Can students differentiate between PBL tutors with different tutoring deficiencies?

Abstract

Many medical schools evaluate the performance of their tutors by using questionnaires. One of the aims of these evaluations is to provide tutors with diagnostic feedback on strong and weak aspects of their performance. Although everyone will agree that students are able to distinguish between poor and excellent tutors, one can question whether students are also able to differentiate between tutors with different tutoring deficienciestutors who perform badly on a specific key aspect of their performance. The aim of this study was to investigate to what degree students are able to differentiate between tutors with different tutoring deficiencies, how effective tutors are with different deficiencies and what kind of tips students give for improvement of a tutor's behaviour. Based on students' ratings on a tutor evaluation questionnaire, tutors were ranked in groups with different deficiencies and the average overall tutor performance score was computed for each group with a particular deficiency. In addition, students' tips for improvement given in the openended question at the end of the questionnaire were analysed. The results demonstrated that on average one out of five tutors showed a deficiency on only one key aspect. Tutors who did not stimulate students towards active learning were perceived as least effective. Furthermore, students' tips for improvement could be categorized into four groups: tutors who do not evaluate adequately, tutors who are too directive, tutors who are too passive and tutors who lack content knowledge. The results of this study demonstrate that students are not only able to distinguish between poor and excellent tutors, but are also able to diagnose tutors with different tutoring deficiencies and are able to provide tutors with specific feedback to improve their performance.

The relationship between student perceptions of tutor performance and tutors' background in problem-based learning in South Korea

“…Dolmans et al reported that students can provide tutors with useful information to improve their performance. 7 By contrast, Papinczak suggested that, within the PBL tutorial environment at least, regularly evaluating tutors can create mistrust and confusion among the medical school, the tutor and the students on several levels; she recommended enhanced information provision and frank discussion to avoid such problems. 8 PBL approaches for medical education have been in use in Western countries for more than 40 years, but its use in Asian countries commenced quite recent.…”

Interactive film scenes for tutor training in problem-based learning (PBL): dealing with difficult situations

“…A large part of the responsibility for the performance and outcome of a PBL tutorial lies with the tutor, who facilitates students' learning processes and efficiently structures the tutorials [ 6 ]. The tutor's ability to effectively facilitate spirited, creative, and effective learning processes is appreciated by students [ 7 ]. The tutor strongly influences group functioning and the time spent on self-study activities, both of which have a significant impact the quality of the results achieved by the group within the tutorial, students' achievements in ensuing assessments, and their future interest in the subject matter at hand [ 8 - 10 ].…”

Directive versus facilitative peer tutoring? A view on students’ appraisal, reported learning gains and experiences within two differently-tutored learning environments

“…Students are said to have a good vantage point in making judgements concerning the learning environment because they spend sufficient time in the actual learning environment of interest. Also they have (Chi et al 2001;Rosé et al 2001); knowledge-display style (Chi et al 2001); knowledge-telling (Roscoe and Chi 2007); informer (De Smet et al 2008); dominant approach (Hendry, Ryan and Harris 2003); teacher-centred (Dolmans, Janssen-Noordman and Wolfhagen 2006;Kember and Kwan 2000) Indirect approach (Chi et al 2001); socratic approach (Collins 1985;Graesser et al 1995;Rosé et al 2001); inquiry approach (Collins 1985); knowledge-building (Roscoe and Chi 2007); knowledge-constructor (De Smet et al 2008); Interactive approach (Chi et al 2001); active tutor (guide) (RaskuPuttonen et al 2002;Pata et al 2005;Rangachari and Crankshaw 1996); activators and facilitators (Mayo, Donnelly and Schwartz 1995); studentcentred (Dolmans et al 2006;Kember and Kwan 2000) experienced other learning environments to help them to generate valid impressions (Fraser 1998). Furthermore, it has been widely agreed that it is not so much the reality of the learning environment that affects students' learning, but rather the way in which students perceive or interpret it (Entwistle 1991;Lowyck et al 2004).…”