Extended abstract
Background: In Challenge-Based Learning (CBL), real-world, open-ended challenges drive student learning (Doulougeri et al., 2024), with feedback playing a vital role in helping students recognize key learning moments in the learning trajectory (Martin et al., 2024) and thus improving the quality of education (Bombaerts etal., 2019). Providing quality feedback can be time-consuming for teachers, especially in large classes. Peer feedback, however, offers a valuable alternative, motivating student learning by having students engage in evaluating each other’s work (Bombaerts et al., 2022). This study tests a peer feedback approach designed to (1) reduce teacher workload in giving feedback and (2) ensure students receive meaningful, high-quality feedback (Gielen et al., 2010). By implementing a single cycle of peer feedback, we explore its potential to effectively support student learning in large CBL classrooms. Purpose. As a potential answer to the need of qualitative peer feedback, we test an approach of one cycle of peer feedback that (1) minimizes effort for teachers to give feedback and (2) that maximizes the quality of the feedback for students. Set-up. The peer feedback set-up is tested in a 5 ECTS and 8 weeks CBL course on Ethics of Technology, in a second year, second quarter for 250 Chemical Engineering and Chemistry, Electrical Engineers, and Automotive students. In teams of 5 students, students are asked to give a technical and ethical advise to their stakeholder, using the ethical cycle (Van de Poel and Royakkers, 2007). Students have two two-hour contact moments per week where they work on the application of ethical theories to their advice. In these meetings, they discuss in their own groups, give feedback to two other groups, and discuss in class. Per class group of 60-120 students, teachers and student assistants with an ethics background also give feedback during these contact moments. The students get feedback from the stakeholders three times in a 45 minutes’ meeting: at the beginning they learn about the challenge and can ask questions, in the middle of the course they can give their progress, and at the end there is a poster presentation about their results. The end product is an executive summary to the stakeholder, with the poster and their ethical cycle argumentation in attachment. On top of this feedback process, there will be one feedback cycle of the product. Students hand in their version of the ethical cycle in week 5. The report will be sent to 5 other students from 5 different groups. In week 6, every student gives feedback on the paper received. For this feedback, students will use a rubric (see a part below). Each student provides (1) a grade, (2) the reason why it is this grade; and (3) what could be done to get one grade higher. Each group thus receives 5 peer-reviews. The teacher will receive all grades and feedbacks, will check all grades, and will confirm or adapt the average grade (20% of the total grade). Expectations that will be tested. • Students have to work with the rubric. They are invited to better understand what the rubric means. • Students give feedback. This helps them to learn. • One group of 5 students reads 5 interim papers. This gives them the idea how their work relates to that of others. • Each group gets 5 feedbacks per rubric item. This should provide at least a few good and useful feedbacks. The five together should level up with one teacher. • Grades and comments will be listed. This gives teachers an indication of groups that are doing well or have problems. • We will perform a sensitivity analysis on how the 5 grades per rubric item differ among students. It will give an indication of how coherent the student feedbacks are. • A student only has to do one paper, teacher has to do 24, generating students respect for the teacher. Results and Conclusion The course takes place from November 12 2024 to January 28 2025. At the CBL conference, we will show the results. References Bombaerts, G., Doulougeri, K., & Nieveen, N. (2019). Quality of ethics education in engineering programs using Goodlad’s curriculum typology. SEFI Annual Conference. Bombaerts, G., & Vaessen, B. (2022). Motivational dynamics in basic needs profiles: Toward a person‐centered motivation approach in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 111(2), 357-375. Doulougeri, K., Vermunt, J. D., Bombaerts, G., & Bots, M. (2024). Challenge‐based learning implementation in engineering education: A systematic literature review. Journal of Engineering Education. 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. Martin, D. A., & Bombaerts, G. (2024). What is the structure of a Challenge Based Learning project? A shortitudinal trajectory analysis of student process behaviours in an interdisciplinary engineering course. European Journal of Engineering Education, 1-31. Van de Poel, I., & Royakkers, L. (2007). The ethical cycle. Journal of Business Ethics, 71, 1-13. Example rubric item: Ethical Cycle Problem-Statement - 0: Absent - 2: Some concepts mentioned, but little link with values, conflicting values, or moral problem formulation. - 4: Values mentioned are not moral values. Explanation of why values are conflicting is not present or sound. No real moral problem formulation is present. - 6: The moral problem formulation indicates two or more important moral values at stake and why they are conflicting. - 8: The moral problem formulation indicates the moral values at stake that are crucial for the problem. The conflict in the case indicates the urgency and importance of the problem. - 10: The moral problem formulation indicates the moral values at stake that are crucial for the problem. The explanation how they conflict each other in the case indicates the urgency and importance of the problem. The argumentation is sound enough to convince critical opponents.
