Abstract
Even though peer process feedback is an often used tool to enhance the effectiveness of collaborative learning environments like PBL, the conditions under which it is best facilitated still need to be investigated. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of individual versus shared reflection and goal setting on students’ individual contributions to the group and their academic achievement. In addition, the influence of prior knowledge on the effectiveness of peer feedback was studied. In this pretest—intervention—posttest study 242 first year students were divided into three conditions: condition 1 (individual reflection and goal setting), condition 2 (individual and shared reflection and goal setting), and condition 3 (control group). Results indicated that the quality of individual contributions to the tutorial group did not improve after receiving the peer feedback, nor did it differ between the three conditions. With regard to academic achievement, only males in conditions 1 and 2 showed better academic achievement compared with condition 3. However, there was no difference between both ways of reflection and goal setting with regard to achievement, indicating that both ways are equally effective. Nevertheless, it is still too early to conclude that peer feedback combined with reflection and goal setting is not effective in enhancing students’ individual contributions. Students only had a limited number of opportunities to improve their contributions. Therefore, future research should investigate whether an increase in number of tutorial group meetings can enhance the effectiveness of peer feedback. In addition, the effect of quality of reflection and goal setting could be taken into consideration in future research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adcroft, A. (2011). The mythology of feedback. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(4), 405–419.
Archer, J. C. (2010). State of the science in health professional education: Effective feedback. Medical Education, 44, 101–108.
Decuyper, S., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2010). Grasping the dynamic complexity of team learning: An integrative model for effective team learning in organisations. Educational Research Review, 5, 111–133.
Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & Van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (1998). Motivational and cognitive processes influencing tutorial groups. Academic Medicine, 73(Suppl 10), S22–S24.
Dominick, P. G., Reilly, R. R., & McGourty, J. W. (1997). The effects of peer feedback on team member behavior. Group & Organization Management, 22(4), 508–520.
Eva, K. W., Armson, H., Holmboe, E., Lockyer, J., Loney, E., Mann, K., et al. (2012). Factors influencing responsiveness to feedback: On the interplay between fear, confidence, and reasoning processes. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 17(1), 15–26.
Geister, S., Konradt, U., & Hertel, G. (2006). Effects of process feedback on motivation, satisfaction, and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 37(5), 459–489.
Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3–31.
Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304–315.
Gijselaers, W. H., & Schmidt, H. G. (1989). Towards a causal model of student learning within the context of a problem-based curriculum. In Z. Nooman, H. G. Schmidt, & E. Ezzat (Eds.), Innovation in medical education: An evaluation of its present status (pp. 95–113). New York: Springer.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
Kamp, R. J. A., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Van Berkel, H. J. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Can students adequately evaluate the activities of their peers in PBL? Medical Teacher, 33(2), 145–150.
Kamp, R. J. A., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Van Berkel, H. J. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2012). The relationship between students’ small group activities, time spent on self-study, and achievement. Higher Education, 64(3), 385–397.
Kamp, R. J. A., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Van Berkel, H. J. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2013). The effect of midterm peer feedback on student functioning in problem-based tutorials. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 18(2), 199–213.
Koole, S., Dornan, T., Aper, L., Scherpbier, A., Valcke, M., Cohen-Schotanus, J., et al. (2011). Factors confounding the assessment of reflection: A critical review. BMC Medical Education, 11, 104.
Papinczak, T., Young, L., & Groves, M. (2007). Peer assessment in problem-based learning: A qualitative study. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 12, 169–186.
Phielix, C. (2012). Enhancing collaboration through assessment & reflection. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., Kirschner, P. A., Erkens, G., & Jaspers, J. (2011). Group awareness of social and cognitive performance in a CSCL environment: Effects of a peer feedback and reflection tool. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1087–1102.
Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Feedback for general practitioners in training: Quality, styles, and preferences. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11(3), 289–303.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Sargeant, J., Mann, K., Sinclair, D., Van der Vleuten, C., & Metsemakers, J. (2008). Understanding the influence of emotions and reflection upon multi-source feedback acceptance and use. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13(3), 275–288.
Schönrock-Adema, J., Heijne-Penninga, M., Van Duijn, M. A. J., Geertsma, J., & Cohen-Schotanus, J. (2007). Assessment of professional behaviour in undergraduate medical education: Peer assessment enhances performance. Medical Education, 41(9), 836–842.
Slavin, R. E., Hurley, E. A., & Chamberlain, A. M. (2003). Cooperative learning and achievement: Theory and research. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 177–198). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2002). Peer assessment training in teacher education: Effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 443–454.
Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Moerkerke, G., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Dochy, F. J. R. C. (2001). Peer assessment in problem based learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27, 153–173.
Strijbos, J.-W., & Sluijsmans, D. (2010). Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological, functional, and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction, 20, 265–269.
Topping, K. J. (2010). Methodological quandaries in studying process and outcomes in peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 339–343.
Vallerand, R. J., & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and arnotivational styles as predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60(3), 599–620.
Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments. Team learning beliefs & behaviors. Small Group Research, 37(5), 490–521.
Van Gennip, N. A. E., Segers, M. S. R., & Tillema, H. H. (2009). Peer assessment for learning from a social perspective: The influence of interpersonal variables and structural features. Educational Research Review, 4, 41–54.
Van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270–279.
White, C. B., & Gruppen, L. D. (2010). Self-regulated learning in medical education. In T. Swanwick (Ed.), Understanding medical education: Evidence, theory and practice (pp. 271–282). London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1: Maastricht-peer activity rating scale
Appendix 2: Example of a personal peer feedback form
Dear student,
Below you will find an overview of the mean scores you received from you peers per item.
The following standards were used:
1–5 Likert scale | Grade (1–10) |
|---|---|
<3.0: unsatisfactory (− −) | <6.0: unsatisfactory (− −) |
3.0–3.5: open to improvement (−) | 6.0–7.0: open to improvement (−) |
3.5–4.0: average | 7.0–8.0: average |
≥4.0: good (+) | ≥8.0: good (+) |
M (1–5) | SD | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Cognitive activities | |||
1 | This student was able to make adequate summaries | 3.4 (−) | 0.5 |
2 | This student was able to make a distinction between the main and lateral issues in the subject matter | 3.8 | 0.5 |
3 | This student asked critical questions | 3.4 (−) | 1.0 |
4 | This student corrected misconceptions about the subject matter | 3.1 (−) | 0.6 |
5 | This student contributed to a better understanding of the subject matter | 3.4 (−) | 0.5 |
Collaborative activities | |||
6 | This student had a positive influence on the group | 3.5 | 0.5 |
7 | This student felt responsible for the group | 3.6 | 0.6 |
8 | This student promoted collaboration between group members | 3.6 | 0.6 |
9 | This student was willing to share his/her information | 4.0 (+) | 0.8 |
10 | This student was committed to the group | 3.8 | 0.4 |
Motivational activities | |||
11 | This student demonstrated motivation | 3.5 | 0.7 |
12 | This student participated well | 3.6 | 0.5 |
13 | This student actively participated during the brainstorm sessions | 3.3(−) | 0.7 |
14 | This student contributed more than other group members | 3.0 (−) | 0.7 |
M (1–10) | SD | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Grade | |||
15 | Score this student’s overall activity in the tutorial group sessions on a scale from 1 (poor) tot 10 (excellent). | 7.1 | 0.5 |
Appendix 3: Tips for improvement
Definition | Improvement tips | Goals for personal improvement (min. 1, max. 3) | |
|---|---|---|---|
Cognitive contributions | Contributions that contribute to the Construction of new knowledge and the recognition of misconceptions in one’s own knowledge | 1. Summarize the answer to a learning goal in your own words during the discussion 2. Search for contradictions within the discussion and express these 3. Explain the subject matter with an example. Use an example from daily life and not from the literature 4. Identify differences and similarities between different concepts 5. Report your findings during the discussion without checking your notes 6. Indicate what is unclear to you or what you are in doubt of | |
Collaborative contributions | Contributions that contribute to a good social climate within the group | 7. Make sure your answers or information is in keeping with the previous comments or question 8. Look someone in the eye when you are talking to them 9. Repeat long answers of group members shortly in your own words 10. Make sure you are well prepared when come to the tutorial group meeting | |
Motivational contributions | Contributions that show a student is motivated to participate | 11. Be the first one to start the discussion by reporting your findings 12. Be the first one to start the brainstorm by telling what you already know 13. Adopt an active attitude during the tutorial Group discussion (sit up straight, hands on the table, open posture) 14. Talk with a clear voice, watch your intonation |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kamp, R.J.A., van Berkel, H.J.M., Popeijus, H.E. et al. Midterm peer feedback in problem-based learning groups: the effect on individual contributions and achievement. Adv in Health Sci Educ 19, 53–69 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-013-9460-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-013-9460-x