DECLARACIÓN DE CABALLOS PARA SU ENTRENAMIENTO

Medicine, according to Lifshitz (2017), is learned according to some precepts such as learning by doing, students with a motivation based on responsibility, activities performed under supervision and advice linking these activities to theory and practice within an academic environment. According to these precepts, research is mandatory as an educational strategy. All these components are part of a strategy with significant results on residents’ teaching experience. It is in these moments that teaching process must be strengthened and become more significant to guarantee the training of excellence in medicine, and this could be promoted with mentoring. It is important to distinguish between two moments in the medical student's education: preclinical studies and years of clinical studies themselves. Preclinical studies are the student's first approach to medicine; during this time, in addition to the lessons taught, the behaviour, extra verbal language and attitudes of the medical teacher become important, therefore, the role model, could have both positive and negative influence on learning. During clinical studies years, the student has greater contact with patients and their own aptitudes and attitudes are

53

better glimpsed; at this stage role models and mentors would be important, as they would help medical students to better define the work area they would chose in their future professional life (Denton & Hemmer, 2010). Is in this point that the need of a method where one student instructs another student in a topic which the first is an expert and the second is a novice, arises. This method is known as Peer Teaching Method which was explained in my previous chapter and consist in a strategy that can be defined as the development of skills and knowledge through the support and help of people of the same social group (Ross & Cameron, 2007). In a study undertaken by Marton, et al. (2015), three databases were searched for articles meeting a set of predetermined criteria in order to make a review of teaching skills development programmes for medical students. The inclusion criteria were that all participants must be medical students, must have acquired teaching experience or teaching skills and the study must have had as a primary goal an investigation of the impacts of the study intervention on participant’s teaching skills or abilities. 390 potentially relevant articles Were retrieved by Marton and colleagues, of which seventy-five were considered relevant to the project’s goals and twenty fulfilled the predetermined criteria. As a result of this investigation, three types of initiative were identified: Peer Teaching Programmes, Teaching Workshops, and Community Outreach Programmes. Self-perceived improvements in teaching skills were noted by participants in most of the reports. Also, there was a perception of increase in organisational skills, knowledge and confidence in giving feedback. Some authors argue that Peer Teaching nomenclature is currently not consistent and different terms are used in literature (Olaussen, et al., 2016); (Linderman, et al., 2018). For instance Cross Level Teaching is used when teacher and learner are at different educational levels, Near Peer Teaching (NPT) is defined as teaching in which “student teacher” and “student learner” are at the same educational level but separated by one or more years of training, finally Reciprocal Peer Teaching (RPT) is defined as peer teaching in which “student teacher” and “student learner” are in the same year of training and the roles of teacher and learner are regularly rotated or interchange

54

among participants (Marton, et al., 2015). On the other hand, mentoring is traditionally associated with a "vertical" relationship between a person of greater knowledge and one in a learning process. By this, mentors are historically understood as those teachers or doctors already graduated, and most of the time they are specialists. However, a "horizontal" mode - symmetric or peer-to-peer is also possible in which both mentors are in similar situations, one of the mentors can be a student of higher years who meets certain requirements (Manzano, et al., 2012).

Peer mentoring promotes a climate of greater trust and understanding, thanks to the level of equality between the mentor and the partner-mentor or student (both are peers but one plays the role of mentor and the other plays the role of student), as well as the characteristics they share (similar problems and needs, recent academic experiences, empathy with their peers, mutual help, etc.). The mentor may be advised, oriented, motivated and helped in what to do and how to do it, as Ill as in the development of intellectual work and learning strategies. To do this, the partner-mentor must be a qualified student with time to devote to his mentor. This type of mentoring should be supervised by a more senior advisor or mentor (teacher) who can guide the process properly. Although studies evaluating the effect of mentoring are still scarce and inconclusive, their results are positive. Kukreja et al. (2017) reported satisfactory results in a pilot mentoring program aimed at first medical program freshmen; mentors that were part of the study, however, indicated that the program was useful for their teaching and communication skills, in the other hand, students commented that the program helped them emotionally and academically.

Within this context, Fallatah et al. (2018) conducted a study that sought to establish the relationship between mentor characteristics and student performance within a clinical skills course, in order to identify those students that required

55

greater support. They concluded that 83% of the students considered mentoring as an important tool for them, although it did not have a significant effect on their academic performance. The latter could be due to the mentoring time, which lasted only one rotation, as to the fact that there was one mentor for every ten students. This means that time and personalised work are two elements to take into account in the mentoring process. Mentoring could be conceived as a medium and a long-term process, so its results cannot be evaluated in a short period of time; as well as that it must be a personalised work, even individualised, so that there is the opportunity to establish an atmosphere of trust and dialogue between mentor and student and the experience can be mutually significant.

Ho et al. (2017), in a study conducted in Korea, concluded that student’s satisfaction with mentoring was associated with student's academic year, frequency of meeting sessions and the topics to be addressed. Again, time and personalised work, translated into an appropriate number of frequencies for the student to make him feel motivated and confident, as well as sufficient individualisation of the process so that those topics that are important to the student can be developed according to their needs and expectations. In the aforementioned framework, peer mentoring, properly organized and supervised, can be useful and beneficial for new students (freshmen). Akinla et al. (2018), in a systematic review of the results of peer mentoring programs aimed at freshmen, found that mentoring was related to stress reduction, greater ease of adaptation and identification with personal and professional development. It also favoured the development of personal and professional attitudes in mentoring students. Peer mentoring also offers the advantage of being a much more personalised process; on the other hand, as mentioned, this process is also beneficial for the mentor, since it helps him to consolidate his knowledge and medical skills, as Ill to develop a greater empathy, necessary for teamwork, fundamental in any area of health. In this sense, the establishment of formal programs, with the supervision of a teacher, would be an option to enrich and strengthen the teaching-learning process.

56