Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Objectives Research on tutoring in problem‐based learning has not focused so far on the variation in tutoring and how this variation can be interpreted by conceptions about effective tutoring. Design This study focuses on the profiles of tutors generated by means of an instrument, the so‐called Tutor Intervention Profile (TIP), and tries to determine which profiles are more or less effective. The TIP contains four dimensions of tutor behaviour: (1) elaboration; (2) directing the learning process; (3) integration of knowledge; and (4) stimulating interaction and individual accountability. Setting The medical school of the University of Maastricht, The Netherlands. Subjects Sixty‐seven tutors who run 67 tutorial groups across three units (courses) in the academic year 1996–97. Results It appeared that high, average and low performing tutors differ in their performance on each of the four dimensions of the TIP. Several different profiles of tutor performance could be distinguished, which were more or less effective. One group of tutors demonstrated a tutor intervention profile that was characterized as relying more on the use of expert knowledge, whereas another group of tutors was characterized as relying more on their abilities to stimulate the learning process in the tutorial group. The tutor intervention profile that was perceived by students as most effective showed high scores on each of the four dimensions, as expected. Notably, a tutor stressing the learning process in the tutorial group was perceived as more effective than a tutor stressing content (expert tutor). This is especially true for a relatively poor scoring tutor. Conclusions The results of this study are consistent with research on human tutoring and research on tutoring in problem‐based learning.
Grave et al. (Wed,) studied this question.