Taller # 2 (Videos: Taller 2) 72

The final student laboratory grade outcomes for the online and F2F students with and without peer teaching indicated that there was a significant improvement in laboratory grades with peer teaching (Figure 5.2). The online students increased their laboratory grade by 9.4% (p=0.002) while the F2F students increased their grade by 5.8% (p=0.003) with the peer teaching intervention. The impact of peer teaching was greater with the online students with a 5.6% higher laboratory grade (p=0.04) compared to the F2F students both who had peer teaching.

Both classes were invited to participate in a survey at the completion of the course (Table 5.2). 57% of the F2F students compared to 14% of the online students completed the survey. Due to the low number of online student responses, data are given as

percentages. Of those students surveyed, 53% of the F2F and 37% of online students reported that they had participated in at least 50% of the peer teaching sessions. The

Table 5.1: Number of students enrolled in each section for the peer teaching comparison

F2F Online

Peer Teaching (FW 2011) 137 58

Figure 5.1: Classification of laboratory questions for F2F and online laboratories. Question categories are as follows: ID, identification; Simp Comp, simple

comprehension; Complex Comp, complex comprehension; Tech, technical; Admin, administrative; Other, social or non-course related. Online students asked a greater number of identification questions compared to F2F students while F2F students asked more comprehension (both simple and complex) questions.

Figure 5.2: Final laboratory grade (mean% ± SD) for F2F and online laboratories with (2011) or without (2010) peer teaching intervention. There was a significant increase in laboratory grades for both F2F and online students with the inclusion of the peer teaching exercise. The impact of the peer teaching was greater for the online students with these students performing significantly better than the F2F students with peer teaching. Superscripts which are the same indicate significant differences (p<0.05).

Table 5.2: Peer Teaching Survey Results

Face to Face N=137

Online N=58

Percentage of class responding to survey 57% (N=78) 14% (N=8)

Peer teaching participation 1=100% attendance, 2= approximately 75%, 3 = approximately 50%, 4 = approximately 25%, 5 = did not attend

1 = 26% 2= 17% 3 = 10% 4 = 23% 5 = 24% 1 = 12.5% 2 = 25% 3 = 0% 4 = 25% 5 = 37.5% Did you find ATTENDING these sessions helped

you learn the material? *

1= very helpful, 2=somewhat helpful, 3= not helpful

1= 20% 2 = 36% 3 = 44%

2= 100%

Did you find PRESENTING these slides helped you learn the material? *

1= very helpful, 2=somewhat helpful, 3= not helpful 1 = 15% 2 = 51% 3 = 34% 1 = 67% 2 = 33%

My group was more cohesive because of the peer teaching exercises.*

1= strongly agree, 2=somewhat agree, 3=somewhat disagree, 4=strongly disagree

1 = 2% 2 = 38% 3 = 28% 4 = 33% 1 = 0 % 2 = 50% 3 = 17% 4 = 33% For the FIRST presentation this term, please

indicate your comfort level preparing and giving

*data from respondents who indicated that they had participated in peer teaching exercise

the presentation.*

1 = > normal level of stress for in-class presentation

2 = normal level of stress for in-class presentation 3 = < normal level of stress for in-class

presentation

2 = 47% 3 = 31%

2 = 83% 3 = 17%

For the LAST presentation this term, please indicate your comfort level preparing and giving the presentation.*

1 = > normal level of stress for in-class presentation

2 = normal level of stress for in-class presentation 3 = < normal level of stress for in-class

presentation 1 = 9% 2 = 41% 3 = 50% 1 = 0 % 2 = 17% 3 = 83%

remainder of the data was from survey respondents who indicated they participated in the peer teaching sessions. Two questions were designed to determine if students found attending or presenting during the peer teaching sessions beneficial. 100% of the online students found attending and presenting to be somewhat or very helpful while 56% of the F2F students found attending and 66% found presenting to be somewhat or very helpful. The statement “my group was more cohesive because of the peer teaching exercise” attempted to determine if the exercise influenced the group dynamic. 40% of the F2F and 50% of the online students indicated that the exercise lead to greater group cohesion. The final two questions examined the level of stress associated with presenting to their peers and if this stress subsided with experience. Results indicated that both online and F2F students did experience stress associated with the first peer teaching exercise, however, for the final exercise, the level of stress associated with the presentation had reduced. The survey also contained two questions where students could provide feedback. They were first asked for any factors (positive or negative) which influenced their stress level for the presentation and the second was for any other feedback with respect to the peer teaching component of the laboratories. Common themes among the responses included:

• lack of interest because there were no grades assigned

• preference to use the time to complete the weekly assignment,

• decreased scheduling flexibility for the online students

• increased stress levels due to the short time to prepare presentations

• lack of stress because students were presenting to their peers and were able to get to know them better.

General feedback did indicate that despite their hesitation to participate, the students did find it a useful experience. One student ironically indicated that peer teaching was “not effective as you must learn the material before you teach” another indicated that “it was helpful because I had to be master of the slide that I was in charge of” and finally

“Having to prepare for the presentation and having to know the material right on, just in case someone asks a question about it [increased stress]. However, it did help me to learn”.