© Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, ISSN: 2078-0273, November, 2010 22 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF PEER CRITIQUE OF STUDENT-SELECTED STUDY COMPONENTS IN A FORENSIC MEDICINE CURRICULUM Samar A. Ahmed 1 , Henk T. Van Der Molen 2 1 Ain Shams University Faculty of Medicine, Forensic Medicine and Clinical Toxicology Department, Cairo (EGYPT) 2 Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, (THE NETHERLANDS) E-mails: samarazim@gmail.com, vandermolen@fsw.eur.nl ABSTRACT Context: A variety of positive effects of peer evaluation have been documented and it is generally found that peer evaluation can promote critical thinking in medical students. In Egypt a recent shift has taken place from teacher centered towards student centered learning. So, the era of learning style innovation is still young and students’ perception of the change has to be assessed. Objectives: The first aim of this study was to describe the perception of students to peer critique on their student selected study (SSS) assignment presentation. The second aim was to investigate gender differences in giving and receiving feedback from peer students. Methods: All students in the third round of forensic medicine for the year 2009 were invited to participate in the study. A feedback questionnaire was designed for peer critiques to fill out anonymously. Results: Of 526 students who received the questionnaire 382 (166 females and 216 males) filled them in, resulting in a 72.6% response. Respondents in our study believed that peer critique was useful. A significant difference was found in the number of male and female students who show comfort in receiving peer feedback, in favor of male students. Conclusion: Peer feedback is considered useful within the learning environment in the forensic medicine curriculum. Key words: Learning psychology, critique, Undergraduate education, Medical, student selected, feedback, and teaching methods CONTEXT In its 2003 recommendations, The UK General Medical Council suggested that one third of the undergraduate medical curriculum be assigned for student-selected components [1]. Many studies have handled the assessment of these components and in particular assignment presentation [2-4] and several opposing views have been presented [5].Studies recording student perception of peer critique have been conducted in many parts of the world and in many sectors of education: for example engineering [6], writing [7], and anatomy [8]. The difference between tutor and peer assessment was studied by Ferguson and Kreiter (2007) [9] who reported no difference between them and therefore that the latter is highly recommended, because it allows for more students interaction in the learning process. The same result was reached in other studies [10,11]. Many studies have demonstrated positive feedback of students to peer evaluation as well as its capacity to promote critical thinking 12 . Peer evaluation is also believed to enhance learning and critical understanding of evaluation criteria and the knowledge gap and to develop “social and communication skills, negotiation and diplomacy, and useful transferable skills like giving and handling criticism, self-justification and assertion” [11]. On the other hand some studies have challenged the reliability of peer assessment from the perspective of subjectivity and reciprocity [11,13]. Topping (1998) [14] conducted a review of peer assessment (PA) in tertiary settings and reported a number of positive and negative student views on PA. Among the positive views he reported fairness (being assessed by more people) and the formative usefulness of detailed peer feedback. On the other hand, students commented on a number of issues that were labeled as negative. Among these were social embarrassment (especially concerning identifying weaknesses in the work of peers) and the fact that PA may be cognitively challenging and straining for students. Another study conducted on tertiary students was that by Hanrahan and Issacs (2001) [15] in a health psychology course. This qualitative study highlighted a number of themes that sum up the perception of students of PA. Some of these themes were: motivation to impress peers, difficulties with being objective, discomfort with peers judging work, and gaining a better understanding of marking procedures through PA. One of the very important studies done in that area was that conducted by Ballantyne et al. (2002) [16]. Respondents in this study were 939 students from different classes of technology. The results of the study highlighted the difficulties encountering implementation of PA within large student numbers. Yet it also identified the importance of the learning outcomes and benefits of its application. Again a number of positive and negative points were documented in this study as perceived by students. Among the positive views were: Sense of encouragement to compare and reflect on their own work; it gave them the opportunity to develop skills useful for future employment. Students also reported negative views like questioning peers competency in marking, issues of fairness (feelings that peers were either easy or hard markers), and large numbers of students felt PA was too time-consuming. This study also expressed the importance of articulating assessment criteria so as to render PA usable for the purpose of grading. Results of this study pointed out that 10-15% is considered as a reasonable percentage of marks to be allocated for PA. Another study group was used when first year university students in a construction management course were