Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Due to increased cognitive and social congruence with their tutees, near peer teachers (NPTs) may be capable of more effectively delivering course material. This study examines NPTs as pathology tutors alongside more traditional teachers (e.g., consultants and registrars) to explore their acceptability, effectiveness, and years of 'distance' between tutors and tutees. METHOD: In total, 240 first- and second-year undergraduate medical students were taught set material in a pathology tutorial setting by NPTs (fourth-year medical students), registrars, or consultants. Learners were then asked to provide feedback using a 15-item, Likert-type scale. RESULTS: On 11 of the 15 items, there were no significant differences in students' median ratings. However, NPTs were perceived to be significantly more approachable than consultants, more aware of learning outcomes, more receptive to student input, and more invested in exam success. Compared with second-year students, first-year students showed a preference towards registrar tutors in terms of perceived gain of knowledge and use of time. In contrast, second-year students showed a preference towards NPTs, who provided more perceived knowledge gain and investment in exam success. No significant differences were found regarding consultant tutors. DISCUSSION: Perhaps due to increased congruence with tutees, NPTs show promise as tutors within medical curricula. This provides advantages not only to tutees, but also to tutors - who may gain vital teaching experience and offer an effective supplement to 'traditional' faculty educators.