Exploring the Experience of Peer Clinical Tutoring at the Faculty of Dental Medicine, Casablanca: A Study of Tutees’ and Tutors’ Perceptions
Read Counter
397
Downloads
109
Citations
Share
Article Sidebar
Published 2025-04-11
Read counter = 397 times
Article Main Content
Introduction: During the 2020/2021 academic year, the Faculty of Dental Medicine in Casablanca implemented a peer tutoring program for students on clinical rotation in the pediatric dentistry department.
Objective: To assess the perceptions of tutors and tutees regarding the tutoring system and identify potential improvements.
Method: A mixed-method descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted. Quantitative data were collected using self-administered paper questionnaires. The qualitative part consisted of focus groups with 30 students, equally divided between 15 tutors and 15 tutees. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS software, while qualitative data were analyzed using MAXQDA software.
Results: A total of 213 students participated in the study, with response rates of 95.4% for tutees and 97.7% for tutors. 72.2% of tutees expressed high levels of satisfaction with the quality of support provided. Tutors contributed to improving tutees’ understanding of operative protocols, practical tips, and confidence. 78.1% of tutors were satisfied with the program. 65.1% of tutees and 44.7% of tutors supported expanding tutoring to other disciplines. However, tutors identified challenges, including unclear roles, insufficient preparation, and inadequate recognition of their efforts. Tutees reported a lack of involvement from some tutors and an insufficient number of tutors.
Conclusion: The study suggests that peer tutoring is a valuable strategy for promoting collaborative learning and improving clinical skills but requires careful planning to address the challenges identified. Recommendations from tutors include providing clear guidelines on their role, offering training, and recognizing their efforts. Tutees recommend a tutor rotation system, expanding tutoring to other disciplines, increasing the number of tutors, and providing more autonomy.
Introduction
The transition from theoretical learning to clinical practice is a critical milestone in the curriculum of every dental student, as they are expected to assume responsibility for real patients and provide care that is irreversible and error-free. This transition can be a source of stress and anxiety, as reported in a systematic review by Elaniet al. (2014), which found that clinical factors alone contribute to 64% of all sources of stress among dental students.
Successfully transitioning to clinical practice requires students to develop cognitive, technical, and non-technical skills in a conducive learning environment. Personalized supervision, combining rigor and empathy, is essential to meet individual needs. Nevertheless, the increasing number of students poses a challenge for instructors, who must balance close supervision with autonomy to promote skill development.
Given these challenges, peer tutoring has proven to be a valuable pedagogical strategy, aligned with socio-constructivist theories (Topping, 1996). By matching experienced students with their less experienced peers, this approach promotes collaborative learning and mutual support, critical in medical education. Through personalized support and guidance, peer tutoring reduce the supervision burden on the faculty, improve students’ educational pathway and can help them succeed in clinical practice (Burgesset al., 2014; UNECD, 2023).
Over the past two decades, peer tutoring has emerged as a highly effective pedagogical approach, with successful implementations in various countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and France. Typically, peer tutoring programs rely on volunteerism, careful selection of qualified and motivated peer tutors, upfront training, and encouragement of student participation and engagement (Khalidet al., 2018; Racine, 2018). In some cases, peer tutors may also receive compensation.
At the Casablanca Dental Medicine Faculty (FDMC), the tutoring program was introduced in conjunction with the 2015 reform of dental studies and the introduction of a sixth year dedicated to clinical internships. The program was specifically designed to support fourth-year students who may experience stress when starting their clinical internships. Although initially planned for fixed prosthodontic, oral surgery and pediatric dentistry, logistical constraints limited its implementation to pediatric dentistry, where the unique needs of pediatric patients necessitated specialized support.
Since the 2020/2021 academic year, this clinical companionship has been mandatory for all sixth-year students and is evaluated as part of their training, based on clear pedagogical objectives and criteria. Given the importance of the peer tutoring program in pedodontics for student training, it is essential to explore their perspective.
This study aims to describe the perceptions of students acting as peer tutors and those benefiting from tutoring regarding the current tutoring experience in the pedodontics department. The study seeks to identify the strengths and areas for improvement of the program, with the ultimate goal of optimizing this pedagogical strategy and adapting it to the needs of students.
Method
To achieve our objectives, we conducted a mixed-methods descriptive cross-sectional study, combining both quantitative and qualitative approaches. The study population consisted of all 4th- and 6th-year students enrolled at the Faculty of Dental Medicine of Casablanca during the 2023–2024 academic year. Students who refused to participate and interns were excluded. For the qualitative component, a voluntary non-probability sampling method was used, based on individual participants’ willingness to join the study. The sample consisted of 30 students, including 15 tutors and 15 tutees, divided into six focus groups.
Ethical approval and necessary permissions were obtained before the study began. Informed consent was collected from each participant, and permissions from the hospital care center director and the head of the pedodontics department were obtained to access students during their clinical internships.
The quantitative component of the study was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire, distributed in paper form to students during their internship and towards the end of their semester-long clinical training. The questionnaire for tutees consisted of 19 closed-ended questions, while the tutor questionnaire had 22 questions, with two open-ended questions in both questionnaires. The questionnaires were divided into four distinct sections: respondent identification, communication of objectives, organization and quality of tutoring, and degree of satisfaction.
The qualitative component of the study was conducted at the Faculty premises, using a structured interview guide that explored participants’ overall experience, satisfaction, pedagogical benefits, and suggestions for improvement. Participants were informed of the study’s anonymity and confidentiality prior to the interviews, which lasted between 45 minutes and 1 hour and were recorded using the ‘Voice Recorder’ application on the researcher’s smartphone.
Data analysis was conducted separately for quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS software, with variables described in terms of means and standard deviations. Open-ended questions were analyzed using thematic analysis. Qualitative data were analyzed using MAXQDA software (VERBI Software, Berlin), with variables described in terms of percentages and frequencies.
Results
The response rates were 95.4% (126/132) and 97.7% (87/89) for 4th- and 6th-year students, respectively. Among respondents, 55.6% of 4th-year students and 60.9% of 6th-year students were female, with mean ages of 21.46 ± 0.77 and 23.45 ± 0.912 years respectively. Sociodemographic details of respondents are presented in Table I.
| Variables | 4th-year Students N (%) | 6th-year Students N (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Male | 56 (44.4) | 34 (39.1) |
| Female | 70 (55.6) | 53 (60.9) |
| Age | ||
| 20 | 6 (04.8) | – |
| 21 | 69 (54.8) | – |
| 22 | 41 (32.5) | 5 (05.7) |
| 23 | 7 (05.6) | 51 (58.6) |
| 24 | 3 (02.4) | 23 (26.4) |
| 25 | – | 5 (05.7) |
| 26 | – | 1 (01.1) |
| Repeating | ||
| Yes | 10 (07.9) | 9 (10.3) |
| No | 116 (92.1) | 78 (89.7) |
76.2% of tutees and 52.9% of tutors reported receiving clear communication of learning objectives. Tutors primarily used the clinical internship supervisor (42.5%) and internship logbook (10.3%) as communication channels.
Qualitative findings revealed that tutors expressed difficulties in understanding their role: “We need clear guidelines on our role as tutors, including tasks to be performed and evaluation criteria.”
Tutee Experience
Tutees reported receiving assistance with skills listed in Table II. Most tutees (72.2%) rated the quality of support as “good” or “excellent,” and 87.3% judged their tutors’ knowledge as “good” or “excellent” (Table III). Tutees perceived the tutoring program as having a significant impact on their training. Tutors contributed to improving their understanding of operative protocols, teaching practical tips, boosting confidence, developing technical and social skills, and managing difficult situations.
| Completely agree N (%) | Partly agree N (%) | Not really agree N (%) | Strongly disagree N (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| My tutor helped me with the following activities: | ||||
| – Welcoming the child and their companion | 46 (36.5) | 47 (37.3) | 23 (18.3) | 10 (7.9) |
| – Organizing the technical platform | 55 (43.7) | 51 (40.5) | 15 (11.9) | 4 (4) |
| – Clinical examination | 68 (54) | 42 (33.3) | 15 (11.9) | 1 (0.8) |
| – Diagnostic approach | 57 (45.2) | 49 (38.9) | 18 (14.3) | 2 (1.6) |
| – Establishing the treatment plan | 57 (45.2) | 44 (34.9) | 23 (18.3) | 2 (1.6) |
| – Psychological approach | 44 (34.9) | 43 (34.1) | 37 (27.8) | 4 (3.2) |
| – Explaining tasks in progress | 52 (41.3) | 50 (39.7) | 21 (16.7) | 3 (2.4) |
| – Introduction to anesthesia | 62 (69.2) | 31 (24.6) | 23 (18.3) | 10 (7.9) |
| – Placing a dam | 69 (54.8) | 31 (24.6) | 18 (14.3) | 8 (6.3) |
| – Prophylactic therapies | 47 (37.3) | 52 (41.3) | 21 (16.7) | 6 (4.8) |
| – Restorative therapies | 50 (39.7) | 54 (42.9) | 13 (10.3) | 9 (7.1) |
| – Pulpal therapies | 34 (27) | 37 (29.4) | 17 (13.5) | 38 (30.2) |
| – Dental extractions | 38 (30.2) | 34 (27) | 18 (14.3) | 36 (28.6) |
| – Prosthetic procedures | 38 (30.2) | 34 (27) | 18 (14.3) | 36 (28.6) |
| – Managing complex therapies | 26 (20.6) | 39 (31) | 25 (19.8) | 36 (28.6) |
| – Managing time factors | 28 (22.2) | 49 (38.9) | 27 (21.4) | 22 (17.5) |
| – Progressive responsibility until autonomy is acquired | 46 (36.5) | 5 (39.7) | 25 (19.8) | 5 (4) |
| – Supervision in completed tasks | 57 (45.2) | 50 (39.7) | 13 (10.3) | 6 (4.8) |
| Did the tutoring allow you to reduce stress? | 38 (30.2) | 49 (38.9) | 30 (23.8) | 9 (7.1) |
| Did the tutoring allow you to improve patient care efficiency? | 44 (34.9) | 56 (44.4) | 22 (17.5) | 4 (3.2) |
| Completely competent N (%) | Rather competent N (%) | Partially competent N (%) | Not at all competent N (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| How do you rate your tutor’s competencies in meeting your expectations? | ||||
| Pedagogical skills | 49 (38.9) | 58 (46) | 16 (12.7) | 3 (2.4) |
| Relational skills | 58 (46) | 44 (34.9) | 19 (15.1) | 5 (4) |
| Technical skills | 58 (46) | 58 (46) | 5 (4) | 5 (4) |
| Organizational skills | 50 (39.7) | 53 (42.1) | 17 (13.5) | 6 (4.8) |
Qualitative feedback from tutees highlighted the benefits of tutoring: Thanks to tutoring, I gained confidence during clinical care. Tutors share many practical tips and help us gain speed. This experience was positive for me. The presence and support of the 6th-year student enabled me to manage stress effectively. My tutor guided me in communicating with the mother and reminded me of the importance of obtaining her consent before providing any treatment » My tutor provided me with invaluable assistance in performing thorough clinical examinations and successfully completing pulpotomies. Their presence was also crucial in managing challenging children and addressing the psychological aspects of care.
Most tutees (72.2%) agreed that the current tutoring system was suitable, and 65.1% supported expanding tutoring to other disciplines. However, some tutees identified weaknesses, such as a lack of involvement from some tutors or a tendency for others to perform tasks instead of guiding tutees.
Suggestions for Improving the Tutoring Program
Tutees recommended several improvements, including increasing the number of tutors to ensure a balanced ratio with tutees, implementing a tutor rotation system to promote diversity of experiences, and encouraging collaborative projects between tutors and tutees.
Tutors Experience
78.1% of tutors expressed satisfaction with the organization of the pediatric dentistry tutoring program. 65.5% believed they were able to assess the performance level of their tutees. 39.1% of students were partially motivated to accompany their tutees from the beginning of the internship (Table IV). Students reported accompanying their tutees in various tasks, such as welcoming the child (59.8%), organizing the technical platform (60.9%), and conducting clinical examinations (75.9%) (Table V).
| Yes N (%) | No N (%) | I do not know N(%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| – Did you receive training on the principles of tutoring in clinical internships before starting your pediatric dentistry internship? | 11 (12.6) | 73 (83.9) | 3 (3.4) | |
| – Were you absent during your tutoring? | 16 (18.4) | 71 (81.6) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Completely agree | Partially agree | Not really agree | Strongly disagree | |
| N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | |
| – Did you feel able to assess the level of performance and gaps of your tutee? | 8 (9.2) | 49 (56.3) | 29 (33.3) | 1 (1.1) |
| – Did you feel able to receive questions, comments or suggestions from your tutee? | 18 (20.7) | 60 (69.0) | 8 (9.2) | 1 (1.1) |
| – Did you notice an improvement in the quality of exchange with your tutee? | 28 (32.2) | 45 (51.7) | 11 (12.6) | 3 (3.4) |
| – Did you notice an improvement in the quality of care provided by your tutee? | 21 (24.1) | 49 (56.3) | 17 (19.5) | 0 (0) |
| – Did being a tutor allow you to increase your confidence in your own clinical competence? | 30 (34.5) | 42 (48.3) | 14 (16.1) | 1 (1.1) |
| – Did you feel controlled by the internship supervisors? | 31 (35.6) | 36 (41.4) | 17 (19.5) | 3 (3.4) |
| – If you had the choice, would you willingly take on your tutoring mission again? | 13 (14.9) | 27 (31) | 25 (28.7) | 22 (25.3) |
| – Did your tutoring experience allow you to consider an academic career? | 2 (2.3) | 23 (26.4) | 23 (26.4) | 39 (44.8) |
| Completely agree | Partially agree | Not really agree | Strongly disagree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | |
| Did you feel motivated to accompany the student from the beginning of the internship? | 23 (26.4) | 34 (39.1) | 25 (28.7) | 5 (5.7) |
| In your opinion, were you able to help your tutee in: | ||||
| – Welcoming the child and their companion | 52 (59.8) | 27 (31) | 5 (5.7) | 3 (3.4) |
| – Organizing the technical platform | 53 (60.9) | 28 (32.2) | 2 (2.3) | 4 (4.6) |
| – Clinical examination | 66 (75.9) | 17 (19.5) | 2 (2.3) | 2 (2.3) |
| – Diagnostic approach | 62 (71.3) | 22 (25.3) | 1 (1.1) | 2 (2.3) |
| – Establishing the treatment plan | 60 (69) | 20 (23) | 3 (3.4) | 4 (4.6) |
| – Psychological approach | 52 (59.8) | 25 (28.7) | 9 (10.3) | 1 (1.1) |
| – Explaining tasks in progress | 43 (49.4) | 37 (42.5) | 4 (4.6) | 3 (3.4) |
| – Introduction to anesthesia | 60 (69) | 21 (24.1) | 5 (5.7) | 1 (1.1) |
| – Placing a dam | 65 (74.7) | 16 (18.4) | 5 (5.7) | 1 (1.1) |
| – Prophylactic therapies | 42 (48.3) | 25 (28.7) | 15 (17.2) | 5 (5.7) |
| – Restorative therapies | 48 (55.2) | 28 (32.2) | 7 (8) | 4 (4.6) |
| – Pulpal therapies | 40 (46) | 20 (23) | 8 (9.2) | 19 (21.8) |
| – Dental extractions | 43 (49.4) | 21 (24.1) | 10 (11.5) | 13 (14.9) |
| – Prosthetic procedures | 22 (25.3) | 17 (19.5) | 12 (13.8) | 36 (41.4) |
| – Managing complex therapies | 25 (28.7) | 23 (26.4) | 10 (11.5) | 29 (33.3) |
| – Managing time factors | 28 (32.2) | 34 (39.1) | 16 (18.4) | 9 (10.3) |
| – Progressive responsibility until autonomy is acquired | 27 (31) | 37 (42.5) | 17 (19.5) | 6 (6.9) |
| – Supervision in completed tasks | 36 (41.4) | 36 (41.4) | 10 (11.5) | 5 (5.7) |
The qualitative study showed that 14 out of 15 tutors reported positive relationships characterized by mutual respect, open communication, and cooperation: All the 4th-year students were respectful, they felt comfortable with us, and considered us as colleagues with more experience.
According to the tutors, the tutoring program helped reinforce their clinical knowledge, particularly in the areas of dentino-pulpal and prosthodontic therapies: Learning depends on the patient’s care needs; if the patient requires pulp or prosthodontic treatments, the student tutor will certainly have the opportunity to learn more.
The tutors also reported benefits from the program, including enhanced communication skills, shared experiences, and a positive impact on the tutees’ soft skills, particularly in areas such as work organization, patient communication, and stress management. One tutor observed: “I think we actually help reduce the stress of 4th-year students.”
Student tutors expressed mixed opinions: 10 out of 15 participants highlighted the sense of responsibility and improved performance. However, concerns were raised about the insufficient recognition of their efforts by supervisors, the feeling of “wasting time”, and increased fatigue due to the demands of the internship: The tutoring experience was mixed. The sense of responsibility and improved performance were beneficial, but the lack of recognition from supervisors was disappointing. The main drawback of tutoring for me is the exhaustion that can result from helping multiple students at the same time, managing difficult children, or having to provide materials and sterilization, which adds to the workload. There was fatigue due to the fact that we had to start the tutoring internship at 8:30 am and then follow up with our own care internship at 11:30 am, which was particularly exhausting.
44.8% of students do not envision a university career following their tutoring experience.
Suggestions for Improvement
Among the recommendations made by the tutors were: limiting the tutoring program to the first few internships, clarifying roles from the beginning, valuing the tutor’s efforts, and providing initial training. They also suggested recognizing the tutor’s accomplishments, improving the evaluation of the tutee by the tutor, and implementing a voluntary principle: Rather than lasting throughout the semester, I propose that the tutoring program be limited to the first few internships, where the tutor accompanies the student, helps them at the beginning to fill out observations, place the dam, and administer anesthesia. The tutoring program should be based on volunteering, allowing those who wish to commit to do so, while clearly clarifying the tutor’s role to avoid feeling like mere assistants.
Discussion
We employed a mixed-methodology approach, combining quantitative and qualitative data to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under study. Data triangulation increased the validity and reliability of the results, while the multidimensional presentation of the results offered a holistic view of the students’ perception of the tutoring program. The high response rates indicated that our results were representative of the population studied.
Our results showed that 76.2% of tutees, compared to 52.9% of tutors, reported being clearly informed about the clinical learning objectives of the tutoring program. Focus groups revealed that supervisors did not clearly specify the roles of each participant. According to Yuet al. (2011), effective communication of clinical learning objectives is crucial: Clear objectives and roles enable improved understanding and engagement, increased motivation, facilitated evaluation, and enhanced learning quality. This can be achieved through written documents, information meetings, and continuous training.
Tutee-Related Aspects
The organization and quality of the tutoring program were positively evaluated by the tutees, who perceived the support received during the clinical internship as characterized by kindness (72.2%) and good to excellent knowledge of their tutors (87.3%). Focus groups confirmed these results, highlighting the essential role of tutors in accompanying students during their clinical internship. Other studies have reported similar findings, showing that tutors were well-prepared for tutoring (Menezeset al., 2016) and that their knowledge was adapted to the required level of education (Jawhariet al., 2021). According to Wadoodi and Crosby (2002), it is essential to select voluntary tutors. The goal is to create mutual benefits for junior and senior students, rather than exploiting senior students.
To address the shortcomings of tutors, it is recommended to promote a culture of academic honesty, where tutors openly acknowledge their knowledge limitations. For effective tutoring, it is essential to consider three key areas: clinical skills, pedagogical skills, and personal qualities of tutors (Burgesset al., 2015). Tutors must possess solid clinical skills, pedagogical skills to establish a connection with students, and personal qualities such as a positive attitude, leadership, integrity, and a commitment to excellence. Therefore, tutor training is crucial for the effectiveness of peer tutoring (Herrmann-Werneret al., 2017).
A significant proportion (79.3%) of tutees reported an improvement in their patient care skills thanks to the tutoring program. Focus group discussions highlighted the positive impact of tutoring on the acquisition of clinical skills, particularly through the tutors’ role in understanding operating protocols and learning practical tips. Studies by Herrmann-Werneret al. (2017) and Reeset al. (2016) emphasize the benefits of tutoring, including cognitive proximity, understanding learning difficulties, regular and constructive feedback from tutors, and the creation of a relaxed and cooperative atmosphere that enables tutees to better understand and improve their clinical performance.
According to our results, 69.1% of tutees recognized the positive impact of tutor support on stress reduction, and focus groups confirmed this finding. This is particularly important due to the specificity of pediatric dentistry and its patient population, a task that 4th-year students consider particularly complex. Studies by Lopezet al. (2010), Hanet al. (2015), and Herrmann-Werneret al. (2017) confirm that peer tutoring can play a crucial role in stress management, especially during the transition from preclinical to clinical phases, by offering emotional support, constructive feedback, and a positive learning environment. This coaching contributes to the overall well-being of students and can strengthen their confidence and help them manage uncertainty.
Tutees identified several strengths of the tutoring program, including the sharing of clinical experiences, optimization of work time management, and improved communication with patients and paramedical staff. However, they also reported weaknesses, such as a lack of involvement from some tutors, difficulty gaining autonomy, and insufficient tutor staffing.
Tutor-Related Aspects
No training was provided to tutors prior to their assignment, which may result in a lack of preparation and confidence. Insufficiently prepared and fearing they may not meet the responsibilities assigned to them, tutors may hesitate to fully engage in their role (Menezeset al., 2016). At the Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, a four-session training program, each lasting 90 minutes, is offered to student tutors. The objective is to equip them with the necessary teaching and facilitation skills to succeed in their roles as tutors and contribute to the success of their peers (Zheng & Wang, 2022).
Among the students surveyed, the level of motivation among tutors was variable: 73.5% reported being partially or not at all motivated to assume their role. Focus group discussions revealed that probable factors included fatigue related to heavy schedules and the feeling that their actions as tutors were not recognized within the framework of their validation. The work of Pelaccia and Viau (2016) on motivation in health professional training identifies three sources of motivation:
a) Perception of the value of the activity: Students must perceive the usefulness of tutoring to invest in it.
b) Perception of their competence: Students must have confidence in their abilities to succeed in accompanying another student.
c) Perception of their controllability: Students must feel that they have some control over the tutoring process.
Our survey results show that 56.3% of tutors feel capable of evaluating the performance and needs of their tutees. However, during focus groups, it was noted that tutors lack concrete tools to precisely evaluate performance, limiting their role to operational assistants. Research by Lodaet al. (2019) indicates that tutors are often able to provide more accurate evaluations thanks to their close accompaniment and age and training level proximity. They also emphasize the importance of precise evaluation to provide constructive and targeted feedback and implement personalized improvement strategies.
According to our study, 48.3% of 6th-year students reported that being a tutor reinforced their confidence in their clinical competence. Research by Herrmann-Werneret al. (2017) confirms that peer teaching fosters the development of leadership and self-confidence. 41.4% of tutors reported being closely supervised by clinical internship supervisors. Focus groups revealed that tutors often felt reduced to a simple role of senior operational assistants. They also experienced anxiety when their tutees made mistakes. According to Reeset al. (2016), benevolent and constructive supervision can motivate tutors to improve their pedagogical skills. In contrast, excessive control can generate stress and anxiety. It is therefore crucial to strike a balance between supervision and autonomy. According to Harley (1993), the level of support provided by supervisors should be inversely proportional to the students’ experience. Moreover, Herrmann-Werneret al. (2017) emphasize that supervisor supervision is essential to ensure high-quality standards in tutoring and to ensure that ethical, organizational, pedagogical, and affective aspects are taken into account.
According to our study, 45.9% of student tutors would like to renew their commitment as tutors, and only 26.4% would consider an academic career following their tutoring experience. These results contradict those of other studies, which show that tutoring sessions are perceived as stimulating for learning (Varghese & Zijlstra-Shaw, 2021) and that tutoring can spark interest in academic careers (Herrmann-Werneret al., 2017; Savardet al., 2005; Ten Cate & Durning, 2007). Studies by Bulteet al. (2007) and others have also shown that peer tutoring programs are well-accepted and that their benefits are widely appreciated by stakeholders. The disparities between these results may be attributed to differences in tutoring principles and institutional frameworks. In the context of our study, tutoring is mandatory and limited by the absence of prior training for tutors and the lack of structured evaluation by tutors. This approach may reduce their role to that of simple senior operational assistants and may decrease their motivation. In light of our study’s results and research in the literature (Varghese & Zijlstra-Shaw, 2021; Zukriet al., 2024), it appears that peer clinical tutoring offers numerous learning and development opportunities for students, including stress reduction, shared learning, development of non-technical skills, and transmission of implicit knowledge. However, it also presents limitations, such as a lack of understanding of the tutor’s role, lack of motivation, limited tutor knowledge, and time constraints.
Recommendations
To optimize the effectiveness of peer tutoring, several areas for improvement have been identified. It is essential to clarify the objectives of tutoring and the roles of tutors and tutees and to provide training for tutors to acquire the necessary skills. Recognizing and valuing their work is also important to maintain their motivation. Furthermore, it is crucial to promote the autonomy of tutees by gradually giving them more independence and responsibilities throughout the internship. Finally, expanding tutoring to other disciplines and implementing collaborative projects between tutors and tutees could strengthen the student experience and improve the effectiveness of tutoring.
Conclusion
This study examined the perceptions of student tutors and tutees regarding the peer tutoring program in pediatric dentistry. The findings showed that most students were satisfied with their experience, citing benefits such as improved skills and reduced stress. However, challenges including unclear tutor roles, inadequate training and recognition, and fatigue resulting from consecutive internships were identified. To overcome these challenges, we propose recommendations, including clarifying tutoring objectives and providing tutor training. This study has some limitations, including its descriptive nature, and the potential influence of dominant participants in focus groups. Additionally, the perspectives of professors were not collected. Future studies should aim to address these limitations and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the tutoring program. By investing in peer tutoring, the Faculty of Dental Medicine of Casablanca can provide its students with an optimal learning experience and contribute to enhancing the training of future dentists.
References
-
Bulte, C., Betts, A., Garner, K., & Durning, S. (2007). Student teaching: Views of student near-peer teachers and learners. Medical Teacher, 29(6), 583–590.
Google Scholar
1
-
Burgess, A., Goulston, K., & Oates, K. (2015). Role modelling of clinical tutors: A focus group study among medical students. BMC Medical Education, 15, 17.
Google Scholar
2
-
Burgess, A., McGregor, D., & Mellis, C. (2014). Medical students as peer tutors: A systematic review. BMC Medical Education, 14, 1-8.
Google Scholar
3
-
Elani, H. W., Allison, P. J., Kumar, R. A., Mancini, L., Lambrou, A., & Bedos, C. (2014). A systematic review of stress in dental students. Journal of Dental Education, 78(2), 226–242.
Google Scholar
4
-
Han, E. R., Chung, E. K., & Nam, K. I. (2015). Peer-assisted learning in a gross anatomy dissection course. PLoS One, 10(11), 1-8.
Google Scholar
5
-
Harley, S. (1993). Situated learning and classroom instruction. Educational Technology, 33(3), 46–51.
Google Scholar
6
-
Herrmann-Werner, A., Gramer, R., Erschens, R., Nikendei, C., Wosnik, A., Griewatz, J., Zipfel, S., & Junne, F. (2017). Peer-assisted learning (PAL) in undergraduate medical education: An overview. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen, 121, 74–81.
Google Scholar
7
-
Jawhari, A. A., Safhi, M. A., Magadmi, M. M., Alobaidi, R. H., Alghamdi, K. M., Basyouni, R. N., Saggaf, O. M., Yasawy, M. A., & Magadmi, R. M. (2021). Effect of peer-assisted learning on enhancing clinical research skills among medical students: Students' and tutors' perceptions. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 12, 685–696.
Google Scholar
8
-
Khalid, H., Shahid, S., Punjabi, N., & Sahdev, N. (2018). An integrated 2-year clinical skills peer tutoring scheme in a UK-based medical school: Perceptions of tutees and peer tutors. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 9, 423–432.
Google Scholar
9
-
Loda, T., Erschens, R., Loenneker, H., Keifenheim, K. E., Nikendei, C., Junne, F., Zipfel, S., & Herrmann-Werner, A. (2019). Cognitive and social congruence in peer-assisted learning – A scoping review. PLoS One, 14(9), 1-15.
Google Scholar
10
-
Lopez, N., Johnson, S., & Black, N. (2010). Does peer mentoring work? Dental students assess its benefits as an adaptive coping strategy. Journal of Dental Education, 74(11), 1197–1205.
Google Scholar
11
-
Menezes, A., Burgess, A., Clarke, A. J., & Mellis, C. (2016). Peer-assisted learning in medical school: Tutees' perspective. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 7, 31–38.
Google Scholar
12
-
Pelaccia, T., & Viau, R. (2016). La motivation en formation des professionnels de la santé [Motivation in training of health professionals]. Pédagogie Médicale, 17(4), 243–253.
Google Scholar
13
-
Racine, A. (2018). Être tuteur, expérience et compétences des étudiants en deuxième année de santé [Being a tutor, experience and skills of second-year health students] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Angers. https://dune.univ-angers.fr/fichiers/20101450/2019ODEMG9859/fichier/9859F.pdf
Google Scholar
14
-
Rees, E. L., Quinn, P. J., Davies, B., & Fotheringham, V. (2016). How does peer teaching compare to faculty teaching? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Teacher, 38(8), 829–837.
Google Scholar
15
-
Savard, G., Dutournier, S., Gagnayre, R., Levy, G., & Attal, J.-P. (2005). L’expérience de tutorat par les pairs étudiants: une expérience appréciée des tuteurs en chirurgie-dentaire [Peer tutoring experience: An experience appreciated by dental surgery tutors]. Pédagogie Médicale, 6(4), 210–215.
Google Scholar
16
-
Ten Cate, O., & Durning, S. (2007). Peer teaching in medical education: Twelve reasons to move from theory to practice. Medical Teacher, 29(6), 591–599.
Google Scholar
17
-
Topping, K. J. (1996). The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher education: A typology and review of the literature. Higher Education, 32(3), 321–345.
Google Scholar
18
-
UNECD. (2023). Guide tutorat: Monter son tutorat d’années supérieures [Tutoring guide: Setting up your upper year tutoring] (Report). Union Nationale des Étudiants en Chirurgie Dentaire (UNECD). https://www.unecd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/GUIDE-DU-TUTORAT-D_ANNEES-SUPERIEURES-2023.pdf
Google Scholar
19
-
Wadoodi, A., & Crosby, J. R. (2002). Twelve tips for peer-assisted learning: A classic concept revisited. Medical Teacher, 24(3), 241–244.
Google Scholar
20
-
Yu, T. C., Wilson, N. C., Singh, P. P., Lemanu, D. P., Hawken, S. J., & Hill, A. G. (2011). Medical students-as-teachers: A systematic review of peer-assisted teaching during medical school. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 2, 157–172.
Google Scholar
21
-
Zheng, B., & Wang, Z. (2022). Near-peer teaching in problem-based learning: Perspectives from tutors and tutees. PLoS One, 17(12), 1-16.
Google Scholar
22
-
Zukri, N. D. C. M., Ab Rahman, N. A. S. N., Adnan, M. A. M. Z., & Abd Rahman, A. N. A. (2024). Peer-assisted learning approach in dental curriculum: The impact on students' academic performances. Journal of Health and Translational Medicine, 1, 1–8.
Google Scholar
23
Most read articles by the same author(s)
-
Khadija El Assraoui,
Zineb Al jalil,
Yasmina Cheikh,
Khadija Kaoun,
Souad Chaouir,
Samira Bellemkhannate,
Perception of the Contribution of Video Demonstrations in Dental Practical Training , European Journal of Education and Pedagogy: Vol. 5 No. 1 (2024) -
Wahid Hafssa Oumayma,
Zineb Al Jalil,
Houda Moussaoui,
Perception of the Learning Environment among Fifth-Year Students of the Faculty of Dental Medicine of Casablanca , European Journal of Education and Pedagogy: Vol. 5 No. 5 (2024) -
Sara Benfaida,
Zineb Al Jalil,
Souad Chaouir,
Anas Bennani,
Success and Learning Strategies: A Survey of Students at the Faculty of Dentistry in Casablanca , European Journal of Education and Pedagogy: Vol. 4 No. 6 (2023) -
Fatimaazzahra El Mouatarif,
Zineb Bennour,
Zineb Al Jalil ,
Mohammed Chahbouni,
Mohammed Mouhaoui,
Samira Elarabi,
High-Fidelity Simulation in Dental Treatment under General Anesthesia: An Interventional Study , European Journal of Education and Pedagogy: Vol. 5 No. 6 (2024) -
Fatima Ezzahra El Omari,
Zineb Al Jalil,
Zineb Bennour,
Ihsane Ben Yahya,
Problem-based Learning in Pediatric Dentistry: Perception of Students at the Mohamed VI Faculty of Dentistry , European Journal of Education and Pedagogy: Vol. 5 No. 6 (2024)
