Near-peer teaching (NPT) is as a valuable pedagogical approach in anatomical education, enabling advanced students to facilitate the learning of junior peers. This qualitative exploratory study investigates the experiences of postgraduate students as near-peer demonstrators within the Division of Clinical Anatomy at Stellenbosch University. The aim was to explore how engagement in NPT influences demonstrators’ understanding of human anatomy, teaching competencies and professional development. Using convenience sampling, ten current and former demonstrators participated in focus group discussions. Data were transcribed and thematically analysed to identify patterns in reflections and experiences. Four themes were identified: (1) Improved understanding and retention of anatomical knowledge through repetitive teaching; (2) Enhanced professional development, particularly in communication skills and self-confidence; (3) Challenges associated with limited preparation, balancing academic responsibilities and managing student expectations; and (4) Influence of NPT on shaping professional identity and career direction. Participants reported that teaching experiences deepened their anatomical insight and contributed to growth as future health professionals and educators. By assuming teaching responsibilities, demonstrators develop core graduate attributes, including communication, leadership, adaptability and professional identity, which constitute employability capital for various careers. This study highlights the reciprocal value of NPT as a tool to enhance undergraduate learning, and as a catalyst for developing teaching expertise and professional confidence. It recommends structured support frameworks, including targeted pedagogical training for improved communication between faculty and demonstrators. NPT can strengthen programme sustainability, support the alignment of training with curricular goals, and help prepare demonstrators for diverse roles in clinical practice, education and research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Correia et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: