Students teaching students: an example from SOC399V

Written by Claire Hay, Teaching and Learning Centre

On November 29, 2024, I witnessed a powerful teaching moment, and it did not involve an instructor. Who, then, was doing the teaching? At the CEP Library, I saw students teaching students. SOC 399V Medical Systems and Society students delivered a workshop on structural competency in healthcare to LPN-A (Licensed Practical Nursing – Access) nursing students. The instructors, Dr. Michael Corman (Sociology Associate Professor) and Andrea Gormley (LPN-A Assistant Professor) were the supporting cast.

Structural competency in healthcare is “…the trained ability to discern how a host of issues defined clinically as symptoms, attitudes, or diseases also represent the downstream implications of a number of upstream decisions about such matters as health care and food delivery systems, zoning laws, urban and rural infrastructures, medicalization, or even about the very definitions of illness and health” (Metzl and Hansen, 2014). Through content and activities delivered by Dr. Corman in class, SOC 399V students designed this workshop for LPN-A nursing students that introduced them to structural competency as a factor in health and wellness adding a new layer of understanding to their nursing experiences.

What did I see in this 2.5hr interactive workshop? I saw a heartfelt territorial acknowledgement; a learning space that centered care, kindness, and support; an inclusive warm-up activity; and small and large group discussions to engage learners. These evidence-based pedagogical tools were thoughtfully designed to engage students in new learning while supporting their individual needs in difficult conversations. The sociology students were knowledgeable about the topics and each had their own role to play in this workshop. The LPN-A students were eager learners, engaging fully in all activities. Students teaching students.

Peer-to-peer teaching is recognized as an active and collaborative learning strategy that enhances learning for both ‘peer teachers’ and ‘peer learners’ (Ramaswamy et al, 2001). Peer-to-peer teaching can take place within a single class, between students in different classes (this workshop) and in support roles such as UFV’s Academic Success Centre or Supported Learning Groups.  Tullis and Goldstone (2020) summarize the benefits of switching classroom structure from instructor-delivered lectures to one centered around peer instruction as:

Improving learners’ conceptual understanding and retention (Duncan, 2005, Mazur, 1997)

Increasing student retention in difficult courses (Lasry, Mazur, & Watkins, 2008)

Decreasing the rates of unsuccessful students (Porter, Bailey-Lee, & Simon, 2013),

Improving student attendance (Deslauriers, Schelew, & Wieman, 2011)

Increasing learner engagement (Lucas, 2009)

Mike Corman wanted to acknowledge that this workshop was supported through TLC’s Teaching Inquires into Pedagogical Practices (TIPP) fund which provided resources for student refreshments, taking care of their nutritional needs. Andrea Gormely wanted to share her thanks for being part of this experience and for including LPNA-A nursing students in this workshop.

If you want to know more about peer-to-peer student teaching, reach out to Claire Hay (Learning Specialist) for a conversation about what this could look like in your course.

References

Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large enrollment physics class. Science, 332, 862–864.

Duncan, D. (2005). Clickers in the classroom: How to enhance science teaching using classroom response systems. San Francisco: Pearson/Addison-Wesley.

Lasry, N., Mazur, E., & Watkins, J. (2008). Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college. American Journal of Physics, 76(11), 1066–1069.

Lucas, A. (2009). Using peer instruction and i-clickers to enhance student participation in calculus. Primus, 19(3), 219–231.

Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Metzl JM, and Hansen H. (2014) Structural competency: theorizing a new medical engagement with stigma and inequality. Soc Sci Med;103:126–33.

Porter, L., Bailey-Lee, C., & Simon, B. (2013). Halving fail rates using peer instruction: A study of four computer science courses. In SIGCSE ‘13: Proceedings of the 44th ACM technical symposium on computer science education, (pp. 177–182). New York: ACM Press.

Ramaswamy, S., Harris, I., and Tschirner, U. (2001). Student Peer Teaching: An innovative approach to instruction in science and engineering education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10: 2, 165-171.

Tullis, J.G., and Goldstone, R.L. (2020) Why does peer instruction benefit student learning? Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5:15.