Techniques used by "expert" and "non-expert" tutors to facilitate problem-based learning tutorials in an undergraduate medical curriculum.

Full Abstract

BACKGROUND:
There is inconclusive debate within the literature as to whether the best problem-based learning (PBL) tutors are subject experts or not. The debate hinges on whether knowledgeable tutors are tempted to intervene too often in PBL discussions compared to non-expert tutors, and whether the latter may not be able to sufficiently challenge the students' level of understanding.

PURPOSE:
To describe approaches used by tutors in PBL tutorials and to identify differences between tutors from medical and non-medical backgrounds.

METHODS:
The research reported in this paper was undertaken during the academic session 1999-2000 at the University of Liverpool Faculty of Medicine. A qualitative exploratory case study method was used and two PBL groups were observed. One of these groups had a medically qualified tutor and the other had a tutor from a humanities background. The focus of the observation was the discourse between tutor and students, which was analysed using a framework drawn from linguistics. Results were fed back to both the tutors and the students to check their perceptions of the interactions.

RESULTS:
Analysis of the tutorial group interaction revealed that tutors from both backgrounds used similar techniques to raise students' awareness, facilitate the group process and direct students' learning. Differences were noted between the two tutors:
the medical tutor set out to raise students' awareness by using questioning techniques herself, whereas the non-medical tutor expected students to question each other. The non-medical tutor was observed to facilitate the group process more often than the medical tutor.

CONCLUSIONS:
Qualitative analysis of spoken discourse in PBL tutorials provides valuable insights into the processes involved in PBL, thereby generating material which is useful for both training of and giving feedback to PBL tutors.

Learn Faster Today Improve your study skills

Author information

Author/s: Gilkison, Andrea (A);

Affiliation: University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England, UK. andrea.gilkison(-atsign-)aut.ac.nz

Journal and publication information

Publication Type: Journal Article

Journal: Medical education (Med Educ), published in England. (Language: eng)

Reference: 2003-Jan; vol 37 (issue 1) : pp 6-14

Dates: Created 2003/01/21; Completed 2003/02/25; Revised 2004/11/17;

PMID: 12535110, status: MEDLINE (last retrieval date: 12/26/2008)

Sourced from the National Library of Medicine. Abstract text and other information may be subject to copyright.

Comments and Corrections

CommentIn: Med Educ. 2004 Sep;38(9):918-20. (PMID: 15327669)

External Links for this article (including full text providers, if available):

Click Electronic Full-text Provider Links to see options for finding the electronic full text links to this article. Note there may be a subscription or fee required for access to the full text. See our FAQ for information on finding FREE full text articles.

This article may also be located in paper journal collections available in many libraries. Use the Journal and Publication Information above to find the full article.

MeSH headings (categories)

This article was linked to the MESH Headings shown below.

Cohort Studies
Curriculum
Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods; standards
England

England
Humans
Mentors
Problem-Based Learning - methods

These are the highest related articles currently in the database:

See 100+ related articles.