Is tutor performance dependent on the tutorial group's productivity?: Toward further resolving of inconsistencies in tutor performance

Background: Many studies have been conducted on tutor performance in proble m-based curricula. In the past, the implicit assumption behind these studie s was that tutor performance is a relatively stable characteristic. More re cent studies demonstrate that a tutor's performance may be dependent on oth er circumstances, such as the level of structure in the curricular material s. The aim of this study was to investigate whether a tutor's performance i s also dependent on the tutorial group's productivity. Purpose: The idea is that low-productive tutorial groups require much more input from a tutor than high-productive groups. In the problem-based curric ulum under investigation, most tutors guide 2 tutorial groups within the sa me unit. A salient finding in this problem-based curriculum was that some t utors who guide 2 tutorial groups within the same unit have discrepancies i n their tutor performance across the 2 groups. This finding might be explai ned by differences in both tutorial groups. In this study, first the scope of the discrepancy phenomena was studied Second, the relation between the t utor's performance and the tutorial group's productivity was studied. Methods: The data set for this study included 136 tutors who, in fetal, ran 272 tutorial groups (each tutor ran 2 groups per unit). The analyses were conducted at the tutorial group level. Students were asked to judge the per formance of their tutor Low medium, and high levels of tutor performance we re distinguished. Tutors who were qualified as "low level of performance" i n one tutorial group and "medium level of performance" in the other tutoria l group were considered to have a discrepancy in their tutor performance: " discrepancy tutors." The same holds for tutors with medium level of perform ance in one group and high level of performance in the other group or low l evel of performance in one group and high level of performance in the other group. All other tutors were considered "nondiscrepancy tutors." The nondi screpancy tutors had equal levels of performance in both groups: a low, med ium, or high level. For each type of tutor (discrepancy tutors and nondiscr epancy tutors) the average tutorial group's productivity score was computed . Results: The results show that 39% of the tutors were classified as discrep ancy tutors. In addition, it was found that a discrepancy tutor with a low level of tutor performance in one group also had a low productivity score i n this group, whereas a high level of tutor performance corresponds with a high level of the tutorial group's productivity. Furthermore, the results s how that nondiscrepancy tutors with a high level of tutor performance recei ve high tutor performance scores, irrespective of the tutorial group's leve l of productivity. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that the tutorial group's productiv ity is another influencing factor in determining tutor performance. Low-pro ductive groups require much more input from a tutor than high-productive gr oups. Nondiscrepancy tutors with consistent low levels of tutor performance and discrepancy tutors lack certain competencies that are needed when bein g confronted with a low-productive tutorial group. Nondiscrepancy tutors wi th a high level of tutor performance, on the contrary, know how to deal wit h low-productive tutorial groups, due to which their tutor performance is h igh irrespective of the tutorial group's productivity. Thus, a tutor's perf ormance seems to be part tutor specific and part situation specific (i.e., dependent on the group's productivity).