F1000ResearchF1000Research2046-1402F1000 Research LimitedLondon, UK10.12688/f1000research.179096.1Research ArticleArticlesPeer-Tutoring as a Student-Centered pedagogy in Nursing research Education: Effects on Knowledge Acquisition and Academic Self-Confidence
[version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]
Rani NatarajanJansiConceptualizationFormal AnalysisInvestigationMethodologyValidationhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9686-75431KrishnasamyThilagavathiConceptualizationData CurationInvestigationSupervisionhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0982-71301Prakash SreekalaReshmaProject AdministrationValidation1Dorothy NatarajanIreneProject Administration2MottersheadRichardMethodologyValidationWriting – Original Draft PreparationWriting – Review & Editinghttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-0048-0553a3SeshanVidyaFormal AnalysisMethodologyValidationWriting – Original Draft PreparationWriting – Review & Editinghttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-4733-53024
College of Health Sciences, University of Buraimi, Al Buraimi, Oman
Indian School Bousher, Muscat, Oman
University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emiratesrichmottershead@gmail.com
Nursing research education is crucial for developing competencies in evidence-based practice. However, undergraduate nursing students often perceive research courses as complex and abstract, negatively affecting learning outcomes and academic self-confidence. Peer tutoring, a student-centered pedagogical approach, may enhance engagement and learning in higher education. Yet empirical evidence on its effectiveness in teaching nursing research, particularly in the Gulf region, is limited.
The aim of this study evaluated the effectiveness of peer tutoring in improving knowledge acquisition and academic self-confidence among undergraduate nursing students enrolled in a nursing research course.
Methods
A quasi-experimental post-test control group design was conducted at the College of Health Sciences, University of Buraimi, Oman, during Fall 2025. A total of 137 students participated: 70 in the experimental group and 67 in the control group. The experimental group received structured peer-tutoring sessions alongside traditional lectures, while the control group received lectures only. Data were collected using a demographic questionnaire, a faculty-developed knowledge assessment, an academic self-confidence scale, and a perceived usefulness of peer tutoring questionnaire for the experimental group. Independent samples t-tests and Pearson’s correlation analyses examined group differences and associations.
Results
Students exposed to peer tutoring achieved significantly higher knowledge scores (p < .001) and academic self-confidence (p < .001) than the control group. The intervention had a moderate effect on knowledge and a large effect on academic self-confidence. Knowledge and academic self-confidence were positively correlated (r = .34, p < .001). Most participants reported high perceived usefulness of peer tutoring.
Conclusion
Peer tutoring is an effective strategy for enhancing knowledge acquisition and academic self-confidence in nursing research education. Integrating structured peer-tutoring approaches into undergraduate nursing curricula may promote deeper learning and strengthen research competence among future nurses.
Peer tutoring; Nursing education; Nursing research education; Academic self-confidence; Student-centered learning; Undergraduate nursing students; OmanThe author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.Introduction
Nursing education has increasingly shifted toward student-centered, active learning pedagogies aimed at fostering high-order thinking, collaboration, and learner autonomy. Peer tutoring is a collaborative learning strategy in which students teach and support one another, fostering academic growth, confidence, and social skills for both tutors and tutees in a flexible, relatable environment particularly in theoretically demanding courses such as nursing research. As research competence is foundational to evidence-based nursing practice, identifying effective instructional strategies that enhance students’ engagement, understanding, and academic self-confidence remains a priority (
Al Yahyaei et al., 2024).
Peer tutoring is a collaborative learning strategy in which students support one another’s learning through structured or semi-structured academic interactions (
Kim et al., 2021). Grounded in social constructivist learning theory, peer tutoring emphasizes knowledge co-construction, reciprocal learning, and active participation. When learners assume teaching responsibilities or study alongside their classmates, they frequently demonstrate improvements in thinking, communication, and self-assurance. Research also indicates that peer learning may be equally effective as lectures in improving academic performance and equipping students for clinical practice (
Choi et al., 2021;
Muthalib et al., 2023). An additional advantage of peer learning is its ability to reduce the loneliness experienced by contemporary students, promoting an environment of teamwork and mutual accountability in education (
Koo et al., 2024). Several investigations have linked this approach to improvements in achievement, analytical skills, and learner satisfaction (
Choi et al., 2021;
Wang, 2024). Peer tutoring is a widely recognized, evidence-based instructional strategy employed across various disciplines. Despite its enduring popularity, comprehensive research on its effectiveness in teaching nursing research concepts remains scarce.
Evidence from nursing education literature indicates that peer tutoring contributes positively to students and non-students academic achievement, satisfaction, and sense of belonging (
Kim et al., 2021b;
Mottershead, 2022). Students who participated in tutoring consistently performed better academically than those who did not and reported that the sessions were helpful to their learning (
Im Kang et al., 2021;
Dias et al., 2026).
Despite the growing body of evidence supporting peer tutoring in clinical, skill-based, and foundational nursing courses, its application in nursing research education remains underexplored. Nursing research courses are often perceived as abstract, complex, and anxiety-provoking by undergraduate students, leading to reduced engagement and lower academic confidence. While innovative instructional approaches have been advocated to address these challenges, empirical evidence examining peer tutoring as a strategy for improving learning outcomes in nursing research courses is limited. This gap is particularly evident in the Gulf region, including Oman, where cultural norms favor collaborative learning and peer interaction, potentially enhancing the effectiveness of peer-assisted pedagogies.
Recent call in nursing education literature emphasize the need for innovative, evidence-based teaching strategies to strengthen research literacy and scholarly inquiry among undergraduate nursing students (
Catarelli et al., 2023;
Dias et al., 2026). Integrating peer tutoring into nursing research education aligns with contemporary curricular reforms that prioritize competency-based education, collaborative practice, and lifelong learning skills. As nursing programs increasingly emphasize self-directed learning, collaborative practice, and development of scholarly inquiry capacities, peer tutoring provides a proven mechanism for cultivating these capabilities. However, rigorous evaluation of its effectiveness within this context is necessary to inform curriculum design and teaching practice.
To date, no published studies have systematically examined the impact of peer tutoring on learning outcomes in undergraduate nursing research courses in Oman or the wider Gulf region. Addressing the gap is critical, as understanding the pedagogical value of peer tutoring in research education may support the development of more engaging, inclusive, and effective teaching strategies. Such evidence is also aligned with national educational priorities emphasizing quality, innovation, and student-centered learning.
Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of peer tutoring in improving knowledge acquisition and academic self-confidence among undergraduate nursing students enrolled in Nursing Research course at a private university in Oman. By examining learning outcomes within this under-researched context, the study seeks to contribute empirical evidence to the nursing education literature and inform best practices for teaching research competencies in undergraduate nursing programs.
MethodStudy design
A quasi-experimental post-test control group design was employed to examine the effectiveness of peer tutoring on learning outcomes among undergraduate students enrolled in a Nursing Research course. This design was selected to allow comparison between students exposed to the peer tutoring intervention and those receiving traditional instruction while maintaining feasibility within an academic setting.
Setting
The study was conducted at the College of Health Sciences, University of Buraimi, Oman, during the Fall 2025 semester. The University of Buraimi is a private higher education institution comprising four colleges, including the College of Health Sciences. The Bachelor of Science in Nursing program enrolls approximately 1,200 students and requires completion of 135 credit hours over four academic years. The Nursing research course is a core component of the undergraduate curriculum, focusing on foundational research concepts, and group-based proposal development.
Participants and sampling
Participants were undergraduate nursing students enrolled in the Nursing Research course during the Fall 2025 semester. Approximately 200 students were registered across morning and evening sections of the course. A convenience sampling technique was used to recruit participants from both sections.
Sample size
Sample size estimation was conducted using G*Power software for a two-group comparison, assuming a moderate effect size (ƒ2 = 0.30), a significance level of alpha = 0.05, and a statistical power of 0.80. The required minimum sample size was determined to be 70 Students, distributed between the experimental and control groups.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria comprised enrollment in the nursing research course during the fall 2025 semester and willingness to participate in the study. Students who were absent during scheduled peer-tutoring sessions were excluded from data collection.
Intervention: peer tutoring program
The Nursing Research course spanned 15 weeks, including course orientation in week 1, a midterm examination in week 8, and the final examination in week 15. Peer tutoring sessions were implemented during weeks 7, 9, 10, and 11 of the semesters. An open invitation to serve as a peer tutor was extended to the students in the experimental group. Interest Students volunteered to deliver brief micro-teaching sessions of approximately 10 minutes on assigned research topics aligned with the course objectives.
Faculty members evaluated volunteer tutors using a standardized microteaching Criteria Checklist assessing content accuracy, clarity, organization, engagement strategies, questioning techniques, and facilitation skills. Fourteen peer tutors were selected, maintaining an approximate tutor-to-tutee ratio of 1:4–5. Selected peer tutors participated in three brief preparatory sessions focused on reinforcing key research concepts, effective small group facilitation, and constructive feedback provision. Tutors were provided with structured teaching materials including case analyses, worksheets, guided questions, and practice exercises.
Both experimental and control group received standard faculty-led lectures covering the same Nursing Research content. I addition, students in the experimental (morning) session engaged in peer tutoring activities during scheduled course support time, with minimal faculty oversight to ensure consistency across sessions. Students in the control (evening) session received only traditional lecture-based instruction.
At the conclusion of the intervention period, Students in the experimental group completed self-report questionnaires assessing knowledge, academic self-confidence, and perception of the usefulness of peer tutoring. Students in the control group completed a self-reported questionnaire and academic self-confidence
only.
Data collection instrumentsDemographic Questionnaire
Participants’ demographic characteristics were collected using a structured questionnaire, including age, sex, cumulative grade point average (GPA), and residential status.
Knowledge Assessment
Knowledge of nursing research concepts was measured using 10 faculty-developed multiple-choice questions (MCQs) aligned with course content. Items were formatted in NCLEX-style and mapped to three cognitive levels: comprehension, application, and higher-order thinking. The MCQs were developed by the course coordinator and reviewed by external subject-matter experts to ensure content validity and relevance.
Academic Self-Confidence Scale
Academic self-confidence was measured using a revised version of the Self-Confidence Scale originally developed by
Sander and Sanders (2003). The instrument comprises 14 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (No confidence at all) to 5 (Complete confidence). Higher total scores indicate greater academic self-confidence.
Perceived Usefulness of Peer Tutoring
Students in the experimental group completed the Usefulness of Peer Tutoring Scale developed by
Thomson, Smith, and Annesley (2014). The scale consists of 18 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree) and demonstrates strong construct validity and internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.80) (
Thomson et al., 2014). Higher scores reflect more positive perceptions of peer tutoring effectiveness.
Data Analysis
Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 30. Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages, were used to summarize participant characteristics and outcome variables. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare knowledge and academic self-confidence scores between the experimental and control groups. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to examine the relationship between knowledge scores and academic self-confidence. Statistical significance was set at p < .05.
Ethical considerations
Ethical approval was obtained from the Research and Ethics Committee of College of Health Sciences, University of Buraimi, Oman prior to data collection. The Ethical approval number for this study is AY25-26COHS-010. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Participation was voluntary, and students were assured that their decision to participate or withdraw would not affect their academic standing or course grades. All data were anonymized and stored securely in password-protected electronic files and locked cabinets accessible only to the research team. Participant confidentiality was maintained throughout the study and in all subsequent reports and publications.
Result
A total of 137 undergraduate nursing students participated in the study, comprising 70 students in the experimental group and 67 in the control group. Participant demographic characteristics are summarized in
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics of Participants in the experimental and control groups.
Demographic characteristics
Category
Experimental group
Control group
Chi-square/ANOVA
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Gender
Male
8
5.8
8
5.8
0.926
Female
62
45.3
59
43.1
Residence status
Inside the campus
41
29.9
43
31.4
0.501
Outside the campus
29
21.2
24
17.5
Age of the participants
Mean = 25.14, SD = 6.575
Mean = 22.27, SD = 3.131
0.001
CGPA
Mean = 3.28, SD = 0.674
Mean = 2.91, SD = 0.599
0.001
The majority of participants in both groups were female. In the experimental group, 62 students (88.6%) were female and 8 (11.4%) were male, while in the control group, 59 students (88.1%) were female and 8 (11.9%) were male. No statistically significant difference was observed between groups with respect to gender distribution (χ
2 = 0.926, p > .05).
With regard to residence status, 41 students (58.6%) in the experimental group and 43 students (64.2%) in the control group resided on campus, whereas 29 students (41.4%) and 24 students (35.8%), respectively, lived off campus. This difference was not statistically significant (χ
2 = 0.501, p > .05).
However, statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in age and cumulative grade point average (CGPA). The mean age of students in the experimental group was higher (M = 25.14 years, SD = 6.58) than that of the control group (M = 22.27 years, SD = 3.13), and this difference was statistically significant (p = .001). Similarly, the experimental group demonstrated a significantly higher mean CGPA (M = 3.28, SD = 0.67) compared with the control group (M = 2.91, SD = 0.60; p = .001).
Comparison of knowledge and academic self-confidence between groups
Independent samples t-tests were conducted to examine differences in knowledge and academic self-confidence between students who participated in peer tutoring and those who received traditional instruction only
(
Table 2).
Comparison of knowledge and academic self-confidence between experimental and control groups.
Experimental/control
N
Mean
Std. deviation
t value
P value
Knowledge of the participants
Experimental group
70
9.71
0.640
3.702
***
0.001
Control group
67
8.94
1.623
Academic self-confidence of the participants
Experimental group
70
56.56
8.326
3.643
***
0.001
Control group
67
48.04
7.799
Knowledge
Students in the experimental group demonstrated significantly higher knowledge scores (M = 9.71, SD = 0.64) than those in the control group (M = 8.94, SD = 1.62). This difference was statistically significant, t(135) = 3.70, p < .001. The 95% confidence interval for the mean difference ranged from 0.36 to 1.19. Effect size analysis indicated a moderate effect of the peer tutoring intervention on knowledge outcomes (Cohen’s d = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.29–0.98).
Academic self-confidence
Similarly, academic self-confidence scores were significantly higher among students in the experimental group (M = 56.56, SD = 8.33) compared with the control group (M = 48.04, SD = 7.80). This difference was statistically significant, t(135) = 3.64, p < .001, with a 95% confidence interval for the mean difference ranging from 5.78 to 11.24. The magnitude of the intervention effect on academic self-confidence was large (Cohen’s d = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.70–1.41).
Perceived usefulness of peer tutoring
Perceptions of the usefulness of peer tutoring were assessed among students in the experimental group only. As illustrated in
Figure 1, the majority of participants reported highly perceived usefulness of peer tutoring. Specifically, 48 students (68.6%) scored within the high perceived usefulness range (scores 66–90), while 22 students (31.4%) reported moderate perceived usefulness (scores 42–65). None of the participants reported low perceived usefulness. These findings indicate a consistently positive perception of peer tutoring among students exposed to the intervention.
Perception of usefulness of Peer tutoring.
Relationship between knowledge and academic self-confidence
Pearson’s correlation analysis was performed to examine the relationship between knowledge and academic self-confidence among all participants (N = 137). A moderate, positive, and statistically significant correlation was identified between knowledge scores and academic self-confidence (r = .34, p < .001), indicating that higher levels of knowledge were associated with higher levels of academic self-confidence (
Table 3).
Correlation between knowledge and academic self-confidence among Participants.
Variables
Mean
Std. Deviation
Knowledge of the participants
Academic
self-confidence of the participants
Knowledge of the participants
9.34
1.279
Pearson Correlation
.342
***
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.000
Academic self-confidence of the participants
52.39
9.107
Pearson Correlation
.342
***
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.000
Correlation at 0.001 (2-tailed).
Additional analyses examining associations between demographic variables and outcome measures revealed that higher CGPA, older age, and off-campus residence were significantly associated with higher knowledge and academic self-confidence scores (p < .05).
Discussion
The present study demonstrated that undergraduate nursing students who participated in peer tutoring within a nursing research course achieved significantly higher knowledge scores and academic self-confidence compared with those who received traditional lecture-based instruction. These findings are consistent with previous empirical studies conducted among nursing students in clinical skills and foundational courses in Oman and Turkey, which reported superior academic and affective outcomes following peer-assisted learning interventions (
Al Yahyaei et al., 2024;
Şengül et al., 2022).
The observed improvement in knowledge acquisition supports existing evidence that peer tutoring facilitates deeper learning through interactive discussion, clarification of complex concepts, repeated engagement with content, and meaningful social interaction (
Al Yahyaei et al., 2024;
Dias et al., 2025;
Kim et al., 2021). In the context of nursing research education, where students are required to develop abstract reasoning and proposal-writing skills, peer tutoring may enable learners to process content more actively and contextualize research concepts through collaborative dialogue. Furthermore, observational learning, peer modeling, and social persuasion appear to contribute to improved academic self-confidence, particularly when students receive feedback in a supportive peer-led environment (
Feng et al., 2024;
Mottershead & Alonaizi, 2022).
A notable contribution of this study is the significant enhancement of academic self-confidence among students who engaged in peer tutoring. Nursing research courses are frequently perceived by students as conceptually difficult and intimidating, often leading to reduced confidence and engagement. Peer tutoring offers a student-centered pedagogical approach that creates a psychologically safe learning space, enabling students to ask questions freely, articulate uncertainties, and receive peer affirmation. These findings align with earlier studies reporting increased psychological empowerment, academic self-efficacy, and confidence among nursing students participating in peer learning initiatives (
Al Yahyaei et al., 2024;
Dias et al., 2025;
Kim et al., 2021;
Shaukat & Bashir, 2016).
The positive and statistically significant correlation between knowledge and academic self-confidence identified in this study further reinforces the interdependent relationship between cognitive and affective learning outcomes. As students’ understanding of nursing research concepts increased, their confidence in engaging with academic tasks also improved. This relationship is particularly salient in research education, where inadequate confidence can act as a barrier to active participation, critical inquiry, and scholarly engagement.
Students’ perceptions of the usefulness of peer tutoring further support the quantitative findings. The majority of participants in the experimental group rated peer tutoring as highly useful, reflecting strong acceptance of the intervention and perceived value in collaborative and individualized learning opportunities. This finding is consistent with prior research demonstrating high levels of student satisfaction and perceived effectiveness of peer tutoring in nursing education (
Kim et al., 2021;
Lin et al., 2025;
Wang, 2024). Within the Omani cultural context, which emphasizes collectivism and group-oriented learning, peer tutoring may be particularly effective in fostering motivation, engagement, and shared responsibility for learning.
Associations between higher CGPA, older age, off-campus residence, and improved knowledge and self-confidence scores may reflect greater academic maturity, self-directed learning skills, and prior educational exposure. Nevertheless, despite these baseline differences, the peer tutoring intervention was associated with significant improvements in learning outcomes, suggesting that the instructional strategy itself played a meaningful role in enhancing students’ academic performance and confidence.
Importantly, this study extends the existing body of nursing education literature by demonstrating the effectiveness of peer tutoring in a theoretical course, namely nursing research, rather than in clinical or skills-based settings alone. To the authors’ knowledge, this is among the first studies conducted in Oman to evaluate peer tutoring within a nursing research course. As such, the findings provide region-specific evidence supporting the integration of student-centered pedagogical strategies in Gulf nursing education and align with Oman Vision 2040, which emphasizes innovation, quality, and learner-centered approaches in higher education.
Implications for nursing education and practice
The findings of this study have important implications for nursing education, curriculum design, and faculty development. The demonstrated effectiveness of peer tutoring in enhancing knowledge acquisition and academic self-confidence suggests that this student-centered pedagogical approach can be strategically integrated into undergraduate nursing curricula, particularly in theoretically demanding courses such as nursing research. Incorporating structured peer tutoring may help address students’ learning anxiety, improve engagement, and foster deeper conceptual understanding, thereby strengthening research literacy and evidence-based practice competencies among future nurses.
From a curricular perspective, peer tutoring aligns well with contemporary competency-based and learner-centered educational frameworks that emphasize collaboration, self-directed learning, and critical inquiry. Embedding peer tutoring within nursing research courses may support the development of transferable skills such as communication, teamwork, and scholarly thinking, which are essential for professional nursing practice. Additionally, the reciprocal benefits observed among peer tutors highlight the potential of peer-assisted learning to promote leadership development and metacognitive growth among high-performing students.
At the institutional level, the adoption of peer tutoring programs represents a cost-effective and sustainable strategy to enhance academic support without increasing faculty workload. Faculty members play a critical role in designing, monitoring, and evaluating peer tutoring interventions; therefore, targeted faculty development initiatives are recommended to ensure effective implementation and quality assurance. In the context of Oman and the wider Gulf region, where collaborative learning is culturally congruent, peer tutoring may be particularly effective in promoting inclusive and supportive learning environments. The study’s findings also support national higher education priorities focused on innovation, quality improvement, and student engagement.
Limitations
Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the quasi-experimental design and use of convenience sampling limit causal inference and may introduce selection bias. Baseline differences in age and CGPA between the experimental and control groups may have influenced outcomes, although statistical analyses were conducted to account for these differences. Second, academic self-confidence and perceived usefulness were assessed using self-reported instruments, which may be subject to response and social desirability bias. Finally, the study was conducted at a single private university, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other institutions or public universities in Oman.
Recommendations
Based on the findings, several recommendations are proposed. Nursing educators should consider integrating structured peer tutoring into nursing research courses to enhance students’ understanding and academic self-confidence. Peer tutoring may also be extended to other theory-based nursing courses, such as statistics, ethics, and leadership, where students commonly encounter learning challenges. Faculty development programs should include training on the design, implementation, and evaluation of peer tutoring interventions to ensure instructional consistency and effectiveness. Future research should employ randomized controlled designs and multi-institutional samples to strengthen generalizability. Longitudinal studies are recommended to examine the sustained impact of peer tutoring on knowledge retention and research competence, while qualitative investigations could provide deeper insight into students’ and tutors’ lived experiences of peer-assisted learning.
Conclusion
This study provides evidence that peer tutoring is an effective instructional strategy for enhancing both knowledge and academic self-confidence among undergraduate nursing students enrolled in a nursing research course. Students who participated in peer tutoring demonstrated superior learning outcomes compared with those who received traditional instruction and reported high perceived usefulness of the approach. Incorporating peer tutoring into nursing education curricula may contribute to the development of more confident, competent, and research-literate future nurses.
Data availability
Participant data contains sensitive personal information, and sharing such data publicly could compromise confidentiality and anonymity.
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) has mandated that data sharing is permissible only under specific conditions that ensure participant privacy and align with ethical guidelines. Access to the data may be granted to qualified researchers for legitimate academic purposes upon request.
Requests for access must be submitted in writing to the corresponding author, Dr. Richard Mottershead,
richmottershead@gmail.com.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the undergraduate nursing students who participated in this study for their time and valuable contributions. The authors also acknowledge the support of the College of Health Sciences, University of Buraimi, Oman, for facilitating the conduct of this research. Special appreciation is extended to the faculty members who assisted with the implementation of the peer tutoring sessions and data collection.
ReferencesAl YahyaeiANatarajanJRSeshanV:
The Usefulness of Peer Tutoring and its Impact on Nursing Students’ Academic Performance, Psychological Empowerment, and Satisfaction: Pre-Post Design.SAGE Open Nursing.2024;10. Scopus.
3948422110.1177/23779608241282168PMC11526150CatarelliBNoblesPScartonL:
Care, lead, and inspire: Infusing innovation into nursing research and evidence-based practice course.Worldviews Evid.-Based Nurs.2023;20(3):281–284.
3719434410.1111/wvn.12654ChoiJAKimOParkS:
The effectiveness of peer learning in undergraduate nursing students: A meta-analysis.Clin. Simul. Nurs.2021;50:92–101.
10.1016/j.ecns.2020.09.002DiasJMAl KaabiFSBSAl HootiST:
Exploring peer tutoring experiences in improving nursing students’ academic success and performance: A qualitative study among Emirati undergraduate nursing students.F1000Res.2025;14:1416.
10.12688/f1000research.172023.1DiasJMAdejare AderibigbeSSara AbrahamM:
Mentor's Perspective on Structured Clinical Mentoring in the Arab Context. [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review].F1000Research2026;15:432.
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.177515.1FengHLuoZWuZ:
Effectiveness of Peer-Assisted Learning in health professional education: A scoping review of systematic reviews.BMC Med. Educ.2024;24(1):1467.
3969565310.1186/s12909-024-06434-7PMC11653801Im KangKLeeNJoungJ:
Nursing students’ experience of online peer tutoring based on the grow model: A qualitative study.Nurse Educ. Today.2021;107:105131.
3450902810.1016/j.nedt.2021.105131PMC9756855KimSCJillapaliRBoydS:
Impacts of peer tutoring on academic performance of first-year baccalaureate nursing students: A quasi-experimental study.Nurse Educ. Today.2021;96:104658.
10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104658KooHYAnHLeeBR:
The effect of peer tutoring on pediatric nursing education: A systematic review.Child Health Nursing Research.2024;30(4):215–226.
3947722910.4094/chnr.2024.024PMC11532353LinPZhouQMaJ:
Peer tutoring in higher education: Power from pedagogical training.Humanities and Social Sciences Communications.2025;12(1):723.
10.1057/s41599-025-04860-6MottersheadR:
The social prescribing of psychosocial interventions in the treatment of addictions and substance use disorders with military veterans: a reclamation of identity and belonging [version 2; peer review: 2 approved].F1000Res.2022;11:944.
10.12688/f1000research.124768.2MottersheadRAlonaiziN:
Empowering social prescribing and peer support: A proposed therapeutic alliance against addiction and substance misuse within the Middle East.J Drug Alcohol Res.2022;11(11):236208.
10.4303/JDAR/236208MuthalibHASyedFRaziqT:
Alfaisal University’s Academic Success Center: An Individualized Peer-Assisted Learning Program for Mutual Tutor-Student Advancement.Cureus.2023;15(9):e44883.
3781473610.7759/cureus.44883SanderPSandersL:
Measuring confidence in academic study: A summary report.Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology.
2003;1(1):1–17.ŞengülTAydınAOcakçıAF:
Using peer tutoring program in the basic skills laboratory and clinical practice: Experience of nursing students.Journal of Education and Research in Nursing.2022;19(3):238–333.ShaukatSBashirM:
University students’ academic confidence: Comparison between social sciences and natural science disciplines.Journal of Elementary Education.2016;25(2):113–123.ThomsonPSmithAAnnesleyS:
Exploration of the effects of peer teaching of research on students in an undergraduate nursing programme.J. Res. Nurs.2014;19(5):415–430.
10.1177/1744987113519444WangT:
Online peer tutoring programs fostering community and learning skills among college students.Educ. Inf. Technol.2024;29(16):21751–21788.
10.1007/s10639-024-12656-510.5256/f1000research.197572.r476700Reviewer response for version 1Al OmariOmar1Refereehttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7614-1729
Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
The researchers discuss an important topic: Peer Tutoring as a Student-Centered Pedagogy in Nursing Research Education: Effects on Knowledge Acquisition and Academic Self-Confidence.
Overall Comment
The manuscript requires substantial English-language editing to improve grammar, clarity, sentence structure, and academic tone. For example, the following sentences require correction: “I addition, students in the experimental…” and “Both experimental and control group received standard faculty-led lectures…”.
Title
The title needs to be revised because capitalization and hyphenation are inconsistent. Please revise the title as follows:
Peer Tutoring as a Student-Centered Pedagogy in Nursing Research Education: Effects on Knowledge Acquisition and Academic Self-Confidence
Abstract
The researchers stated: “The aim of this study evaluated the effectiveness of peer tutoring…”. Please revise this sentence because “the aim” cannot “evaluated.” A better version would be: “This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of peer tutoring…”
The researchers stated: “A quasi-experimental post-test control group design was conducted…”. Please revise this sentence because a design is not “conducted”; rather, a study is conducted using a design. This may be rewritten as: “A quasi-experimental post-test-only control group study was conducted at…”
The researchers stated: “Students exposed to peer tutoring achieved significantly higher knowledge scores…”. This wording is too strong for a non-randomized post-test-only design. The language should be softened. For example: “Students in the peer-tutoring group had significantly higher post-intervention knowledge scores…”
Similarly, in the conclusion, the researchers stated: “Peer tutoring is an effective strategy for enhancing knowledge acquisition and academic self-confidence in nursing research education.” Please soften this conclusion to match the study design. For example: “Peer tutoring may be a promising strategy for enhancing knowledge acquisition and academic self-confidence in nursing research education.”
Introduction
In the first and second paragraphs, the researchers repeated the definition of peer tutoring almost verbatim. For example, they stated: “Peer tutoring is a collaborative learning strategy in which students teach and support one another, fostering academic…”. Please delete one of the two definitions and retain a single, concise definition.
The researchers stated: “Evidence from nursing education literature indicates that peer tutoring contributes positively to students and non-students academic achievement, satisfaction, and sense of belonging.” The phrase “non-students” is unclear. Please clarify what is meant by this term.
The researchers stated: “To date, no published studies have systematically examined the impact of peer tutoring on learning outcomes in undergraduate nursing research courses in Oman or the wider Gulf region.” This statement should not depend only on the researchers’ knowledge. Please revise it to indicate that a structured literature search was conducted
Methods
The researchers stated: “A quasi-experimental post-test control group design was employed to examine the…”. The design should be described more precisely as: “A quasi-experimental post-test-only non-equivalent control group design was used.”
This description is more appropriate because no pre-test was conducted and the groups were not equivalent at baseline.
The researchers stated: “This design was selected to allow comparison between students exposed to the peer tutoring intervention…”. Although this is correct, the researchers should explicitly acknowledge that the absence of pre-test measures limits the ability to establish baseline equivalence for knowledge and self-confidence.
The researchers stated: “Approximately 200 students were registered across morning and evening sections of the course. A convenience sampling technique was used to recruit participants from both sections.” However, the researchers did not explain how 137 of the 200 registered students were included or whether non-participants differed from participants. Please add a paragraph reporting the number of students approached, eligible, consented, excluded, and included in the final analysis.
Based on the manuscript, students were allocated to the control and experimental groups according to course timing: the experimental group was from the morning section and the control group from the evening section. It is unclear whether the timing of these sections was randomized. Morning and evening sections may differ in age, employment status, motivation, academic performance, and other characteristics. Because allocation was based on course sections rather than randomization, section-related confounding should be addressed analytically and discussed as a major limitation.
In the sample size section, the reported effect size, ƒ² = 0.30, is inconsistent with a two-group t-test. The authors should report Cohen’s d instead.
The researchers stated: “Students who were absent during scheduled peer-tutoring sessions were excluded from data collection.” Excluding absent students after allocation may introduce attrition bias and overestimate the effectiveness of the intervention. Please report the number of students excluded due to absence and compare included versus excluded students where possible.
The researchers stated: “An open invitation to serve as a peer tutor was extended to the students in the experimental…”. Selecting tutors only from the experimental group may introduce intervention-intensity bias and tutor advantage. Please clearly state whether peer tutors were excluded from the final analysis. If they were included, please report outcomes separately for peer tutors and tutees.
The researchers stated: “Faculty members evaluated volunteer tutors using a standardized microteaching Criteria Checklist assessing content accuracy, clarity, organization, engagement strategies…”. The checklist was not described in sufficient detail. Please describe the checklist domains, scoring system, inter-rater reliability, selection threshold, and whether assessors were trained.
The researchers stated: “Students in the control group completed a self-reported questionnaire and academic self-confidence only.” This sentence suggests that the control group did not complete the knowledge assessment. Please clarify whether the control group completed both the knowledge test and the academic self-confidence scale.
The researchers stated: “Knowledge of nursing research concepts was measured using 10 faculty-develo…”. Please provide evidence regarding the validity and reliability of this faculty-developed instrument.
Please also report Cronbach’s alpha for the Academic Self-Confidence Scale.
Independent samples t-tests were used for preliminary between-group comparisons. Given the observed baseline differences in age and CGPA, supplementary adjusted analyses, such as ANCOVA or regression, should be considered to examine whether group differences remain significant after accounting for these variables. If the authors are unable to conduct these analyses at this stage, this should be clearly acknowledged as a limitation. For example: “Although independent samples t-tests were used to compare outcomes between groups, baseline differences in age and CGPA may have influenced the findings. Future studies should consider adjusted analyses or randomized allocation to reduce the potential effect of confounding.”
Ethical Considerations
Because the intervention occurred within a course, the researchers should explain how coercion was minimized and whether data collectors were independent from course instructors. Please also clarify whether consent was obtained by a researcher who was not involved in grading and whether instructors were blinded to students’ participation status during assessment
Results and Tables
In Table 1, the authors mention “Chi-square/ANOVA.” However, it is unclear where ANOVA was used. If this column only reports statistical significance, please replace the column title with p-value.
In Table 1, percentages appear to have been calculated using the total sample denominator rather than group-specific denominators. For example, male participants in the experimental group are shown as 5.8%, although 8/70 = 11.4%. Please recalculate all percentages using group-specific denominators.
The researchers stated: “None of the participants reported low perceived usefulness. These findings indicate a consistently positive perception of peer tutoring among students exposed to the intervention.” This is an important finding and should be clearly reported and considered in the Discussion.
The researchers stated: “Additional analyses examining associations between demographic variables and outcome measures revealed that higher CGPA, older age, and off-campus residence were significantly associated with higher knowledge and academic self-confidence scores (p < .05).” Please add a table showing these associations.
Discussion
The researchers stated: “A notable contribution of this study is the significant enhancement of academic self-confidence among students who engaged in peer tutoring.” The word “enhancement” implies that baseline data were collected and compared with post-intervention data. However, no baseline self-confidence was measured. I recommend revising this sentence to state that there was a significant difference between the two groups rather than an enhancement over time.
The researchers stated: “Nevertheless, despite these baseline differences, the peer tutoring intervention was associated with significant improvement…”. This is the central methodological issue in the study. Therefore, the sentence should be rewritten as: “Because age and CGPA differed significantly between groups, unadjusted between-group differences should be interpreted cautiously.”
The researchers stated: “At the institutional level, the adoption of peer tutoring programs represents a cost-effective and sustainable strategy…”. Cost-effectiveness was not measured in this study. Therefore, this sentence should be softened. For example: “At the institutional level, peer tutoring may represent a feasible and potentially sustainable strategy; however, future studies are needed to examine its cost-effectiveness.”
The researchers stated: “Baseline differences in age and CGPA between the experimental and control groups may have influenced outcomes, although statistical analyses were conducted to account for these differences.” This statement is inaccurate because the results report independent t-tests and correlations only; no adjusted analysis is presented. Please revise this statement and acknowledge this as a serious limitation of the study.
Limitations
The limitation section should be strengthened by explicitly discussing the following issues: absence of randomization, absence of pre-test measures, possible contamination, ceiling effects, tutor/tutee heterogeneity, self-report bias, lack of blinding, baseline differences in age and CGPA, and lack of adjusted analyses
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
No
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
Reviewer Expertise:
Nursing
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.
10.5256/f1000research.197572.r476702Reviewer response for version 1SingaraveluRajeswari1Referee
Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research (Deemed to be University), Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
In the abstract under methods, for statistical analysis, - association was mentioned, but no relevant statistical test and its findings were provided
Why was a post-test only design chosen to assess the intervention effectiveness- why not pretest – posttest?
Groups were based on morning vs evening sessions, not randomized., No explanation was provided for whether both groups are similar in terms of baseline.
What sampling technique was used to choose the participants?
Knowledge questionnaire – was reliability performed, how the knowledge score was interpreted?
Tables and figure are not properly presented
Why adjusted regression analysis not performed, as there was a baseline difference in the age and CGPA?
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
Reviewer Expertise:
Womens health
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.