Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
Email this article 
Post a Comment 
Hide
Show all
Multiple Benefits Derived from a Peer Teacher Program in Two Undergraduate Microbiology Lab Courses
Frances C. Sailer *, Roger W. Melvold , Charles C. Hosford
Department of Microbiology/Immunology, University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Grand Forks, ND 58202.A peer teaching program was implemented to alleviate the problem of a limited number of lab instructors attempting to teach large numbers of students in two different undergraduate microbiology lab courses. The benefit of having peer teachers was immediately obvious to the lab instructors, faculty and staff who were responsible for conducting the labs, but it was soon evident that there were also benefits for everyone else involved in the program. The students enrolled in the labs reported that having peer teachers in the lab enhanced their learning, and they felt comfortable receiving help from a peer teacher who had recently completed the course. The peer teachers discovered that they gained valuable experience and confidence while teaching other students, and they appreciated the chance to gain hands-on experience. The lab instructors received the qualified help they needed in order to give more individual attention to the large numbers of students in the labs. The feedback from this program has been positive from everyone involved.
INTRODUCTION
Teaching undergraduate microbiology labs has always been challenging for many reasons. Students taking the course have varying amounts of prior lab experience, with some having little or no experience. Microbiology is a course taken by students with a wide variety of majors including biology, nursing, premed and other health majors, so demand for the course is high. Each microbiology lab is limited to 24 students due to space constraints, and almost all labs are full. Teaching microbiology lab is labor-intensive, and attempting to help so many students with varying backgrounds in a limited amount of time presents an enormous challenge for lab instructors. Could implementation of a peer teaching program be the solution? If so, could a high quality peer teaching program be established with a minimal time commitment from faculty and staff?
Various versions of peer teaching programs have been employed with success in many different disciplines including anatomy, chemistry, nursing and medical education (1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9) . Our peer teaching program pairs a peer teacher with a graduate teaching assistant or a lab instructor, so the peer teacher is not teaching a lab independently. Our peer teachers must have completed one of our undergraduate microbiology lecture and lab courses before becoming a peer teacher. We use the term “peer teacher” to describe our program even though the peer teachers have completed the course while the students they are teaching have not. Other authors may use the term “near-peer” to describe teaching by more experienced students (3) , but in this paper we use the term “peer teacher” as we have described. All students involved are undergraduates, and the peer teachers are sometimes only one semester ahead of the students they are teaching.
There are several reasons that students value having a peer teacher. Students who are confused are more likely to ask a peer than a faculty member for help. Interaction with a peer is more likely to result in a discussion of the topic rather than a passive role by the student merely listening to a faculty member. Interaction between a student and a peer teacher strengthens cognitive and interpersonal skills and gives the student an opportunity to clear up any confusion in a nonthreatening setting (7) . In one study of first-year medical students having second-year medical students as peer teachers (6) , the first-year students appreciated being taught by someone who had recent experience learning the material and had an understanding of the struggles of medical school. In this same study students commented that their peer teachers, unlike some expert faculty, were good cognitive matches for them and could focus on teaching basic concepts. In addition, it was reassuring for first-year students to interact with students who had made it through the first year and could give them advice.
Previous studies have also addressed the benefits that peer teachers derive from the experience of teaching. As a result of peer teaching, they enhance their own learning and gain experience teaching. In a study using second-year physical therapy students to teach gross anatomy to first-year physical therapy students, the second-year students reported multiple benefits from peer teaching. They accrued teaching experience, deepened their understanding of the subject, assembled meaningful learning materials and strengthened their time-management skills (10) .
METHODS
The peer teacher program
The peer teacher program was started spring semester of 2004 and continues to this date. There have been 36 peer teachers over the past six-year period. In order to evaluate the peer teaching program from the standpoint of the students, surveys were conducted over a two-year period from 2006–2007 while the program was new. The purpose of the survey was to determine whether or not students were receiving benefit from the program, which would determine whether or not the program would be continued. In accordance with our University’s Institutional Review Board, students taking both the 200-level (Introduction to Medical Microbiology) and 300-level (General Microbiology) lab courses were surveyed and were asked to respond to the statement “having a peer teacher in lab was beneficial to my learning.”
Recruitment of peer teachers
Peer teachers are recruited in microbiology lecture by announcing the opportunity to peer teach in subsequent semesters. Students who have excelled in the microbiology lecture and lab are encouraged to apply. Students, who range from sophomore to seniors, are selected based on their academic strength and by a recommendation from their lab instructor. Potential candidates must demonstrate strong communication skills and confidence in their ability to relay knowledge, which is verified by an interview, as well as an assessment by the lab instructor who taught them previously. Peer teachers assist with the two different undergraduate microbiology lab courses taught at our institution, a 200-level course, Introduction to Medical Microbiology, taught each fall semester, and a 300-level course, General Microbiology, taught each spring semester. The subjects taught in lab are very similar for both courses, so students who have taken one of these courses have the background needed to peer teach in either microbiology lab.
Training of peer teachers
Peer teachers must attend an orientation/training session the first week of the semester, which includes meeting the staff, learning the locations of emergency and safety items and practicing the fire escape route. They spend time in the lab learning the general operation of the lab and the location of supplies. They are given a chance to practice any techniques and work with any media or equipment that will be used in lab. Training of peer teachers continues throughout the semester and includes “behind the scenes training” in preparing media, using the autoclave and setting up labs. Classroom training using various technologies for teaching, in addition to lab training sessions, prepares them for proficiency in teaching labs. Peer teachers are given the opportunity to tour the research labs and meet the professors conducting various types of research. These extra activities are scheduled during lab exams so they do not miss any labs.
Limitations set for peer teachers
Peer teachers do not have any responsibilities in writing or proctoring exams or grading or disciplining students as these could place them in a conflicted position with their peers. Although this has never been a problem, peer teachers are assured that if any student ever makes them uncomfortable for any reason, the peer teacher will be assigned to a different lab immediately.
Responsibilities of peer teachers
At the beginning of the semester, peer teachers receive a document stating the responsibilities and grading criteria listed in Table 1. The peer teaching course is a directed study 400-level course, and students receive three semester credits upon successful completion. In order to pass the course, all peer teachers must fulfill the objective of helping students because that is the main purpose of the program.
TABLE 1
.
Responsibilities and grading criteria for peer teachers.
Evaluation of the peer teaching program
Peer teachers are informed before they begin the program that our peer teaching program is a dynamic evolving program and that their evaluation of the program is vital to improving it. The peer teachers are asked to fill out a survey at the midterm and at the end of the semester (Table 2). Students are asked to be open and honest on the surveys, and it is made clear to them that the responses to the survey will in no way affect their grade or any future relationship with the Microbiology and Immunology Department.
Table 2
.
Evaluation of peer teaching program by peer teachers.
RESULTS
There were 57 and 80 students surveyed at the completion of the 200-level microbiology course fall semesters of 2006 and 2007, respectively (Fig. 1). There were 35 and 47 students surveyed at the completion of the 300-level microbiology course in spring semesters of 2007 and 2008, respectively (Fig. 2). The mean for each semester was calculated by using the following scale: Strongly Agree = 5, Agree = 4, Neutral = 3, Disagree = 2, and Strongly Disagree = 1. The means for the 200-level course, Introduction to Medical Microbiology, for fall semesters of 2006 and 2007 were 4.25 and 3.91, respectively. The means for the 300-level course, General Microbiology, for spring semesters of 2007 and 2008 were 4.20 and 4.26, respectively. In both courses, a clear majority of students strongly agreed or agreed (compared to all other responses combined) that having a peer teacher in lab was beneficial to their learning. In the Introduction to Medical Microbiology course, the majority was significant in 2006, χ2 (1, n = 57) = 36.03, p < .001, and also in 2007, χ2 (1, n = 80) = 27.55, p < .001. Similarly, in the General Microbiology course, the majority was significant in 2007, χ2 (1, n = 35) = 23.33, p < .001, and also in 2008, χ2 (1, n = 47) = 43.69, p < .001. For both undergraduate classes over the two-year period, there were an appreciable number of students who gave a neutral response (12.8%–26.3%). Students with more lab experience may have given a neutral response because they did not utilize the peer teacher. Presumably these students would not feel they benefited from having a peer teacher available but would remain neutral. Because overall the responses in the surveys were so highly favorable, the peer teaching program has been continued to date.
|
|
||
|
FIGURE 1 . Introduction to Medical Microbiology. Student responses to the statement, “Having a peer teacher in lab was beneficial to my learning.” |
||
|
|
||
|
FIGURE 2 . General Microbiology. Student responses to the statement, “Having a peer teacher in lab was beneficial to my learning.” |
||
The performance of the peer teachers has been excellent, with each of the 36 peer teachers to date fulfilling all the responsibilities and criteria required for a grade of “A”. Every peer teacher has completed two evaluations, one at midterm and one at the end of the semester (Table 2). Evaluations submitted by the peer teachers have been extremely positive with 100% (n = 36) of peer teachers giving positive responses in both their midterm and final evaluations. The most common responses to the portion of the survey, “please state the benefits you feel you gained from this experience” fell into three major categories: (1) gained various teaching skills, (2) gained career relevant skills, and (3) gained personal attributes such as confidence, patience and communication skills. The results of the survey are summarized in Table 3.
TABLE 3
.
Responses given by peer teachers to the portion of the midterm and final surveys asking them to “please state the benefits you felt you gained from this experience”. The responses were free text so similar responses have been grouped and paraphrased. Most peer teachers gave multiple responses and all have been included.
DISCUSSION
There were many factors to consider in establishing a peer teaching program for the microbiology labs. Should college credit be offered for this program? What criteria would be used in the selection and evaluation of peer teachers? How many peer teachers would be optimal for a lab of 24 students? What pitfalls would need to be avoided? What restrictions or limitations needed to be in place in order to avoid conflict of interest situations if a peer teacher ended up in a lab teaching a student who was someone they knew on a personal level? What safeguards needed to be in place to prevent the peer teachers from being used as free labor?
Implementation of the program ended up being easier than originally thought. Our institution offered a small grant intended to launch peer teaching programs in various departments and our department received one of them. The money was intended to pay a small stipend for peer teachers for one semester. There was a second option of offering college credit instead of the stipend. Some applicants for peer teaching preferred the small stipend, while others wanted the college credit. After the first semester, the grant was no longer available, so the only option given to the peer teachers was three semester hour credits. The time required to conduct the orientation/training session for the peer teachers is also minimal due to the fact that they recently took the course. Only one peer teacher is placed in each lab at the beginning of the semester with the understanding that if any lab has students requiring more intensive assistance while another lab has more advanced students requiring little help, a second peer teacher may be shifted to the lab where they are needed. To avoid the possible pitfalls, the peer teachers were given no responsibilities in writing, proctoring or grading exams or quizzes. Lab instructors were required to be present for all labs except in emergencies, so the peer teachers would not be used as a substitute for experienced lab instructors. In order to insure that the peer teachers were treated fairly, they were given no responsibilities outside the scheduled lab times except for those clearly outlined in the handout they received at the beginning of the semester.
Students wanting to be peer teachers but unable to participate due to scheduling conflicts could come back a year later and peer teach when their schedule permitted. Waiting a year did not adversely affect their ability to peer teach. There have been semesters when there were not enough peer teachers to place one per lab, so one peer teacher has been required to split his/her time between two adjoining labs. This has also worked out well.
Unexpected benefits of this program included the additional attention our peer teachers could give to students with special needs and students who had to miss a lab. In the past, it was always a problem for the lab instructor to help students catch up after missing a lab, especially when the missed lab involved techniques and information needed for the subsequent labs. Now the peer teacher could be assigned the task of helping the student catch up, freeing the lab instructor to help all the other students. Peer teachers were also valuable in operating the technology in the labs such as computerized images, video clips, PowerPoint slide shows, etc. Another unexpected benefit has been the interest expressed by peer teachers in becoming graduate students in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology.
CONCLUSION
The goal of the peer teaching program was to enhance the learning experience for the large number of students taking undergraduate microbiology labs. The peer teaching program has definitely met this goal and has been a great success story. Everyone, including students enrolled in lab, lab instructors and the peer teachers themselves, has reported benefitting from this program. It is not often that a program requiring so few resources yields so many benefits for everyone involved.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the Office of Instructional Development at the University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND for the grant entitled “Advanced Peer Teaching: Students Teaching Other Students Model Project”.
REFERENCES
1
.
Arrington, C.A., J.B. Hill, R. Radfar, D.M. Whisnant, and C.G. Bass
. 2008. Peer mentoring in the general chemistry and organic chemistry laboratories. J. Chem. Educ.
85:
288–290.
2
.
Bensfield, L., P.A. Solari-Twadell, and S. Sommer
. 2008. The use of peer leadership to teach fundamental nursing skills. Nurs. Educ.
33:
155–158.
3
.
Bulte, C., A. Betts, K. Garner, and S. Durning.
2007. Student teaching: views of student near-peer teachers and learners. Med. Teach.
29:
583–590.
4
.
Evans, D.J. and T. Cuffe
. 2009. Near-peer teaching in anatomy: an approach for deeper learning. Anat. Sci. Educ.
2:
227–233.
5
.
Glynn, L.G., A. MacFarlane, M. Kelly, P. Cantillon, and A.W. Murphy.
2006. Helping each other to learn – a process evaluation of peer assisted learning. BMC Med. Educ.
6.
Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/6/18
6
.
Lockspeiser T.M., P. O’Sullivan, A. Teherani, and J. Muller
, 2008. Understanding the experience of being taught by peers: the value of social and cognitive congruence. Adv. Health Sci. Educ.
13:
361–372.
7 . McKeachie, W.J . 1994. Laboratory teaching: teaching students to think like scientists, p. 149. In Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers, 9 th ed. D. C. Heath and Company, Lexington, MA.
8
.
J. Secomb.
2008. A systematic review of peer teaching and learning in clinical education. J. Clin. Nurs.
17:
703–716.
9
.
Weyrich, P., N. Celebi, M. Schrauth, A. Moltner, M. Lammerding-Koppel, and C. Nikendei.
2009. Peer-assisted versus faculty staff-led skills laboratory training: a randomized controlled trial. Med. Educ.
43
:113–120.
10
.
Youdas, J.W., B.L Hoffarth, S.R. Kohlewy, C.M. Kramer, and J.L. Petro.
2008. Peer teaching among physical therapy students during human gross anatomy: perceptions of peer teachers and students. Anat. Sci. Educ.
1:
199–206.
*Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences, 501 North Columbia Road Stop 9037, Grand Forks, ND 58202. Phone: 701-777-4034. Fax: 701-777-2054. E-mail: frances.sailer@med.und.edu .
DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.v11i2.190
Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
, December
2010
Copyright © 2010 American Society for Microbiology
. All Rights Reserved
JMBE
ISSN: 1935-7885