Effects of Reciprocal Peer Teaching on Student Learning Outcomes in a Multi‐Campus Physical Therapy Gross Human Anatomy Curriculum
Authors: McCumber Travis , Snow Ethan , Simet Samantha , Vilburn Matthew , Cassidy Keely 
Published: April 2020

Health professions education is undergoing dramatic curricular reform to better integrate basic and clinical sciences. These efforts present unique challenges to human anatomy courses involving cadaveric dissection which require significant student contact hours and faculty trained in anatomical sciences education. To overcome these challenges, institutions have implemented peer‐to‐peer presentation of content via reciprocal peer teaching (RPT), a technique shown to be successful in many studies. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of RPT on student learning outcomes in a physical therapy human anatomy curriculum delivered simultaneously across multiple campuses.

Sixty‐six first year physical therapy (PT) students (50 at the home site and 16 at the satellite site) were organized into two RPT groups and directed to alternate between peer teacher/learner roles for cadaveric dissection laboratories in the 16 week anatomy course. RPT was employed for the first 30 minutes of each dissection laboratory, at the end of which the peer teachers would leave the laboratory and peer learners would stay to continue the dissection. Student learning outcomes were assessed by three written (MCQ) and practical (constructed response) unit examinations. PT student performances were compared to 66 first year physician assistant (PA) students (50 at the home site and 16 at the satellite site) who concurrently attend the same didactic lectures and take the same examinations but attend all cadaveric dissection laboratories and do not participate in RPT. All satellite students simultaneously receive the didactic lectures via live two‐way video communication and have disparate but comparable laboratory experiences.

Statistical analysis of group means was performed for both written and practical examinations. Units I (upper extremity and superficial back) and II (head and neck) examination data show PA students outperforming PT students in both written (Unit I: 80.47% vs. 74.93%; Unit II: 81.54% vs. 73.31%) and practical (Unit I: 82.45% vs. 77.44%; Unit II: 80.04% vs. 73.35%) examinations (p<0.05). Due to ongoing data collection in the current semester, initial analyses are limited to units I and II examination data. Additional comparison of performances between RPT groups (relative to their separate dissection experiences), home and satellite populations, written and practical examinations, and combinations therein will be completed with final course data. Additionally, student evaluation feedback regarding RPT will be analyzed to identify common themes.

RPT has been shown to be successful in many studies; however, preliminary results of this study suggest RPT decreases learning outcomes for students. Many variables could contribute to this finding, including the theory that time spent dissecting leads to increased student learning outcomes. Effectively and comparably implementing RPT in a dissection‐based cadaveric human anatomy course across multiple campuses poses exceptional challenges. A multifaceted analysis of these variables will help quantify RPT efficacy and better understand student motivations and learning strategies.