). The proportion of first-year students who thought that the training was burdensome (Q1.2) decreased from about 50% in 2013 to 35% in 2014, and a difference that was more meaningful than in 2013 was observed (p = 0.00088).
3. Results in 2015From 2015, the second-year students held small group discussions before peer support sessions and studied subjects related to the questions that the first-year students were likely to ask. After every peer support session, they received feedback of formative assessment from the fifth-year students. The issues were handed out before the SGD. The issues included the difference between accuracy and precision, the calculation of protein concentration obtained from the calibration curve, and mistakes in experiment operations, and they were prepared by the fifth-year students. On these issues, a SGD was conducted in a group of seven. Prior learning was conducted in one day for a total of about six hours. This was conducted by four fifth-year students and two instructors for 28 second-year students.
In 2015, about 80–90% of second-year students evaluated the preliminary discussions and feedback from fifth-year students highly (Q2.17–20). Furthermore, more than 80% of second-year students gave positive answers to the questions Q2.10 to Q2.13. In comparison with 2014, the number of second-year students, who thought peer support meaningful and thought the pre-training useful, was decreased (Q2.7, 14). In 2015, the level of self-evaluation results fell (Table 4).
Meanwhile, about 90% of first-year students appreciated the participation of the second-year students (Q1.3). More than 90% of the first-year students interacted with the second-year students by having them distribute instruments, explain procedures, and answer questions about mathematics, knowledge, or technical matters (Q1.5). Furthermore, more than 80% of first-year students rated “Instructions/explanations were easy to understand (Q1.6)” about second-year students favorably. The proportion of students whose impression of the training was that it was “interesting (Q1.1)” was about 60% in 2014, and it rose to about 80% in 2015. A comparison of 2014 to the later years of the program shows a high significance (p = 0.00001).
4. Results in 2016In 2016, in order to make the goal of peer support more concrete, the rubric was revised (Fig. 2). The rubric Criterion A: “Attitude toward basic laboratory training,” which was set in 2014, was removed, and Criterion A: “Self-learning/information gathering and assessment” and Criterion B: “Teaching ability” were newly added. The descriptions of Criterion C: “Creativity and ingenuity,” Criterion D: “Problem-solving skills,” and Criterion E: “Community building” were changed. In addition, self-evaluation using the rubric was performed before and after the peer support program in order to measure the growth. Prior learning was conducted in one day for a total of about six hours. This was conducted by four fifth-year students and two instructors for 27 second-year students.
All the second-year students gave positive answers about the pre-training (Q2.14). They showed significantly high values than 2015 (p = 0.00009). In all the criteria A–E, the self-evaluation values after peer support were increased, compared with those before peer support (Table 4).
In 2016, the evaluation of second-year students’ participation by first-year students was higher than in 2015. Second-year students’ instructions /explanations were rated especially favorably (Q1.6) in 2015.
Aiming to establish the peer support program incorporating the “multi-layered style” education (this program), we have made improvements every year since 2013. According to the results of a questionnaire survey and self-evaluation using a rubric, this program had a clear effect on the second-year students who performed peer support and the first-year students who received peer support.
In 2013, most second-year students had positive feelings about the program, and they interacted positively with the first-year students. However, many second-year students felt that they were not sufficiently prepared after receiving only a training lecture, prior to the program.
It is believed that the peer support program incorporating a pre-training, a teaching manual, a SGD on the issues prior to the program, and feedback from the fifth-year students helped the second-year students acquire knowledge, skills and motivation for peer support. Furthermore, it is considered that the peer support program, in which the fifth-year students participated, promoted the sharing of the second-year students’ knowledge and instruction methods and brought the second-year students enthusiasm for peer support.
In 2013, the first-year students felt dissatisfied with the lack of knowledge and teaching skills of the second-year students. However, since 2014, the implementation of pre-training, prior discussions, and fifth-year students’ feedback to the peer support program was thought to have helped many second-year students to develop a better understanding of the content and teaching skills necessary to assist the first-year students in the laboratory practice. It was also thought to have lightened the burden of the training, helped the students to enjoy the training, acquire knowledge and skills, and think in an exploratory and theoretical way.
The results presented above suggest that this program promoted the sharing of the supporting participants’ knowledge and instruction methods and brought the supporting participants enthusiasm for peer support. And it helped the participants receiving the support enjoy the training, acquire knowledge and skills.
The peer support program incurs a high degree of satisfaction and improves learning outcomes for both the support providers and receivers. From the above results, it was suggested that this program is an effective training method. In the future, we would like to enrich this program further by applying self-evaluation using the rubric to the first-year students.
No funds or grants were received for this research and there are no conflicts of interest to declare.
