The impact of tutor expertise on the students’ scores in active learning methods: a meta-analysis

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.

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 metaanalysis. We considered the mean difference as the effect size.

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).

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.