Peer discussions play a major role in students’ collaborative problem-solving activity. These discussions provide researchers and teachers with a wealth of information about the students' reasoning. To analyse such discussions, different theoretical lenses are available, such as Schoenfeld’s problem solving model, the Florida Taxonomy of Cognitive Behaviour, and the Scheme for Educational Dialogue Analysis. The question is, however, how these three perspectives can complement each other. To investigate this, the discussion between four students was analysed through the three lenses. Results indicate that these frameworks are both complementary and connected. This connection allows an in-depth analysis of the discussion and reveals possibilities and limitations for an integration of the three models, which will guide future discussions’ analyses in our study.
Objectives There is a broad call for change towards € new era' quality systems in healthcare, in which the focus lies on learning and improving. A promising way to establish this in general practice care is to combine audit and feedback with peer group discussion. However, it is not known what different stakeholders think of this type of quality improvement. The aim of this research was to explore the opinions of different stakeholders in general practice on peer discussion of audit and feedback and on its opportunities and risks. Second, their thoughts on transparency versus accountability, regarding this system, were studied. Design An exploratory qualitative study within a constructivist paradigm. Semistructured interviews and focus group discussions were held and coded using thematic analysis. Included stakeholders were general practitioners (GP), patients, professional organisations and insurance companies. Setting General practice in the Netherlands. Participants 22 participants were purposively sampled for eight interviews and two focus group discussions. Results Three main opportunities of peer discussion of audit and feedback were identified: deeper levels of reflection on data, adding context to numbers and more ownership; and three main risks: handling of unwilling colleagues, lacking a safe group and the necessity of patient involvement. An additional theme concerned disagreement on the amount of transparency to be offered: insurance companies and patients advocated for complete transparency on data and improvement of outcomes, while GPs and professional organisations urged to restrict transparency to giving insight into the process. Conclusions Peer discussion of audit and feedback could be part of a change movement, towards a quality system based on learning and trust, that is initiated by the profession. Creating a safe learning environment and involving patients is key herein. Caution is needed when complete transparency is asked, since it could jeopardise practitioners' reflection and learning in safety.
The first year of study is very exciting for many students. Everything is new: the school, your schedule, the teachers, and your fellow students. How can a university ensure a smooth transition for first-year students? For this, Inholland launched the Students for Students (S4S) project in the 2019-2020 academic year. In this project, second-year students (studentcoaches) support first-year students with their studies. They do this based on their own experience and the training they receive during their year as studentcoaches. Research shows that peer-mentoring is very successful in aiding first-year students through their first year of the study program. Peer-mentoring has the potential to increase well-being, social bonding, the feeling of belonging, and student resilience. It also ensures smoother academic integration, as peer-mentoring focuses on developing academic skills as well. Additionally, a studentcoach is often a low threshold point of contact for students where they can go with questions.
