Problem based learning (PBL) is an effective, student centered educational approach empowering students and teaching skills important for work-life such as problem solving, social group interactions, co-operation. (Wood 2003) PBL has been extensively implemented in higher education, in several disciplines, world-wide. Typically, PBL is conducted in small groups of 8-10 students and a tutor facilitating the discussion. Groups are presented with scenarios that trigger learning. This involves several steps from an initial inventorying of previous knowledge and learning objective identification, to a phase of self-learning and a final discussion phase where students share their knowledge with one-another and apply it on the problem at hand. The role of the tutor is to facilitate the learning process and to ensure that identified learning objectives are within those set in the curriculum. (Wood 2003) To this end, tutors in PBL setting are required to relinquish their traditional expert role in order to empower, motivate, guide and probe student’s reasoning process. (Allen, Duch et al. 1996) The important facilitating role of the tutor is seemingly in contradiction with the use of tutorless PBL groups.
The purpose of this pedagogical reflection is to explore tutorless versus tutored PBL groups to better understand in which context tutorless PBL groups could be adequate.
Implementing PBL tends to be costly (Finucane, Shannon et al. 2009), mainly due to its demand on faculty time and small group-room facilities. Increasing numbers of students admitted to higher education, require ever increasing number of hours spent tutoring groups. In order to save faculty time, tutorless PBL groups were already introduced during the late 90s, for instance at the UCLA. (Duek and Wilkerson 1995)
While empowering students, tutorless groups encounter difficulties that in part differ from those described in tutored groups. When comparing tutorless groups in engineering, with tutored groups in medical school, in Canada, a study (Woods, Hall et al. 1996) found that tutorless groups reported specific issues, not reported in tutored groups. Among these, we mention conflicts due to all members not seen to contribute equally, issues with attendance, with reliability and trust. These were added to problems shared with tutored groups, such as conflict regarding breadth and depths of issues covered, difficulties with critical reasoning, emotional issues, negative behaviors, dominant students etc. The solution for these various issues is, according to authors similar in tutored vs. tutorless groups, but in the latter, students need to be taught coping skills to resolve problems arising in groups. (Woods, Hall et al. 1996) Group roles, agenda and groups norms can help students deal with problems arising.
Students in tutorless groups are expected to solve disagreements on their own. This is important since content disagreement is part of the learning process in PBL. A study examined student interactions to resolve disagreement in tutorless groups and found that disagreement speech was frequently associated with “agreement particles” (“ yes… but”) as well as invoking external knowledge, expertise such as worksheets, tutor authority etc., rather than directly challenging peer stances. (McQuade, Wiggins et al. 2018)
Comparing tutorless with tutored PBL groups in a randomized, cross-matched study in a medical school, Hayashi et. Al 2013 (Hayashi, Tsunekawa et al. 2013) found no significant difference in average written examination scores between groups. Variance of results in the tutorless group was however larger, indicating that students with certain difficulties, who benefit of a higher structure, perform worse in a tutorless setting. Also student self-contentment scores tended to be lower in tutorless settings, but no significant difference between groups was identified. (Hayashi, Tsunekawa et al. 2013)
According to another study tutorless group may identify slightly fewer faculty intended learning objectives, compared to groups with a tutors present (Duek and Wilkerson 1995). Wood (Wood 2003) argues that PBL will only be successful if scenarios are of good quality, enabling students to identify learning issues overlapping with learning objectives in the curriculum. Thus, in tutorless settings, quality of the scenarios is probably even more important. Students also need a minimal structure, provided by lab meetings, lectures or the presence of a tutor to be able to identify relevant learning issues. (Duek and Wilkerson 1995) When using tutorless groups, structure may be created by using instructions, seminars, mini lectures to introduce problems and to point out potential difficulties to reduce student frustration (Allen, Duch et al. 1996)
Tutorless PBL has also been found effective in large classroom setting. (Klegeris, Bahniwal et al. 2013) Results indicate increased problem-solving capacity in students using PBL approaches, compared to those who did not. Other methods, to save instructor time have also been developed. One of these is the “floating facilitator” model, where one tutor by dividing their time between several groups can guide them through problems, or using senior students as group tutors, aided by faculty using a “floating facilitator” approach. These types of approaches require that case-scenarios/ problems have natural stops, enabling tutors to come in and out of groups without interrupting the discussion and interfering too much with the group processes. (Allen, Duch et al. 1996)
In summary, tutorless PBL groups efficiently reduce faculty costs, and appear to work in the context of higher education, with on average similar achievement results as tutored groups. Student contentment may be slightly lower with risk for increased frustration. This may be due to tutorless groups involving additional problems, added to those also encountered in tutored groups. Programs using tutorless PBL groups should consider including seminars and lectures teaching problem solving skills to address issues specific in the context of tutorless groups.
Allen, D. E., B. J. Duch and S. E. Groh (1996). ”The power of problem-based learning in teaching introductory science courses.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 1996(68): 43-52.
Duek, J. E. and L. Wilkerson (1995). Learning Issues Identified by Students in Tutorless Problem-Based Tutorials.
Finucane, P., W. Shannon and D. McGrath (2009). ”The financial costs of delivering problem-based learning in a new, graduate-entry medical programme.” Med Educ 43(6): 594-598.
Hayashi, S., K. Tsunekawa, C. Inoue and Y. Fukuzawa (2013). ”Comparison of tutored group with tutorless group in problem-based mixed learning sessions: a randomized cross-matched study.” BMC Medical Education 13(1): 158.
Klegeris, A., M. Bahniwal and H. Hurren (2013). ”Improvement in generic problem-solving abilities of students by use of tutor-less problem-based learning in a large classroom setting.” CBE Life Sci Educ 12(1): 73-79.
McQuade, R., S. Wiggins, E. Ventura-Medina and T. Anderson (2018). ”Knowledge disagreement formulations in problem-based learning tutorials: balancing pedagogical demands with ‘saving face’.” Classroom Discourse 9(3): 227-243.
Wood, D. F. (2003). ”Problem based learning.” BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 326(7384): 328-330.
Woods, D., F. Hall, C. Eyles, A. Hrymak and W. Duncan (1996). ”Tutored Versus Tutorless Groups in Problem-Based Learning.” American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 60.