Student evaluation of expert and non-expert problem-based learning tutors.

The role of the tutor is important in developing effective group process in educational programs built around smallgroup, problem-based learning (PBL). The tutor’s role includes creating a supportive group climate, encouraging the involvement of group members and addressing group problems when they arise. Good tutoring has the potential to enhance group process in both novice and experienced teams. It is worthwhile therefore to monitor the quality of tutorial teaching in PBL programs and provide valid and useful feedback to individual tutors. In addition to ‘expertise’ in teaching, tutors may have content expertise in the area(s) covered by the patient problem(s). Tutors with content expertise may facilitate students’ learning, for example, by intervening in students’ discussion with timely statements or questions that evoke relevant ideas and/or clinical reasoning processes. However, studies of the effect of tutor content expertise on student learning have produced inconclusive results (Schmidt & Moust, 2000). Some research has found a positive effect on students’ achievement in favour of content experts, while other studies have found mixed or no differences between ‘expert’ and ‘non-expert’ tutors (see Schmidt & Moust, 2000, for a comprehensive review). The inconclusive results from this research may be due to differences in (1) the deŽ nitions of content expertise and (2) the size of samples used, (3) participating students’ level of experience of PBL, (4) students’ levels of prior knowledge, and/or (5) the amount of structure provided by the medical school curriculum (Schmidt & Moust, 2000). The curriculum in Years 1 and 2 of the University of Sydney medical program is structured around PBL tutorials, supported by lectures and other teaching sessions relevant to the problem. A total of 70 clinical problems are grouped into nine units or ‘blocks’ of study.The Ž rst block is introductory, seven blocks are based on body systems and the ninth block is concerned with oncology and palliative care. Prior to each block, all PBL tutors are provided with printed materials specially designed to support their teaching for each problem. These support materials, together with extensive web-based student resources linked to the weekly case (readers may explore the program web site at http://www.gmp.usyd.edu. au/visitors/), provide a highly structured teaching and learning environment. In this paper, we report the results of an analysis of PBL tutor evaluation data from Years 1 and 2 of the medical program for the period 1998–2000. We conducted a conŽ rmatory factor analysis on a 24-item tutor feedback form completed by students at the end of each block, and compared ratings of ‘expert’ and ‘non-expert’ tutors, where expert tutors were broadly deŽ ned as having medical training. We used this deŽ nition of ‘expert’ because tutors with medical training have different levels of clinical experience in addition to knowledge of both the basic and clinical sciences. Nonexperts were further subdivided into staff with basic science and non-basic science backgrounds. Our analysis does not include an examination of the relationship between tutor expertise and student achievement in the USydMP, because students change their tutors several times during Years 1 and 2, and such an examination would involve a higher level of complexity beyond the scope of this article.