Difficult incidents and tutor interventions in problem‐based learning tutorials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Tutors report difficult incidents and distressing conflicts that adversely affect learning in their problem-based learning (PBL) groups. Faculty development (training) and peer support should help them to manage this. Yet our understanding of these problems and how to deal with them often seems inadequate to help tutors. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to categorise difficult incidents and the interventions that skilled tutors used in response, and to determine the effectiveness of those responses. METHODS: Thirty experienced and highly rated tutors in our Year 1 and 2 medical curriculum took part in semi-structured interviews to: identify and describe difficult incidents; describe how they responded, and assess the success of each response. Recorded and transcribed data were analysed thematically to develop typologies of difficult incidents and interventions and compare reported success or failure. RESULTS: The 94 reported difficult incidents belonged to the broad categories 'individual student' or 'group dynamics'. Tutors described 142 interventions in response to these difficult incidents, categorised as: (i) tutor intervenes during tutorial; (ii) tutor gives feedback outside tutorial, or (iii) student or group intervenes. Incidents in the 'individual student' category were addressed relatively unsuccessfully (effective < 50% of the time) by response (i), but with moderate success by response (ii) and successfully (> 75% of the time) by response (iii). None of the interventions worked well when used in response to problems related to 'group dynamics'. Overall, 59% of the difficult incidents were dealt with successfully. CONCLUSIONS: Dysfunctional PBL groups can be highly challenging, even for experienced and skilled tutors. Within-tutorial feedback, the treatment that tutors are most frequently advised to apply, was often not effective. Our study suggests that the collective responsibility of the group, rather than of the tutor, to deal with these difficulties should be emphasised.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".