ArticleJournal of advances in medical education & professionalism2022
The impact of tutor expertise on the students' scores in active learning methods: a meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The tutor's role has been changing in the active learning methods in comparison to the traditional ones. Tutors are encouraged to become facilitators and to guide the students to construct a new knowledge by making bridges with the old one. Tutor's expertise in the active methods has been discussed with different results. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of tutor expertise on the students' scores in active learning methods. Methods: The authors conducted this meta-analysis under the guidelines of a critical tool for systematic reviews (AMSTAR2). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Scopus and Science Direct were the databases used for searching. The articles included compared students' learning scores according to tutor expertise between 2 groups of students with an active method of learning. The Review Manager software 5.3 was used to conduct this meta-analysis. We considered the mean difference as the effect size. Results: 3169 students and 222 learning groups of 5 to 10 students were included in this study. The combined mean difference reached 0.84 with 95% CI [0.22, 1.46]. A significant difference between the two groups was observed in favour of the non-expert group (p=0.008). The heterogeneity I-square was evaluated to 98%. The Funnel plot reflected no publication bias (p=0.21). A sub-group analysis was performed taking into account the studies dealing with medical curriculum and the assessment methods used. It showed a significant difference between the two groups in favour of non-expert tutors (p<0.05). Conclusion: Even if the results of this meta-analysis couldn't be conclusive and can't induce recommendations, they highlighted the tendency of non-expert tutors to be more student-centred. The heterogeneity observed can be decreased by establishing consensual definitions of expertise and assessment tools in further research studies in order to reflect the validity and efficiency of different tutoring styles in active learning methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.