Perbedaan Efektivitas Diskusi Kelompok, Motivasi Intrinsik dan Nilai Modul dari Mahasiswa yang Difasilitasi Dosen dan Tutor Sebaya

I Made Pariartha(1*), Rossi Sanusi(2), Tridjoko Hadianto(3)

(1) Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Warmadewa Denpasar Bali
(2) Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Gadjah Mada Yogyakarta
(3) Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Gadjah Mada Yogyakarta
(*) Corresponding Author


Background: Peer teaching is a teaching method that widely applied in many medical institutions. This research was designed to evaluate group discussion effectiveness, intrinsic motivation, and student achievement differences between peer tutor−facilitated students and faculty tutor−facilitated students.

Method: This research is an experimental research using post−test only control group design during the implementation of third and fourth module of the Cardiovascular Block (consist of five modules). Fifty-nine third year students were randomly assigned into two groups. Three experimental groups (n= 30) was facilitated by peer tutors (PT) and three control groups (n= 29) was facilitated by faculty tutors (FT). Two students were randomly elected from each PT group as peer tutor. A six hour training was given to the peer tutors. In the end of the third and fourth module, group discussion effectiveness, intrinsic motivation, and student achievement in those modules were evaluated using Tutorial Group Effectivenes Instrument (TGEI) questionnaire, Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) questionnaire, and 20 multiple choice questions, respectively. Mean differences between groups were measured by Cohen's d with the practical significance at Cohen's d > 1.

Results: There was no significant differences of group discussion effectiveness (Cohen’s d= -0.41) and intrinsic motivation (Cohen’s d= -0.83) between two groups. Significant difference in student achievement is found between those groups, peer tutor−facilitated students score higher than faculty tutor−facilitated students (Cohen’s d= 2.96). Peer tutors showed higher achievement than discussants (Cohen’s d= 1.86).

Conclusion: The results showed that peer tutor can facilitated group discussion as well as faculty tutor in group discussion effectiveness, intrinsic motivation and student achievement paramaters. There was advantage for students who given role as peer tutor.



Peer teaching, group discussion, intrinsic motivation, group effectiveness, student achievement

Full Text:



  1. Neville, A.J. The problem-based learning tutor: Teacher? Facilitator? Evaluator? Medical Teacher. 1999;21(4):393-401.
  2. Bulte, C., Betts, A., Garner, K., & Durning, S. Student teaching: view of student near-peer teachers and learners. Medical Teacher. 2007;29:583-90.
  3. Dandavino, M., Snell, L., & Wiseman, J. Why medical students should learn how to teach. Medical Teacher. 2007;29:558-65.
  4. Ross, M.T., & Cumming, A.D. Peer – assisted learning. Dalam: Harden, R.M., & Dent, J.A. A practical guide for medical teacher. New York: Churcill Livingstone Elsevier; 2009.
  5. Ten Cate, O., & Durning, S. Peer teaching in medical education: twelve reasons to move from theory to practice. Medical Teacher. 2007;29(1):591-9.
  6. Ten Cate, O., & Durning, S. Dimensions and psychology of peer teaching in medical education. Medical Teacher. 2007;29(2):546-52.
  7. Benware, C.A., & Deci, E.L. Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal. 1984;21(4):755-65.
  8. Deci, E.D., & Ryan, R.M. Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology. 2008;49(3):182-5.
  9. Tolsgaard, M.G., Gustafsson, A., Rasmusen, M.B., Hoiby, C., Muller, C.G. & Ringsted, C. Students teachers can be as good as associate professors in teaching clinical skills. Medical Teacher. 2007;29:553-7.
  10. Field, M., Burke, J., Lloyd, D. & McAllister, D. Peer-assisted learning in clinical examination. Lancet. 2004;363:490-1.
  11. Weyrich, P., Celebi, N., Schrauth, M., Moltner, A., Lammerding-Koppel, M. & Nikendei, C. Peer-assisted versus faculty staff-led skills laboratory training: a randomized controlled trial. Medical Education. 2009;43:113-20.
  12. Unver, V., Akbayrak, N., & Tosun, N. Efficiency of the peer tutoring model in skills training. HealthMED. 2011;5(5):1091-9.
  13. Ten Cate, O., Van de Forst, I., Van den Broek, S. Academic achievement of students tutored by near-peers. International Journal of Medical Education. 2012;3:6-13.
  14. Gregory, A., Walker, I., Mclaughlin, K., & Peets, A.D. Both preparing to teach and teaching positively impact learning outcomes for peer teachers. Medical Teacher. 2011;33:427-32.
  15. Sobral, D.T. Cross year tutoring experience in medical school: condition and outcomes for student tutors. Medical Education. 2002;36:1064-70.
  16. Lockspeiser, T.M., O’Sullivan, P., Teherani, A., & Muller, J. Understanding the experience of being taught by peers: the value of social and cognitive congruence. Advance in Health Science Education. 2008;13:361-72.
  17. Peets, A.D., Coderre, S., Wright, B., Jenkins, D., Burak, K., Leskosky, S., & McLaughlin, K. Involvement in teaching improves learning in medical students: a randomized cross-over study. BMC Medical Education [Internet]. 2009;9(55) Accessed 30 January 2012 from:
  18. Kassab, S., Abu-Hijleh, M.F., Al-Shboul, Q., & Hamdy, H. Student-led tutorials in problem-based learning: educational outcomes and students’ perceptions. Medical Teacher. 2005;27(6):521-6.
  19. Steele, D.J., Medder, J.D., & Turner P. A comparison of learning outcomes and attitudes in student- versus faculty-led problem-based learning: an experimental study. Medical Education. 2000;34(1):23-9.
  20. Sobral, D.T. Peer tutoring and student outcomes in a problem-based course. Medical Education. 1994;28(4):284-9.
  21. Schmidt, H.G., & Moust, J.H.C. What makes a tutor effective? A structural-equations modeling approach to learning in problem-based learning curricula. Academic Medicine. 1995;70(8):708-14.
  22. Cohen, P., Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. Educational outcomes of tutoring: a meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal. 1982;19:237-48.
  23. Tang, T., Hernandez., & Adams, B. “Learning by teaching”: A peer-teaching model for diversity training in medical school. Teach Learn Med. 2004;16:60-3.
  24. Wong, J., Waldrep, T.& Smith, T. Formal peer-teaching in medical school improves academic performance: The MUSC supplemental instructor program. Teach Learn Med. 2007;19:216-20.
  25. Prins, F.J., Veenman, M.V.J., & Elshout, J.J. The impact of intellectual ability and metacognition on learning: New Support for the threshold of problematicity theory. Learn Instruct. 2006;16:374-87.
  26. Chamorro-Premuzic, T. & Furnham, A. Personality, intelligence, and approaches to learning as predictor of academic performance. Pers Individ Dif. 2008;44:1596-603.
  27. Dawson, M.D. The effect of reinforcement and verbal rehearsal on selective attention in learning-disabled children. J Abnormal Child Psychol. 1980;8:133-44.


Article Metrics

Abstract views : 1857 | views : 1608


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2017 I Made Pariartha, Rossi Sanusi, Tridjoko Hadianto

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Jurnal Pendidikan Kedokteran Indonesia (The Indonesian Journal of Medical Education) indexed by: