Table 3.
Students’ likes and dislikes about the training sessions (reference coding)
| Directive trained students | % | Facilitative trained students | % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Likes | Opportunity to practice | 24.15 | Opportunity to practice | 18.58 |
| Peer trainers: friendly, helpful, motivated, easily accessible, ‘hands-on’ experts, and well prepared | 19.28 | Being stimulated to adopt a critical attitude towards the course and deep-level learning | 10.62 | |
| Clear explanations and clarifications | 12.34 | Being stimulated to think further for myself | 9.07 | |
| Good atmosphere during the training sessions | 7.71 | Peer trainers: friendly, helpful, motivated | 8.85 | |
| Possibility to ask questions | 6.17 | Clear explanations and extra info of which students were unaware | 6.86 | |
| Questioning strategies | 5.53 | |||
| Dislikes | Peer trainers: expertise and knowledge, and inter-individual differences | 11.02 | Questioning and prompting of peer trainers | 21.22 |
| Contradictions among peer trainers, within syllabus, and/or between syllabus and peer trainers. | 7.99 | Lack of (uniform) explanations and information | 8.82 | |
| Quality of syllabus | 8.26 | Quality of syllabus | 6.09 | |
| Infrastructure | 7.16 | Frustration/irritation | 5.46 | |
| Timing of sessions | 6.06 | Limited practice time | 5.25 | |
| Quality of information and clarifications | 5.79 | Peer trainers: expertise and knowledge, and inter-individual differences | 5.25 |