Problem-based learning (PBL) is a widely used teaching and learning method at various uni-versities around the globe, including Linköping university. PBL differs significantly from the traditional teacher-student relationship as it flattens the hierarchical structure and shifts the responsibility of learning from the teacher to the student. In a PBL setting,there is a tutor/fa-cilitator, rather than a teacher, whose task is to facilitate learning by encouraging students to elaborate on the knowledge and their understandings of the topic (also known as scenario). As a medical doctor and active researcher at Linköping university,I will for the firsttimenext year play the role of the tutor in a tutorial group consisting of second-year medical students. Coming from a traditional/hierarchical educational system, I have been rather skeptical about the efficiency of PBL and how I can fit in a tutorial group. My biggest concerns have to do with the amount of expertise that is needed and, also, when,and how a tutor should intervene during a tutorial group.Based on the previous experiences of several colleagues, field expertise is not necessary for successful facilitation. Similar assurances were given to me by the teaching staff of the PBL course that I have recently attended at Linköping university. However, most of the articles that I have read about PBL seem to partially contradict this notion. Most PBL-related studies state that the ideal tutor should have both expertise in his field and the facilitative skills that are necessary to participate appropriately in group discussions. Being puzzled by this contradiction, I decided to delve into pedagogical literature in order to answer the following question: how much expertise is acceptable for a tutor to have before it becomes too much? Apparently, there is no obviousanswer to this question. A study from 2003 has compared an expert and a non-expert tutor in terms of intervention techniques for learning facilitation 1. Not-surprisingly, the expert tutor appeared to have a more dominant behavior during the tutorial groups, with more and longer interventions in each session, compared to the non-expert tutor. Also, the expert tutor appeared to somehow deviate from PBL guidelines, by using questioning techniques to “raise student awareness” and “getting the students to think about something differently”. On the other hand, the non-expert tutor expected students to question each other and was more focused on facilitating the group process. Surprisingly, both tutors were positively appreciated by the students, the non-expert one for not dominating the discussion, and the expert one for making them think differently.Expertise appears to go hand in hand with dominant behavior and control. “Expert” tutors who, additionally, are familiar with traditional, teacher-oriented educational systems, have difficulties to adjust in PBL-based curriculums 2. As they are familiar with having control in the classroom, they often feel discomfort once realizing that the responsibility of learning lies predominantly on the students. This discomfort usually disappears when the tutors recog-nize that they are equal to the students, and they abandon their grip on controlling the learning process. However, even in this study there is a very interesting finding. Dominant tutors were challenging for senior students who felt that their learning was hindered by the tutor’s control. On the other hand, first-year students found “ordinary”, non-dominant tutors to be lazy as they expected them to lead the learning processinstead. So once again, there is no “one size fits all” answer regarding how much expertise/dominant behavior a tutor should have.Instead, a tutor needs to adjust his facilitation based on the needs of each individual tutorial group and inter-vene only when necessary.In an effort torecognize critical moments at which tutor intervention is necessary, a study has identified three main reasons that often lead to that 3. The vast majority of interven-tions wasinitiated because of the quality of the discussion, namely the accuracy and the clarity of the content, the depth and elaboration on discussion, or appropriate reasoning and conclusion. The second most common reason of intervention was related to the tutorial group process (se-quence of discussion, roles played by the students, and group dynamics). A relatively rare rea-son of intervention was related to lacking quality or quantity of reference material. Two differ-ent studies have tried to shed light on the different techniques that tutors employ when they intervene, one of them in themedical faculty and the other one in a hotel management program 4, 5. In both cases, the tutors mostly relied on teaching-oriented interventions (by providing in-formation, giving explanations, or confirming what the students had said), instead of facilitat-ing the learning process by asking questions, which is the cradle of PBL. A potential explana-tion for this finding could lie in the inherent time constraints of PBL, which lead the group towards prioritizing quick consensus, especially when the tutor considers the conflict that led to intervention to be irrelevant or beyond the learning goal. Interestingly, such interventions resolved the original conflict only in a bit more than half of the cases.Based on what I have read so far, I get the impression that there are no definite answers when it comes to the pedagogical aspects of PBL. This is in direct opposition with the tradi-tional educational system, where the teacher/professor/master is in complete control of knowledge and how this is transferred to the student/apprentice. I would dare to say that this opposition is rather beneficial for PBL, as I believe that knowledge, and hence learning, are not static. One should be able to question “expertise” by looking for facts and evidence rather than simply accepting everything an expert may advocate, and PBL certainly gives students more tools to achieve that. At the same time, the lack of “one size fits all” answers putsmore responsibility on the tutor who needs to be flexible and adjust his facilitating skills based on the group that he is responsible for. Being a good facilitator does not sound easy, and it certainly does not fit the description that I have heard from many colleagues that “you just need to take a seat with them and let them speak”. Therefore, I believe that all potential tutors need to re-ceive (at least) an introductory course on the principles of PBL. Having said that, I may not feel particularly more confident in being a tutor than before taking this course, but I have em-braced my insecurities, which, in a sense, could be an asset in a PBL setting.
References:
1. Gilkison A. Techniques used by ”expert” and ”non-expert” tutors to facilitate problem-based learning tutorials in an undergraduate medical curriculum. Med Educ. 2003 Jan;37(1):6-14. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01406.x.
2.Lekalakala-Mokgele E. Facilitation in problem-based learning: experiencing the locus of control. Nurse Educ Today. 2010 Oct;30(7):638-42. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2009.12.017. Epub 2010 Jan 20.
3. Lee GH, Lin YH, Tsou KI, Shiau SJ, Lin CS. When a problem-based learning tutor decides to intervene. Acad Med. 2009 Oct;84(10):1406-11. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181b6b433.
4. Aarnio M, Lindblom-Ylänne S, Nieminen J, Pyörälä E. How do tutors intervene when conflicts on knowledge arise in tutorial groups? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2014 Aug;19(3):329-45. doi: 10.1007/s10459-013-9473-
5. Epub 2013 Jul 30. PMID: 23897096.5.AssenJ.H.E., MeijersF., OttingH., PoellR.F. Teacher interventions in a problem-based hospitality manage-ment programme. J Hosp Leis Sports Tour Educ.2016; 19:30-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jhlste.2016.08.002