Staff tutors rated higher on using subject-matter knowledge and relevance, but peer tutors rated higher on these behaviors in year one¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 1995 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Staff tutors made more extensive use of subject-matter knowledge than peer tutors, but a significant interaction showed peer tutors rated higher in the first year and staff tutors higher in subsequent years. → Schmidt 1995 q3 i? The same year-by-tutor interaction pattern appeared for relevance of the tutor's contributions and for asking stimulating questions; asking stimulating questions showed no main effect overall. → Schmidt 1995 (2)

Evidence¶

Schmidt 1995¶

Schmidt, H., van der Arend, A., Kokx, I. & Boon, L. (1995). Peer versus staff tutoring in problem-based learning. Instructional Science 22: 279-285. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00891781

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Student ratings on five-point Likert items administered at the end of each course, analyzed by ANOVA with tutor type and year of study. Staff tutors' greater use of subject-matter knowledge was significant, F(1,744) = 24.52, p < 0.001.

"Staff tutors made a more extensive use of their subject-matter knowledge than peer tutors: F(1,744) -- 24.52, MSe -- 0.56, p < 0.001."

Schmidt 1995 (2)¶

Schmidt, H., van der Arend, A., Kokx, I. & Boon, L. (1995). Peer versus staff tutoring in problem-based learning. Instructional Science 22: 279-285. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00891781

q3 · i? · causal · r2

For relevance of contributions, the field experiment found both a main effect of tutor type, F(1,744) = 3.94, p < 0.05, and a significant interaction, F(3,742) = 6.97, p < 0.001; "peer tutors were rated higher in the first year, whereas staff were rated higher in subsequent years". A parallel interaction for asking stimulating questions, F(3,742) = 3.64, p < 0.05, had no main effect.

"Again, peer tutors were rated higher in the first year, whereas staff were rated higher in subsequent years."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Peer tutors evaluated the group's functioning more extensively than staff tutors, and this behavior declined over curriculum years for both — related
• Student tutors are rated as more cognitively congruent than staff tutors in problem-based tutorial groups — related
• Prior field experiments found no achievement differences between staff- and student-tutored groups — related
• Tutor behavior had a major impact on students' discussion behaviors, with dominant or passive tutors both failing to stimulate lively discussion
• Student tutors show greater role congruence, being more interested in students' daily lives and study experiences — related
• No differences between student and staff tutors in focus on cooperation among group members — related
• Student perceptions of tutors are generally positive for both staff and student tutors, with significant differences appearing in only one course and not consistently across courses — related
• Students taught by rigorously selected and well trained student tutors show no significant achievement differences from students taught by staff tutors in first-year PBL courses — related
• Staff-tutored tutorial groups achieve slightly but significantly higher marks than peer-tutored groups in problem-based learning — related