Medical Teacher, Vol. 28, No. 6, 2006, pp. 558–560 Improving PBLs in the International Medical University: defining the ‘good’ PBL facilitator HLA YEE YEE, AMMU RADHAKRISHNAN & GNANAJOTHY PONNUDURAI The International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ABSTRACT Students’ perception of the role and characteristics of a good problem-based learning (PBL) facilitator were assessed in the same study in which students were exposed to the ‘Flying a Kite Approach’ to PBL. A pre-tested anonymous questionnaire addressed the good qualities of a facilitator as well as the negative aspects. Although faculty and students’ perceptions of ‘good ‘and ‘bad’ attributes generally agreed, it is clear that students still prefer facilitators who talk more, i.e. explain unclear facts or correct them when their facts are wrong. Content experts are also preferred over non-content experts. Introduction Whether or not a PBL session/curriculum succeeds depends on a variety of factors. Student characteristics and attitude towards PBL are very important because you can ‘only take a horse to the water; you cannot make it drink’. A previous study by the IMU PBL Working Group (a working group of the International Medical University (IMU)) has indicated that students perceive PBL as a good teaching/learning tool, but gives reasons for suboptimal performance such as boredom and perceived inadequacy in spoken English. The fact that PBL triggers also play a major role is also well established (http://www.discovery.rp.edu, 2004). But effec- tive facilitators can still turn the tide even in the face of unfavourable conditions. Nevertheless, ‘good’ facilitators are the exceptions rather than the rule in most institutions, which could be because they are not ‘converted to PBL’ or cannot devote the time that is required for proper facilitation. Whenever a school considers embracing the PBL approach, the fiercest resistance comes from the faculty, most of whom would have been trained in traditional curricula. It is a common observation that persistent resistance, despite the evidence of many successful examples, comes largely from teachers (Kwan, 2003). Such teachers could very well slip into the ‘teaching mode’ and uncon- sciously sabotage the PBL process. Given the nature of PBL, it is clear that ‘bad’ facilitators can do more harm than good. Should an institution have the luxury of being able to use only the ‘good’ facilitators, it would be valuable to identify those who comply with the principles of PBL. In order to do this, the easiest feedback would come from students’ evaluation of staff, as is practised in IMU. However, students’ perceptions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ facilitators may not be same as that of the faculty; which it was interesting to find out. We addressed a few issues in order to discover students’ perceptions of a ‘good’ facilitator, using the same (anony- mous) pre-tested questionnaire used for the study on the ‘Flying a Kite Approach’ to PBL. This approach ensures that the students think of alternative hypotheses for a problem, encouraging lateral thinking. Like kites flying upwards lifted by the wind, the aim is to allow the learners’ minds to open up, lifted by the thirst for knowledge. The study group was medical students of semesters 2 and 3 (first and second year). Of a total 42 students, 35 responses were received. Results Table 1 shows that the students valued most of the characteristics that faculty expect in facilitators (questions 1 to 8; 14). However, the responses to questions 10–13 were the opposite of those expected by faculty. The questionnaire also asked students to give the initials of the three best PBL facilitators they had had so far, and to give reasons for their choice. Twenty-one faculty were named (see Table 2), of which 13 were medical (seven part-timers) and eight non-medical staff. Reasons for students choosing the said faculty included the following characteristics: (1) dedication; (2) stimulation of interest; (3) knowledgeable; (4) good rapport;. (5) patience. Practice points . PBL facilitators/tutors can ‘make’ or ‘break’ a session. . ‘Good’ facilitators/tutors can motivate students regardless of the quality of triggers. . Appropriate intervention by the facilitator keeps the discussion alive. . Medically qualified facilitators are preferred by students because it is perceived that they can give better guidance. . Some students still appear to expect ‘spoon-feeding’ and fast answers, perhaps reflecting a strong exam- oriented approach to learning. Correspondence: Assoc. Prof. Dr Hla Yee Yee, International Medical University, Sesama Centre, Plaza Komanwel, Bukit Jalil, 57000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Tel: 03-86567228; fax: 03-86567229; email: hlayeeyee@ imu.edu.my 558 ISSN 0142–159X print/ISSN 1466–187X online/06/060558–3 ß 2006 Informa UK Ltd. DOI: 10.1080/01421590600878226