Qualitative research explores how peer evaluation fosters experiential learning in undergraduate health sciences students, indicating its value in education.
To function effectively in a healthcare landscape, health professions educators must prepare students with the necessary interpersonal skills to work effectively in a multidisciplinary team. Despite the ongoing emphasis on interprofessional education (IPE) in health sciences, the development of interpersonal skills remains a challenge. Although peer evaluation has the potential to enhance experiential learning and foster interpersonal competencies, exploring students’ perceptions of the use of peer evaluation to foster experiential learning remains underexplored in health professions education. Grounded in an interpretive paradigm, data in this qualitative research were collected using an open-ended reflection activity at the end of the academic semester. The study population comprised all students registered for a compulsory, second-year, interprofessional module in the Faculty of Health Sciences at a university in South Africa (N: 1734). A total of 1145 students consented to the use of their responses in the reflection activity for research purposes. Findings from the thematic analysis reveal that students moved through each stage of Kolb’s experiential learning cycle in a meaningful way. The responses suggest that peer evaluation did not just assess performance; it became part of the learning itself. It helped students see more clearly what good group work looks like and gave them the chance to grow their own interprofessional skills. By framing peer evaluation as an active learning process rather than merely an assessment tool, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of how students engage with and learn from peer evaluation. Addressing a gap in health professions education literature, this study explores undergraduate healthcare students’ perceptions of using peer evaluation within interprofessional group work (IPGW) to foster experiential learning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Koch et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: