Table 3 Post survey response
| Â | University of Tasmania | University of Nusa Cendana | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Â | Agree N(%) | Disagree N(%) | Total N(%) | Agree N(%) | Disagree N(%) | Total N(%) |
It was clearly explained why peer learning was part of this program | 15 (83) | 3 (17) | 18 (100) | 15 (75) | 5 (25) | 20 (100) |
The intended learning outcomes were clearly outlined | 13 (72) | 4 (22) | 17 (95) | 14 (70) | 6 (30) | 20 (100) |
The marking rubric helped me achieve the intended learning outcomes | 10 (56) | 7 (39) | 17 (95) | 19 (95) | 1 (5) | 20 (100) |
Online tools made it easy to communicate with our peers from overseas | 5 (28) | 12 (67) | 17 (95) | 16 (80) | 4 (20) | 20 (100) |
Working in small groups helped me achieve the intended learning outcomes of the learning activity | 7 (39) | 11 (62) | 18 (100) | 17 (85) | 2 (10) | 19 (95) |
The intercultural group work allowed me to apply and deepen my understanding of global health | 7 (39) | 9 (50) | 16 (89) | 17 (85) | 3 (15) | 20 (100) |
The intercultural peer project made me aware of similar/different cultural approaches to global health issues | 10 (56) | 7 (39) | 17 (95) | 16 (80) | 3 (15) | 19 (95) |
I appreciated learning about global health issues by working with my local and international peers, instead of attending traditional lectures | 10 (56) | 6 (33) | 16 (89) | 18 (90) | 2 (10) | 20 (100) |
The project gave me an opportunity to learn how overseas students think about global health issues | 5 (28) | 12 (67) | 17 (95) | 18 (90) | 2 (10) | 20 (100) |
The on-campus time allocated to discuss the peer-group project was sufficient | 12 (67) | 6 (33) | 18 (100) | 9 (45) | 11 (55) | 20 (100) |