Peer Mentorship in an Undergraduate Health Professional Education Program: An Embodied Hermeneutic Phenomenological Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Student peer mentorship, in which a more senior student mentors a more junior student for at least one term, is on the rise in health professions education programs. The research presented adopts an embodied hermeneutic phenomenological approach to investigate student peer mentors’ perceptions of teaching, learning and relationships within peer mentorship interactions in the context of one collaborative nursing program in Ontario, Canada.\nThis dissertation is composed of five integrated manuscripts, in addition to introductory, body-map findings, and conclusion chapters. The first manuscript describes the theoretical foundations of the doctoral research, drawing on phenomenologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s concepts of embodiment, intersubjectivity and intercorporeality. The second manuscript offers an overview of the embodied hermeneutic phenomenological methodology and methods utilized in this research. The third manuscript introduces the practice of body-mapping as an approach to foster embodied reflection; through elucidation of an ‘auto/body-mapping’ process, that shows how body-mapping can be used to examine educators’ assumptions about teaching and learning and make embodied forms of knowledge visible. The fourth and fifth manuscripts present findings from the study, reporting on student peer mentors’ perceptions of engaging in a student peer mentorship program. The fourth manuscript presents student peer mentors’ perceptions of teaching in a peer mentorship program, highlighting the core theme of ‘commitment to mentee growth’ and considering seven related themes and implications for health professional education. The fifth manuscript presents student peer mentors’ perceptions of relationships, centered by a core theme of ‘nurturing a trusting learning community,’ with five associated themes.\nThis thesis contributes knowledge pertaining to embodied, relational and pedagogical factors that shape the work student peer mentors contribute through participation in a peer mentorship program in undergraduate education. This research further contributes theoretically informed insights about considering embodiment and intersubjectivity in health professional education, and opens several theoretical, methodological and ethical discussions. This work has implications for post-secondary faculty and others who offer and manage student peer mentorship programs, for students in peer mentor and mentee roles, and for health professional education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".