الفهرس 
Acknowledgment.Only 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 235 |  |  |
| | | from | 235 | | |
Abstract
Teachers’ performance is assumed to have an important influence on the quality of the educational programme and, hence, the competence of graduates (115). The tutor, a regular faculty member, plays a key role in a problem-based curriculum. The tutor guides the tutorial group through the learning process, encourages students to attain a deeper level of understanding and ensures that all students are actively involved in the group process (45).
This study aimed at designing, implementing, and evaluating a tutor guide for PBL class tutors in phase II (second and third year) at the Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University in order to help tutors facilitate PBL sessions in a competent manner and increase effectiveness of the PBL sessions. A quasi-experimental, Pre-program/post-program non-equivalent comparison group designs was selected (control and intervention group). This study passed through three stages; stage 1: “Preparatory”, stage 2: “Design”, and stage 3: “Implementation and Evaluation”. The first step in stage 1 was to assess Phase II (2nd and 3rd year) class tutor at FOM-SCU needs for tutor guide.
Sample was divided into two groups control and intervention group, 28 tutors in each group, intervention group attend a tutor training workshop and have a tutor guide.
A tutor training workshop was conducted for intervention group followed the six step approach to curriculum development, from needs assessment results 54.5% of the tutors said that they benefited from attending a tutor training workshop, 9% of the study population found it useless, as we believed that the tutor should have expertise in both group facilitation (process expertise) and in a subject area (content expertise), one day training workshop was planned for Phase II tutors before introducing the tutor guide as awareness for tutors about tutor guide and the instruction for using it, and to introduce tutors to tutor facilitation skills. DEPHI technique was used to prioritize topics for the workshop, DELPHI was of two rounds. Workshop was designed to be compatible with adult learning principles, experiential, learner-centred learning, and focused on active participation.
The first two levels of Kirkpatrick’s (1994) (57) model of evaluation of educational interventions (reaction, learning) were applied in this study to evaluate effectiveness of the workshop. Level 1 (reaction) was assessed by reaction evaluation of the workshops by the tutors. Only sublevel 2B (modification of knowledge) was evaluated in level 2 of Kirkpatrick’s model. This was evaluated by measuring differences in the results of the test (pre- and post- test) before and after conduction of the workshop.
The results have shown overall satisfaction with the organization, content, and small group task of the workshop, with most responses being either “excellent” or “very good”. More than 70%, 57%, and 67% of workshop participants agree that workshop furthered their understanding about PBL as educational strategy; their role as a tutor, tutorial group dynamics and assessment in PBL respectively. 42.9% of them strongly agreed that the workshop further their understanding about how to use the newly developed tutor guide.
The results of the study showed statistically significant difference between the results of the pre- and post- test (P ≤ 0.05). The mean of the pre-test was 5.42 ± (1.98), while the mean of the post-test results was 7.1 ± (1.36).
Multiple measures were applied in this study to evaluate the effectiveness of the tutor guide. The first level of Kirkpatrick’s (1994) (57) model is reaction, and it was assessed by self administered questionnaire using a 5 point likert scale. The results have shown overall satisfaction with the structure, organization and contents of the tutor guide; with the most responses “agree’