European Journal of Teacher Education

Vol. 35, No. 2, May 2012, 179–197

Promoting deep learning in a teacher education programme

through self- and peer-assessment and feedback
Raymond Lynch*, Patricia Mannix McNamara and Niall Seery

University of Limerick, Castletroy, Limerick, Ireland

The incorporation of self- and peer-assessment and feedback has significant

potential as a pedagogical strategy to promote deep learning in project based
coursework. This study examined the impact of a deeper approach to learning
on pre-service teachers’ critical thinking and metacognitive skills. It also exam-
ined the impact on student learning outcomes within a project based module
with a significant design element. Forty-seven students participated in the pilot
of an online peer feedback system. Results suggest that the quality of students’
reflections through peer feedback and overall satisfaction with the module
remained high despite students’ citing a preference for instructor feedback. The
data also indicate that the incorporation of self- and peer-assessment and feed-
back resulted in higher quality learning outcomes and enhanced critical thinking
skills.
Keywords: peer feedback; project-based learning; teacher education

Introduction
The distinction between deep and surface learning is well established (Entwistle
and Ramsden 1982) with deeper approaches to learning associated with higher qual-
ity learning outcomes (Trigwell, Prosser, and Waterhouse 1999). It is also clear that
students’ perceptions of their learning environment are related to the approach to
learning they adopt (Entwistle 1991; Black and Wiliam 1998a; Dow 2006). That
deep learning is allied to deeper pedagogical approaches, focusing on teaching for
understanding and more importantly personal understanding (Entwistle 2000).
However, developments in teaching and learning approaches require equivalent
adjustment and advancement of assessment strategies. Biggs (1999, 2) stresses the
importance of this constructive alignment; ‘Does the format of assessment match
your teaching objectives? If it does match your objectives, the backwash is positive,
but if it does not, the backwash will encourage students to use surface approaches
to learning’. It appears that assessment strategies which encourage students to think
for themselves, to become critical and creative thinkers, shift students’ focus in a
class towards a deeper approach to learning (Scouller 1998). Conversely, assessment
which encourages memorisation and recall is more likely to result in students adopt-
ing a surface approach, especially when combined with perceived heavy workload
demands (Trigwell, Prosser, and Waterhouse 1999; Gunderman et al. 2003). It is

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0261-9768 print/ISSN 1469-5928 online

Ó 2012 Association for Teacher Education in Europe
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.643396
http://www.tandfonline.com
180 R. Lynch et al.

clear therefore that optimising the role of assessment in education can greatly
enhance student learning, especially assessment that moves beyond a summative
focus to a more formative purpose (Black and Wiliam 1998b; Liu and Carless
2006). However, summative approaches to assessment still dominate in education
(Knight 2002), especially in the Irish context which employs a matriculation system
in the form of a final exam (entitled Leaving Certificate), the results of which are
employed for the allocation of university places to students. With such emphasis
placed on summative assessment at second level it is not surprising that students
are frequently cited as focusing solely on achieving the highest possible grades in
the exam, often resulting in surface learning (Gunderman et al. 2003; Ryan et al.
2004).
This summative assessment approach encourages memorisation and content
recall, in turn promoting the didactic transmission of facts and skills by the teacher
(Broadfoot 1996). As providers of pre-service technology teacher education courses,
the authors seek to develop approaches to teaching and assessment that promote
deep learning and higher quality learning outcomes for students. They believe that
project work and problem based learning is an effective means by which to achieve
this and that self- and peer-assessment and feedback has a significant contribution
to make to the cognitive and affective development of the student teacher. For the
purpose of this study, project work is defined as an attempt to embody constructiv-
ist theory in a practical, experienced-based learning activity (Barron et al. 1998), in
this case the design and manufacture of a model motorcycle. As highlighted by the
results of a study conducted by Meirink et al. (2009) ‘teachers often learn by criti-
cal individual reflection and by involving colleagues in particular challenging or
problematic situations’. Whilst acknowledging the dominance of the terminal assess-
ment paradigm, the authors seek to place greater emphasis on assessment for learn-
ing as advocated by Carless (2007) and Black, Harrison and Lee (2003).
Assessment for the promotion of learning is supported by the pedagogical context
in which this research took place, which was an initial teacher education pro-
gramme in a large regional university in Ireland. Within this context, this study
aims to emulate the ‘teach as you preach’ philosophy as advocated by Struyven,
Dochy and Janssens (2010). As highlighted by Cheng, Cheng and Tang (2010), it
is essential that teacher educators model the pedagogical strategies they would
require student teachers to employ, thus bridging the gap between the ‘theory and
practice of teaching’.
Problem-based learning (PBL) has gained a significant foothold in higher
education and is perceived to be a useful pedagogical approach to enhance student
learning (Felder and Spurlin 2005; Prince and Felder 2006). Successful PBL
requires more than simply the modification of existing curricula, it also entails
changes in teaching and learning strategies and in the approaches taken to assess-
ment (Barron et al. 1998). It requires stronger engagement with the formative
potential of assessment. Peer feedback potentially enhances the outcomes of PBL
because it can engage students in thinking critically and making judgements about
their own work and/or the performance of their peers (Somervell 1993). Engaging
students in peer feedback helps develop their skills of reflection, encourages critical
thinking (Sluijsmans, Dochy, and Moerkerke 1998; Boud, Cohen, and Sampson
2001) and generates feedback that draws on the knowledge and experience of the
collective student cohort (McMahon 2010). Peer feedback and assessment helps
support the building of student capacity to critically evaluate tasks and their own
 European Journal of Teacher Education 181

performance, which are essential skills for student teachers to develop (Sadler 1998;
Sadler and Good 2006). It also enables students to reflect on their role in the learn-
ing process as argued by Sadler (1998, 81):

A strong case can be made that students should be taught how to change their pattern
of thinking so that they know not only how to respond to and solve (externally
sourced) problems but also how to frame problems themselves. They need this partly
to guide their learning in between, or to prepare for, teacher assessments, but equally
as part of their progressive journey into self assessment, and at more advanced levels,
as a key skill for professional life.

This does however require considerable attention from the lecturer as the literature
points to the greatest challenge of peer feedback lying in student reluctance to criti-
cise the work of their peers (Clifford 1999; Papinczak, Young, and Groves 2007).
Being able to critically engage with ideas and concepts and to offer critical feed-
back in meaningful ways are key skills for prospective teachers to possess (van
Gennip, Segers, and Tillema 2009) and therefore it was deemed appropriate to
encourage their development in this student cohort.
Students’ involvement in self- and peer-assessment and feedback has been found
to promote deep learning (Boud and Feletti 1998; Falchikov and Goldfinch 2000).
This paper assesses the impact of such involvement on students’ thinking and meta-
cognitive skills by employing Bloom’s Taxonomy for the cognitive domain (1956).
Bloom (1956, 198) advocates the pedagogical benefits of peer-assessment and feed-
back stating that ‘Judging the correctness of answers is an additional opportunity
for students to deepen their understanding about a topic’. Bloom (1971) also high-
lights the potential metacognitive advantages to self- and peer-assessment, demon-
strating that pupils develop a capacity to take initiative in evaluating their own
work and use ‘higher order thinking skills to make judgments about others’ work’.
This is of particular importance for pre-service teachers where formative assessment
is central to their reflective practice and the subsequent development of their future
pupils.

Background
This initiative was implemented with third-year students on an initial teacher educa-
tion degree programme entitled ‘Materials and engineering technology education’.
The university in which this initiative was implemented is the largest national pro-
vider of teacher education at undergraduate and postgraduate level in Ireland. The
programme in which this research was conducted is the only initial teacher educa-
tion course for teachers of engineering in Ireland. For the purpose of this initiative,
an existing module on manufacturing processes was adapted to incorporate a signifi-
cant project-based element. Modules in the university are 13 weeks in duration and
this initiative continued for one additional week. Students were assigned a design
challenge where they were required to conceive, design and manufacture a model
motorcycle. Grading for the module was broken down into a 25% end of term
exam and a 75% project based element. The project based element was further bro-
ken down into 50% for the finished model motorcycle, 20% for students’ level of
reflection and engagement with an e-portfolio system, and 5% for students’ level of
formative peer feedback provided through an online blog. By incorporating a design
and a project-based element worth 75% of the module, the authors aimed to
182 R. Lynch et al.

promote the development of creative and autonomous learners capable of self-

evaluation, peer appraisal and critical thinking. Sluijsmans, Brand-Gruwel, and van
Merriënboer (2002) highlight the importance of teachers’ ability to design creative
lessons, therefore this module also aimed to provide pre-service teachers with a
pedagogical model to develop as advocated by Cheng, Cheng and Tang (2010).
The only restriction given to the students regarding the model motorcycle was
in relation to its size. The model was restricted to a maximum dimension of
600mm between wheel axles. By providing very little restrictions to the model
parameters it was envisaged that this would remove any limitations on students’
creative freedom and exploit their natural competitiveness. The authors were influ-
enced by the belief that the development of a learning environment which nurtures
students’ creative endeavors is central to the philosophy of project-based learning
(Sydow, Lindkvist, and DeFillippi 2004). By providing students with the minimum
of didactic instruction, students were encouraged to draw on their previously devel-
oped repertoires of knowledge as well as expanding and developing existing skill
sets to solve new problems. The traditional approach to learning and assessment
previously employed in this module required students to complete four interim prac-
tical tests worth 40% and a summative written examination of their knowledge of
joining processes worth 60%. This traditional approach did not align with the aims
of the newly developed curriculum. As a result new pedagogical and assessment
approaches were created which included the development of e-portfolios to support
students’ projects and the use of online peer feedback through a blog hosted on
these portfolios as promoted by Palloff and Pratt (2001) and by Keppell, Au and
Chan (2006). However, in order for self- and peer-assessment to promote deep and
meaningful learning outcomes it is important that all involved are aware of the aims
and formal requirements of the module, an issue highlighted by Sluijsmans, Dochy,
and Moerkerke (1998). During the first week of the programme students were pro-
vided with a module outline, clearly delineating its aims and objectives, the project
brief, a detailed breakdown of grading for the module, as well as the requirements
of each student from the module. A one-hour workshop was also provided for stu-
dents during this week on the e-portfolio system setup and usage. This module
focuses on developing students’ knowledge and implementation of manufacturing
and joining processes, as well as their creative design and critical thinking skills.
Students were informed that the purpose of the blog was to document and track
their development in these areas from conceptual design to completion of the pro-
ject, and to highlight significant work and engagement on behalf of the student that
may not otherwise be evident in the finished product. It was also outlined to stu-
dents that 20% of their grade would be allocated for depth of critical reflection,
quality of critical thinking (with particular focus on higher order thinking skills)
and engagement with the aims and objectives of the module, through continuous
evaluation of their e-portfolios. As third-year students of an initial teacher education
programme where a predominant focus is afforded to the development of pupils’
pedagogical skills, all participants in this study were able to draw on their prerequi-
site knowledge of cognition and Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives for
the cognitive domain.
The promotion of a collaborative and collegial approach to pedagogy was
fostered by encouraging students to provide frequent and formative feedback to
their peers through the use of an online blog hosted on this e-portfolio system. The
provision of peer feedback was also promoted throughout the physical manufacture
 European Journal of Teacher Education 183

of the projects while students worked together in the workshops each week.
Students were requested to focus on the aims and criteria provided in the module
outline when providing feedback to their peers. The authors wanted to ensure that
students engaged in the peer feedback process, so a small percentage of the module
grade was designated to this (5% based on the quality of feedback and engage-
ment). This concern proved unwarranted with levels of engagement indicating that
most students were intrinsically motivated to provide support through feedback for
their peers. However, students did initially require some security reassurances.
Because the e-portfolio system logged every students’ design idea and creative
development as well as the feedback provided to them on their designs and con-
cepts, and the time and date of each upload, students felt secure in the knowledge
that all ideas provided remained associated with the original contributor.
In order to ensure that the focus remained on the formative value of appraisal
and deep learning, students were not required to grade each other’s work. All stu-
dents involved in the module had access to each other’s e-portfolios. To avoid over-
loading the students they were stratified into groups of four where each student was
given the responsibility of critically evaluating the work of the other three members
of the group. However, the students themselves opted to expand the parameters and
to provide feedback to several other students in the class. The e-portfolios facilitated
students to express their designs, ideas and thoughts through a variety of media
which included graphical sketches, presentations, working drawings, audio and
visual accounts, written reports and blogs. The ability to use a variety of media to
represent student work has been highlighted by Granberg (2010) as central to the
successful incorporation of e-portfolios as an effective resource in teacher education.
As well as continuous feedback from their peers, students were also presented with
feedback from their module lecturer at designated points in the module. Feedback
on their progress was provided to students from an early stage in the module allow-
ing them adequate opportunity to reflect and to implement any improvements
required. The first lecturer feedback was provided at the end of Week 3 in the mod-
ule and peer feedback commenced one week prior to this.
For comparative purposes the module ran parallel to a control module, which
while also incorporating similar e-portfolios for students did not include a peer
feedback element and relied entirely on lecturer feedback. The control module
involved the same cohort of students and aimed to have similar engagement
between students and e-portfolios. Both modules ran over the same period and were
skills based with the control module focusing on student competencies in technical
graphics. The same guidance was provided to students in relation to their e-portfo-
lios and their respective reflections. Lecturer feedback to students was provided dur-
ing similar phases of the modules with the aim of enhancing students’ critical
thinking skills and levels of metacognition in both. Although assessing different dis-
ciplines, equal weighting was afforded to the e-portfolios and student reflections in
both modules. Both modules also had a significant project based element of
equivalent value.

Methods
Forty-seven undergraduate students, 46 male students and 1 female student, agreed
to participate in this initiative. A mixed method approach that incorporated both
quantitative and qualitative data collection was adopted. In order to evaluate the
184 R. Lynch et al.

initiative students were asked to complete an anonymous online survey upon mod-
ule completion. The survey required students to rank, using Likert scales, different
aspects of the module such as the pedagogical approach utilised, its aims and objec-
tives, its structure and overall effectiveness (Appendix A presents an abbreviated
version of the online survey). An interpretative approach was also adopted as advo-
cated by Windschitl (1998). Data were collected via participant observation, the stu-
dent blog and the e-portfolios. The authors monitored the blogs and portfolios over
the 14 weeks of the module. Continuous observations of student interactions and
participation in the workshops were used to help validate posts and reflections pre-
sented on the blogs and e-portfolios. As highlighted by Robson (2002, 310) ‘data
from direct observations contrasts with, and can often usefully compliment, infor-
mation obtained by virtually any other technique’. The use of observations allowed
the researchers to record ‘live’ data from naturally occurring interactions between
students. In this way the researchers were not just relying on second-hand student
accounts on the e-portfolio of interactions and support offered to peers. As high-
lighted by Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007, 396) ‘the use of immediate aware-
ness, or direct cognition, as a principal mode of research has the potential to yield
more valid or authentic data’. Therefore while feedback provided to peers on the
blogs afforded an interesting insight into students’ thinking skills and reflections;
observations were also required to verify that these reflections went beyond rhetoric
to being replicated in students’ interactions, reflections and engagement with the
project in the workshop.
Content analysis was also employed as an effective technique to analyse what
occurs in an online environment where synchronous and asynchronous discussions
are held (Agostinho 2004). In order to analyse the impact of the peer feedback pro-
cess on students’ judgments and critical thinking skills, Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom
1956) for the cognitive domain was then applied to the analysis. Bloom’s original
taxonomy of educational objectives for the cognitive domain was used in this study
over the revised taxonomy of Anderson, Krathwohl and Bloom (2001) as the
authors felt it more accurately reflected the cognitive process involved in the design
and manufacture of the model motorbikes. The original taxonomy presented a
cumulative hierarchy in which each category was a prerequisite to mastery of the
next more complex one (Krathwohl 2002). This more accurately reflected the
requirements of this project-based module. It also made the analysis of students’
responses and posts less complex as the hierarchy in the revised taxonomy is more
relaxed allowing categories to overlap. For example the scope of the category
‘Understanding’ in the revised taxonomy has been considerably broadened over
‘Comprehension’ in the original framework making it much harder to categorise
individual student responses (Krathwohl 2002). As a result the data were searched
for evidence of student development from lower order engagement such as recall/
comprehension to higher order such as synthesis or evaluation from Bloom’s origi-
nal taxonomy for the cognitive domain. Using the criteria for Bloom’s Taxonomy
as advocated by Athanassiou, McNett and Harvey (2003) (see Table 1) specific
examples of evidence were attached to each level (see Table 2) and the students’
posts were analysed for demonstrations of this evidence.
Student cognition was coded as follows: knowledge = 1, comprehension = 2,
application = 3, analysis = 4, synthesis = 5, and evaluation = 6 (see Table 2).
Finally, an average score for each student was calculated for each stage of the
study. Therefore, for example, a student who demonstrated cognitive aptitude at all
 European Journal of Teacher Education 185

Table 1. Description of Bloom’s Taxonomy as per Athanassiou, McNett and Harvey

(2003).
Hierarchical
Order Description
6 Evaluation - Shows the ability to judge the value of material for a given purpose
based on definite criteria and rationale. Includes decision-making and
selection.
5 Synthesis - Recombines the parts created during analysis to form a new entity,
different from the original.
4 Analysis - Breaks down material into its constituent parts so that its
organisational structure can be understood.
3 Application - Uses information, principles, and theory learned to answer a
question, solve a problem or complete a task.
2 Comprehension - Awareness of what the material means, allows one to demonstrate an
understanding of the material based on prior knowledge
1 Knowledge - The recall of previously learned material, of simple facts or complete
theories. Bringing to mind appropriate information

Table 2. Evidence of the hierarchically ordered level of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Hierarchical
Order Evidence
6 Evaluation - Assessments, critiques and evaluations
5 Synthesis - Creative behaviour such as the development of new solutions.
4 Analysis - Breaking down, categorising, classifying, and differentiating.
3 Application - Conceptual activities such as application, classification and
development.
2 Comprehension - Demonstrate comprehension by applying comparisons and/or
contrasts.
1 Knowledge - Definitions and outlines. Reproduction of requisite knowledge.

six levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy would achieve the maximum average score of 3.5.
Also to determine whether or not the class as a whole demonstrated greater use of
higher-order thinking skills and an improvement in cognitive sophistication, an
average of all students’ results was taken as an estimate.
Students’ recent reflections and posts on their e-portfolios were analysed at three
different stages of the module for levels of cognition (as outlined in Table 1), at the
end of Weeks 2, 6 and 11 respectively. Students were also provided with individual,
formative feedback from the lecturer twice during the completion of the project,
towards the end of Weeks 3 and 9 of the module. The blog was again utilised in
the provision of this feedback, allowing the lecturer to comment on students work
to date. All lecturer feedback reflected the aims of the module however the feed-
back in Week 3 specifically focused on the initial ideation process and students’
resulting designs for the project. Lecturer feedback in Week 9 focused more on the
development of students’ design ideas and on the manufacturing and joining
processes employed.
Ethical considerations were negotiated with participants. Participants had the
right to withdraw from the study at any stage without prejudice. The four basic
186 R. Lynch et al.

ethical principles of respect for persons, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice

(LoBiondo-Wood and Haber 1998) were prioritised at all times.

Results
Analysis of the student postings shows evolution in their thinking skills during the
process and was evident in the reflections and postings they provided on their e-
portfolios. On average the cognitive sophistication of the class was shown to
advance throughout the duration of the module, with students typically operating at
higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy at successive phases of the study (see Table 3).
Students’ cognitive development, evident in their reflections, was shown to be
greatest between the assessments in Week 2 and Week 6 of the study, with an aver-
age class increase from 1.5 to 2.1 respectively (see Table 3). The development
observed between the reflections made in Week 6 by the students and those made
in Week 11, at the end of the project, was less apparent.
Observations of student interactions and engagement in the workshop also
highlighted significant development in students’ levels of reflection and commit-
ment to deeper understanding of the material covered in the module between
Weeks 2 and 6. A noteworthy shift toward deeper understanding and reflection
was particularly evident post receipt of formal feedback from the lecturer in
Week 3 which resulted in many students making significant changes or modifica-
tions to their designs for the project. Students also became more critical of
their own work and the work of their peers after Week 3, demonstrating evi-
dence of analysis, synthesis and evaluation not only in their reflections on their
e-portfolios and blog but also in the feedback and support offered to their peers
in the workshop.
Examples of postings that were related to the knowledge/comprehension range
included:

A common result of the thermal stresses induced by welding is a distortion or warping

of the assembly (‘Knowledge’). To avoid this I made the welds with the least amount
of weld metal (filler) possible and used a jig to support the frame. It is essential that
the frame does not distort as the wheel axle needs to line up so that it will spin freely
(‘Comprehension’). (Student 33, Week 2)

Oxygen is not flammable, but will increase the combustion of flammable materials
(‘Knowledge’). Therefore it is necessary to make sure that the work area is completely
clean and free of flammable materials such as oil when using oxyacetylene welding
(‘Comprehension’). (Student 2, Week 2)

In terms of conceptual activities that included application, classification and

development, this was primarily evident in the actual application of the process
skills students had previously developed in the physical making of the model
bike. It was apparent, for example, in students’ application and development of
requisite machine skills. It was also evident in their application and implementa-
tion of the theory and principles related to joining processes such as welding,
which were covered in the lectures. Students’ ability to apply these principles
and the information covered during the lectures to the manufacture of their model
was assessed in Week 9 based on the quality and choice of joining processes
utilised.
Table 3. Quality of student reflections according to Bloom’s Taxonomy levels.
Week 2 Week 6 Week 11
Bloom’s Level Bloom’s Level Bloom’s Level
Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 Student average score 1 2 3 4 5 6 Student average score 1 2 3 4 5 6 Student average score
1 1 2 3 4 1.7 1 3 4 1.3 1 2 3 4 1.7
2 1 2 3 4 5 6 3.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 3.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 3.5
3 1 2 3 1.0 1 2 3 4 5 2.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 3.5
4 1 2 3 1.0 1 3 4 1.3 1 2 3 1.0
5 1 2 3 4 1.7 1 2 3 4 5 2.5 1 2 3 5 1.8
6 1 2 3 4 1.7 1 2 3 4 5 2.5 1 2 3 4 5 2.5
7 1 0.2 1 0.2 1 2 0.5
8 1 2 3 1.0 1 2 4 5 2.0 1 2 3 4 5 2.5
9 1 0.2 2 0.3 1 2 3 1.0
10 1 2 3 4 1.7 1 2
3 4 5 2.5 1 2 3 4 5 2.5
11 1 2 3 4 6 2.7 1 2
3 4 5 6 3.5 1 2 3 4 1.7
12 1 2 3 1.0 1 2
3 1.0 1 2 3 1.0
13 1 2 3 1.0 1 2
3 4 1.7 1 2 3 4 1.7
14 1 2 3 1.0 1 2
3 4 1.7 1 2 3 1.0
15 1 2 3 4 1.7 1 2
3 4 5 2.5 1 2 3 4 5 2.5
16 1 0.2 1 0.2 1 2 0.5
17 1 2 3 4 1.7 1 2 3 4 1.7 1 2 3 4 1.7
18 1 2 3 4 1.7 1 2 3 4 5 2.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 3.5
19 1 2 0.5 2 0.3 1 2 3 1.0
20 1 2 3 1.0 1 2 4 5 2.0 1 2 3 5 1.8
21 1 2 3 4 1.7 1 3 4 5 2.2 1 2 4 5 2.0
22 1 2 3 4 1.7 1 2 3 4 6 2.7 1 2 3 4 5 6 3.5
23 1 2 3 4 5 2.5 1 2 3 4 5 2.5 1 2 3 4 5 2.5
24 1 3 4 1.3 1 2 3 4 1.7 1 2 3 4 1.7
25 1 2 3 4 5 2.5 1 2 3 4 5 2.5 1 2 3 4 5 2.5
European Journal of Teacher Education

26 1 2 3 1.0 1 2 3 4 5 2.5 1 2 3 4 5 2.5

27 1 2 3 4 1.7 1 2 3 4 1.7 1 2 3 4 1.7
(Continued)
187
Table 3. (Continued).
188

Week 2 Week 6 Week 11

Bloom’s Level Bloom’s Level Bloom’s Level
Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 Student average score 1 2 3 4 5 6 Student average score 1 2 3 4 5 6 Student average score
28 1 3 4 1.3 1 2 3 4 5 6 3.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 3.5
29 1 2 3 4 5 2.5 1 2 3 5 6 2.8 1 2 3 4 1.7
30 1 2 3 1.0 3 4 5 2.0 1 2 3 4 5 2.5
R. Lynch et al.

31 1 2 3 1.0 1 3 4 5 2.2 1 2 3 4 5 2.5

32 1 2 3 4 1.7 1 2 3 4 1.7 1 2 3 4 1.7
33 1 2 3 1.0 1 3 4 1.3 1 2 3 5 1.8
34 1 3 4 1.3 1 2 3 5 1.8 1 2 3 4 1.7
35 1 2 3 4 1.7 1 3 4 5 2.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 3.5
36 1 2 4 5 2.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 3.5 1 2 3 4 5 2.5
37 1 2 3 1.0 1 2 4 5 2.0 1 2 3 4 1.7
38 1 2 3 4 1.7 1 2 3 4 5 2.5 1 2 3 5 6 2.8
39 1 2 3 4 1.7 1 2 3 4 1.7 1 2 3 4 1.7
40 1 2 3 5 6 2.8 1 2 3 4 5 6 3.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 3.5
41 1 2 3 1.0 1 2 3 1.0 1 2 3 4 1.7
42 1 2 3 4 5 2.5 1 3 4 5 6 3.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 3.5
43 1 2 3 4 5 2.5 1 2 3 4 5 2.5 1 2 3 4 1.7
44 1 2 3 4 1.7 1 2 4 5 3.0 1 2 3 4 5 2.5
45 1 2 3 4 1.7 1 2 3 4 5 2.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 3.5
46 1 2 3 5 1.8 1 3 4 5 6 3.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 3.5
47 1 2 3 4 1.7 1 2 3 4 5 2.5 1 2 3 4 5 2.5
Class Average 1.5 2.1 2.2
 European Journal of Teacher Education 189

Evidence of application was also to be seen in the themes students chose for the
bike:

I have chosen the theme of aerodynamics. I think the chopper is an excellent bike that
would reflect this theme especially because of its shape. This theme will be seen
throughout the bike as the fuel tank is going to look like a professional cycling hel-
met. This will form the backbone of the chopper and will give the chopper a sleek
and aerodynamic look. The foot pegs on the bike are going to resemble wings of an
aircraft (curved on the top, flat on the bottom and a winglet at the tip of the peg).
Aerodynamics will also be portrayed in the paintwork. The entire frame will be curved
made from rolled tubular steel. (Student 2, Week 3)

In terms of analysis this was often evident in students’ feedback postings to

each other:

While I agree with Student X that you should have an additional support for the back
axle as drilling through the frame may weaken it, I think you should weld this on first
and then drill it out afterwards. I don’t think you will be able to get the holes to line
up if you pre-drill it as Student X suggests. (Student 24, Week 4)

I like the sketches you uploaded and the design for the bike but I don’t think you will
be able to get the shape shown. The bends are greater than 900 and pipe would kink if
you try to bend it that far. I would suggest creating a jig, cutting the pipe at an angle
and welding it back up to get the shape shown in the sketch. (Student 33, Week 4)

Analysis was also evident in the planning:

There are 11 weeks left in the build so I have decided to outline a timeline for myself
and will upload this on the next post. I am going to start the frame as this may distort
when welding so I want to make sure it all lines up before moving on to the front
forks. This I feel will take me the longest as it has a lot of lathe work. Next I will put
in the engine that I have already sourced and wheels from the mini moto. I will then
work on the seat and the tank but I won’t finish these until the last week because I
don’t want the paint work to get damaged when working on the rest of the bike.
Finally I’ll work on the smaller things like the handlebars, exhaust and head lamp. I
will be working on the electric circuit throughout the build. (Student 18, Week 3)

For synthesis levels, the evidence criteria included creative behaviour such as
the development of new solutions and this was evident in students’ design
evolutions which demonstrated creative endeavors, as well as in the novel solutions
students developed to overcome obstacles during production:

I was unable to get an accurate development of the headlamp from sheet metal so I
designed a mould and CNC milled it out of wood. I was then able to vacuum form
the shape of the headlamp out of plastic around this mould. (Student 33, Week 9)

The designs I have attached include my chosen frame and some various frames which
I considered when designing the bike. I have also included pictures of my initial draft
working drawing and will model it up on AutoCAD soon. (Student 2, Week 4–5)

Being able to engage in critical evaluation of their own work was the final stage
and evidence criteria included self-assessment, self-critique and evaluation. These
were evident in such postings as:
190 R. Lynch et al.

Now that the bike is finished I think there are certain things I would change if I had
the time. I think my own time management skills could have been a lot better on this
bike project. I left the finalisation of my design too late and as a result I didn’t have
enough time to get the finish I would have liked on the bike. (Student 2, Week 14)

While I am very happy with the overall look of my finished bike I think the welding
let me down. A lot of the welds are poor. I burnt through the parent metal in places
and in others the weld appears porous. By the end of welding the frame my welding
had improved and I should have practiced more before moving on to the frame in the
first place. (Student 28, Week 14)

The data show evidence of the different levels of cognition; it is however worth
noting that according to the criteria applied, most students demonstrated some higher-
order thinking skills, from an early stage in the project but this is related to nature of
PBL which requires analysis at an early stage. However, for many students the syn-
thesis and evaluative components were additional and did not prove evident in their
postings upon assessment in Week 2 (see Table 3). Self-assessment and grading of
their finished model was not a formal requirement for the module, nevertheless
several students did provide a detailed evaluation of their finished project through the
e-portfolios. As predicted by Papinczak, Young, and Groves (2007), students were
slow to critique and evaluate each other’s finished work and mostly provided analysis
and synthesis through suggestions and ideas offered on how to overcome obstacles
encountered by their peers throughout the production of the models.
Students clearly enjoyed the project-based structure of the module as the class
score never fell below 3.8 out of a possible 5 on the Likert scale for any aspect of
the module evaluated in the survey (provided in Appendix A). The module effec-
tiveness and relevance to the educational goals of this teacher education course both
received an average class score of 4.1 out of a possible 5. Students also responded
very well to questions regarding the organisation and structure of the module, as
well as its capacity to increase students’ knowledge of their core subject matter,
receiving a class score of 4.0. In addition, comments provided by students demon-
strate that the problem based learning was challenging and motivating:

Great module, very enjoyable, the project was very testing but also educational.
Enjoyed learning how to weld and throughout the semester the atmosphere in the labs
was great. (Student 17)

I enjoyed the module, thought it was a good learning experience and one that was
taught well with a unique approach. (Student 28)

The peer feedback element to the module also emerged as beneficial and infor-
mative for the students:

I found the input from other members of the class very useful. While I didn’t agree
with some of their comments it was definitely good to get a different person’s perspec-
tive at times. (Student 21)

At a few points during the manufacture of the bike I ran into difficulty and it defi-
nitely helped being able to bounce ideas of the other lads in the group. (Student 22)
 European Journal of Teacher Education 191

While a secondary aim of the individualised lecturer feedback was to try to

move students away from reliance on the lecturer and from the focus on grading,
these remained concerns for students: ‘I thought the peer feedback part to the
module was very good, but I would have liked more feedback from the lecturer at
times so that I knew how I was doing in the module’ (Student 2).
Lecturer feedback was structured in a way that maintained the formative focus of
the module, however students often requested a grade from the instructor upon receipt
of feedback and they were challenged by the focus shifting away from grading.
Because of their heightened critique students were more keenly aware of poten-
tial improvements which sometimes led to them not knowing when their motorcycle
model was finished and looking to the lecturer for confirmation of this.
The peer feedback encouraged the sharing of ideas and knowledge and meant
that students could draw from the large pool of ideas within the student cohort:

I like the fact that you could trace the ideas and designs for the bike back to the origi-
nal owner so I wasn’t afraid to share my ideas with the rest of the class as long as I
had it uploaded onto the e-portfolio first. (Student 32)

Although both modules employed the use of e-portfolios and had a significant
project-based element, students appeared less engaged with the control module.
Students’ provided fewer postings on their e-portfolios throughout the control mod-
ule with a total of 1552 voluntary postings for the motorbike module, compared to
994 for the control module. The reflections posted in the control module demon-
strated primarily lower-order thinking skills when compared to those entered for the
peer feedback module with an average class score of 1.6 for the control module in
Week 11, compared to 2.2 for the peer feedback module (see Table 3). The peer
feedback and open access e-portfolios had a positive influence on learning outcomes.
This was not only evident in the levels of engagement of the students but also in
their overall grades for both modules, with students performing significantly better
in the peer feedback module than in the control module. The average grade for this
cohort in the peer feedback initiative was 61.8% (B2) and in the control module it
was 55.7% (C1). A spearman correlation analysis of student results revealed that
higher level of critical thinking (as evident in students’ Week 11 reflections) was also
associated with higher grades in the overall module (r = 0.762, p < 0.005). This was
not surprising given that 25% of the module result was allocated to students’ reflec-
tions and feedback through the e-portfolios and blog. However, a significant correla-
tion was also evident between students’ Week 11 reflections and their score in the
formal end of semester examination (r = 0.714, p = 0.014). By comparison for the
control module no significant correlation was evident between students’ Week 11
reflection and their end of semester examination.
Finally as a result of the module all 47 students were successful in designing
and manufacturing a unique module motorcycle, demonstrating not only a high
level of manufacturing and joining skills but also critical thinking skills. (For exam-
ples of pupils’ final projects and the work completed please see the following
website: www.pn4105.wordpress.com.)

Discussion
The pedagogical approach employed in this study was utilised in order to stimulate
student thinking and promote deeper approaches to learning. The assessment stages
192 R. Lynch et al.

implemented were designed to ensure constructive alignment with the aims and
objectives of the module which hoped to move beyond surface approaches to learn-
ing and in doing so encourage higher quality learning outcomes. A significant
percent of the assessment strategy had a formative focus, aimed at promoting
greater reflection and encouraging the development of students’ critical thinking
skills. The results suggest that this reflected positively on the learning outcomes of
the module. On average students performed better in the peer feedback initiative
when compared to the control module. However, the influence on student learning
outcomes was perhaps more apparent in the level of student engagement with the
experiment module when compared to the control. This engagement can be seen
quantitatively by the number of posts provided by students but was also evident
during observations of student interactions and engagement in the workshops.
The relationship between the pedagogical strategy experienced by participants in
this module and the future approaches to teaching they employ deserves further
investigation. Findings by Sluijsmans, Brand-Gruwel and van Merriënboer (2002)
suggest that exposure to alternative assessment structures including the use of peer-
assessment can have a positive effect on the development of student teachers’ own
assessment skills. However, in relation to this research it would require further
exploration through a longitudinal study of the participating cohort. Although not
the principal focus of this study, the module examined in this paper not only affor-
ded student teachers space for critical thinking and reflection but rewarded them
based on the quality of this reflection, an element that Hill (2007) argues has virtu-
ally been ‘squeezed out’ of many teacher education programmes. Hill (2007, 215)
also argues that teacher education should enable student teachers to develop the
skills to critically examine the nature of teaching, therefore ‘transformative intellec-
tuals must engage in self-criticism’. Findings from this study suggest that the incor-
poration of a significant element of self- and peer-assessment in this module
encouraged reflective practice and helped develop student teachers’ ability to cri-
tique and evaluate their own practice, as well as that of their peers.
A development in the cognitive sophistication of students’ reflections was evident
as students progressed through the module. However, the greatest shift towards
higher order, critical thinking occurred early on in the first half of the module,
shortly after the receipt of initial peer and lecturer feedback. It is clear from observa-
tions of the groups and from analysis of student reflections that the provision of lec-
turer feedback was essential for guiding the future peer feedback provided by
students. Prior to the provision of lecturer feedback students were reluctant to criti-
cise their peers’ works as previously reported by Clifford (1999) and also highlighted
by Papinczak, Young, and Groves (2007). However, post receipt of lecturer feedback
in Week 3 students adopted a similar formative structure to that presented to them
when offering feedback to their peers, providing constructive criticism where appro-
priate. This would support findings by Showers and Joyce (1996) which suggest that
it is essential that both recipients and providers of feedback be acquainted with the
feedback process. Once students had received lecturer feedback and consequently
were familiar with what was required of them, they appeared better equipped to pro-
vide feedback themselves and were less reluctant to criticise their peers.
As highlighted by Sadler (1998, 82) self and peer assessment holds great poten-
tial but ‘may become even more effect if students are specifically inducted into the
process of making sound qualitative judgment’. This study would support Sadler’s
findings regarding the importance of effectively inducting students into the
 European Journal of Teacher Education 193

formative feedback process. Without effective induction student can struggle to

assimilate the specific benefits of formative feedback (Sadler and Good 2006), as
highlighted in this study with many of the students requesting a grade upon receipt
of formative feedback throughout the module. The notion of peers having a critical
role was challenging to students’ previous experience in which the teacher has
always played the central role in the feedback process. As highlighted by McNiff
and Whitehead (2006) students may consequently need support in overcoming their
dependence on the lecturer and may need to be supported to develop an understand-
ing of themselves as having legitimate knowledge in the classroom. It is important
that the lecturer takes the time to discuss the feedback process with the students,
and students need to be aware of the rationale for giving and receiving feedback
from their peers (McGourty, Dominick, and Reilly 1998). However the data suggest
that through blending the use of lecturer and peer feedback students can develop
and enhance their higher-order thinking skills. A well designed peer feedback pro-
cess can produce meaningful results (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick 2006), but as high-
lighted by Liu and Carless (2006) and supported by findings from this research it
also requires careful attention of the lecturer.
Traditional summative assessment practices focus on factual transmission and
assess students ability to learn, recall, list and recite these fact (Broadfoot 1996).
The authors contend that through the structure outlined for project-based curriculum
such as this study implemented, student teachers may see the value of promoting
peer feedback and peer assessment as a means by which to develop higher order
cognition (Hopson, Simms, and Knezek 2001). Offering students the opportunity to
critique each other’s work also encourages enhanced reflection more on their own
project and design. This strategy potentially encourages students to intuitively
engage at the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Also given the educational con-
text in which this module was implemented, it serves to expose student teachers to
alternative teaching, learning and assessment strategies so they may examine their
pedagogical potential first hand. As highlighted by Dow (2006, 317) ‘an important
way forward for initial teacher institutions is to give pre-service teachers opportuni-
ties to explore and make explicit their deeply embedded implicit theories, thus
enhancing self knowledge and making a critical self analysis of practice more possi-
ble’. This module not only afforded students the opportunity to explore alternate
pedagogy than that traditionally offered at higher level, but also encouraged reflec-
tion and ‘critical self-analysis of practice’.
The incorporation of self- and peer-assessment and feedback in this project-
based module helped create a learning environment that promoted deeper
approaches to learning by stressing the importance of critical thinking skills. This
was not only reflected in the finished models and overall grade for the module but
also in students’ results in the formal end of term examination. Higher levels of
critical thinking as evident in students’ reflections were also associated with higher
results in the written examination on the manufacturing processes, reflecting deeper
understanding. The structure and approach taken for this module encouraged the
development of an environment of equal status learners where every student not
only had a contribution to offer but were required to provide it. As highlighted by
Black and William (1998b, 6), ‘what is needed is a culture of success, backed by a
belief that all pupils can achieve’.
194 R. Lynch et al.

Conclusion and recommendations for teacher education

There are some clear implications for teacher educators. There is evidence to suggest
that schoolteachers teach the way they have been taught themselves (Britzman 2003;
Parsons 2005), a process Lortie (1975) has identified as the apprenticeship of observa-
tion. Therefore, if initial teacher education is implemented from a more empowering
and less authoritarian and didactic perspective, then it is likely that student teachers
may replicate this in their own future teaching careers. In addition Trigwell, Prosser
and Waterhouse (1999) have shown that approaches to teaching are directly related to
approaches to learning. Initiatives such as this one that encourage higher order think-
ing through PBL and peer engagement and which challenge a traditional understand-
ing of the teacher’s role is important for the development of teachers who are
committed to empowering education for their students (Hill 2007).
As highlighted by Cheng, Cheng and Tang (2010, 93) ‘most student teachers
observe faculty who teach them, and see higher education as an important source of
ideas and models for teaching’. Therefore a prerequisite of all teacher education pro-
grammes should be the provision of learning environments that model pedagogical
expectations for pre-service teachers. As well as promoting deep learning, this initia-
tive aimed to provide student teachers with a model for the successful implementation
of PBL and peer engagement under the mantel of ‘teach as you preach’ as advocated
by Struyven, Dochy and Janssens (2010). By promoting self- and peer-assessment
and feedback, student teachers were shown to develop their critical thinking skills
which resulted in higher quality learning outcomes when compared to a control group.
This pedagogical approach encouraged students to reflect not only on their own work
but on the work of their peers, shifting the focus from traditional transmission meth-
ods to a deeper approach to learning. This focus on ‘deep learning’ resulted in a sig-
nificant development in students’ critical thinking skills throughout the module as
evident in their reflections and assessed by applying Bloom’s Taxonomy for the cog-
nitive domain. However while this approach was successful for this module more
research is required into the impact of such strategies on the classroom practices of
graduates and indeed into the potential of similar teaching strategies for alternative
curricula and for more diverse student populations.

References
Agostinho, S. 2004. Naturalistic inquiry in e-learning research. International Journal 4, no.
1: 13–26.
Anderson, L., D. Krathwohl, and B. Bloom. 2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York:
Longman.
Athanassiou, N., J. McNett, and C. Harvey. 2003. Critical thinking in the management
classroom: Bloom’s taxonomy as a learning tool. Journal of Management Education
27, no. 5: 533–55.
Barron, B., D. Schwartz, N. Vye, A. Moore, A. Petrosino, L. Zech, and J. Bransford. 1998.
Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem-and project-based
learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 7, no. 3: 271–311.
Biggs, J., C. Tang, and E. Corporation. 1999. Teaching for quality learning at university.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Black, P., C. Harrison, and C. Lee. 2003. Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice.
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 1998a. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in
Education: principles, policy and practice 5, no. 1: 7–74.
 European Journal of Teacher Education 195

Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 1998b. Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 80, no. 2: 1–13.
Bloom, B. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational
goals. New York: Longmans Green.
Bloom, B.S. 1971. Mastery learning. In Mastery learning, theory and practice, ed. J.H.
Block, 47–63. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Boud, D., R. Cohen, and J. Sampson. 2001. Peer learning and assessment. In Peer learning
in higher education: learning from & with each other, ed. D. Boud, R. Cohen, and J.
Sampson, 67–81. London: Kogan Page.
Boud, D., and G. Feletti. 1998. The challenge of problem-based learning. London:
Routledge.
Britzman, D. 2003. Practice makes practice. A critical study of learning to teach. Albany:
State of New York Press.
Broadfoot, P. 1996. Education, assessment, and society: A sociological analysis. Bucking-
ham: Open University Press.
Carless, D. 2007. Learning-oriented assessment: Conceptual bases and practical implications.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International 44, no. 1: 57–66.
Cheng, M.M.H., A.Y.N. Cheng, and S.Y.F. Tang. 2010. Closing the gap between the theory
and practice of teaching: Implications for teacher education programmes in Hong
Kong. Journal of Education for Teaching 36, no. 1: 91–104.
Clifford, V. 1999. The development of autonomous learners in a university setting. Higher
Education Research & Development 18, no. 1: 115–28.
Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2007. Research methods in education. New York:
Routledge.
Dow, W. 2006. The need to change pedagogies in science and technology subjects: A
European perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 16,
no. 3: 307–21.
Entwistle, N. 1991. Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment.
Higher Education 22, no. 3: 201–4.
Entwistle, N. 2000. Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: Conceptual
frameworks and educational contexts. Paper presented at the Teaching and Learning
Research Programme Conference, November, in Leicester.
Entwistle, N., and P. Ramsden. 1982. Understanding student learning. New York: Croom
Helm.
Falchikov, N., and J. Goldfinch. 2000. Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-
analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research 70, no. 3:
287–322.
Felder, R., and J. Spurlin. 2005. Applications, reliability and validity of the Index of
Learning Styles. International Journal of Engineering Education 21, no. 1: 103–12.
Granberg, C. 2010. E-portfolios in teacher education 2002–2009: The social construction of
discourse, design and dissemination. European Journal of Teacher Education 33, no.
3: 309–22.
Gunderman, R., K. Williamson, M. Frank, D. Heitkamp, and H. Kipfer. 2003. Learner-
centered education. Radiology 227, no. 1: 15.
Hill, D. 2007. Critical teacher education, new labour, and the global project of neoliberal
capital. Policy Futures in Education 5, no. 2: 204–25.
Hopson, M., R. Simms, and G. Knezek. 2001. Using a technology-enriched environment to
improve higher-order thinking skills. Journal of Research on Technology in Education
34, no. 2: 109–20.
Keppell, M., E. Au, and C. Chan. 2006. Peer learning and learning-oriented assessment in
technology-enhanced environments. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education
31, no. 4: 453–64.
Knight, P. 2002. Summative assessment in higher education: practices in disarray. Studies in
Higher Education 27, no. 3: 275–86.
Krathwohl, D. 2002. A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice
41, no. 4: 212–8.
Liu, N., and D. Carless. 2006. Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment.
Teaching in Higher Education 11, no. 3: 279–90.
196 R. Lynch et al.

LoBiondo-Wood, G., and J. Haber. 1998. Nursing research: Methods, critical appraisal and
utilization. St Louise, Missouri: Mosby.
Lortie, D. 1975. Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McGourty, J., P. Dominick, and R. Reilly. 1998. Incorporating student peer review and
feedback into the assessment process. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education
Conference, November 4–7, in Tempe, Arizona.
McMahon, T. 2010. Peer feedback in an undergraduate programme: Using action research to
overcome students’ reluctance to criticise. Educational Action Research 18, no. 2:
273–87.
McNiff, J., and J. Whitehead. 2006. All you need to know about action research. London: Sage.
Meirink, J.A., P.C. Meijer, N. Verloop, and T.C.M. Bergen. 2009. How do teachers learn in
the workplace? An examination of teacher learning activities. European Journal of
Teacher Education 32, no. 3: 209–24.
Nicol, D., and D. Macfarlane-Dick. 2006. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning:
A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education
31, no. 2: 199–218.
Palloff, R., and K. Pratt. 2001. Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of
online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Papinczak, T., L. Young, and M. Groves. 2007. Peer assessment in problem-based learning:
A qualitative study. Advances in Health Sciences Education 12, no. 2: 169–86.
Parsons, L. 2005. Bullied teacher bullied student: How to recognize the bullying culture in
your school and what to do about It. Ontario: Pembroke Press.
Prince, M., and R. Felder. 2006. Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions,
comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education 95, no. 2: 127–38.
Robson, C. 2002. Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-
researchers. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ryan, M., J. Irwin, F. Bannon, C. Mulholland, and A. Baird. 2004. Observations of veteri-
nary medicine students’ approaches to study in pre-clinical years. Journal of Veterinary
Education 31, no. 3: 242.
Sadler, D. 1998. Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education:
principles, policy and practice 5, no. 1: 77–84.
Sadler, P., and E. Good. 2006. The impact of self-and peer-grading on student learning.
Educational Assessment 11, no. 1: 1–31.
Scouller, K. 1998. The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches:
Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education 35,
no. 4: 453–72.
Showers, B., and B. Joyce. 1996. The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership
53: 12–6.
Sluijsmans, D., F. Dochy, and G. Moerkerke. 1998. Creating a learning environment by using
self-, peer-and co-assessment. Learning Environments Research 1, no. 3: 293–319.
Sluijsmans, D.M.A., S. Brand-Gruwel, and J.J.G. van Merriënboer. 2002. Peer assessment
training in teacher education: Effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education 27, no. 5: 443–54.
Somervell, H. 1993. Issues in assessment, enterprise and higher education: The case for
self-, peer and collaborative assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Educa-
tion 18, no. 3: 221–33.
Struyven, K., F. Dochy, and S. Janssens. 2010. ‘Teach as you preach’: the effects of student-
centred versus lecture-based teaching on student teachers’ approaches to teaching.
European Journal of Teacher Education 33, no. 1: 43–64.
Sydow, J., L. Lindkvist, and R. DeFillippi. 2004. Project-based organizations, embeddedness
and repositories of knowledge: Editorial. Organization Studies 25, no. 9: 1475–89.
Trigwell, K., M. Prosser, and F. Waterhouse. 1999. Relations between teachers’ approaches
to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education 37, no. 1: 57–70.
van Gennip, N.A.E., M.S.R. Segers, and H.H. Tillema. 2009. Peer assessment for learning
from a social perspective: The influence of interpersonal variables and structural
features. Educational Research Review 4, no. 1: 41–54.
Windschitl, M. 1998. The WWW and classroom research: What path should we take?
Educational Researcher 27, no. 1: 28–33.
Appendix A

Strongly Not Strongly

Module disagree Disagree sure Agree agree
1 The module aims and objectives were clear.
2 The module was organised and sequenced well.
3 The module has significantly increased my knowledge in the subject areas.
4 The module was very relevant to the educational goals of this teacher education course.
5 The module offered creative freedom.
6 The module afforded students the opportunity to reflect on and develop their design
skills.
7 The module provided students with exposure to and opportunity to experience joining
and manufacturing processes.
8 The module offered good insight into the subject matter.
9 The module motivated and encouraged me to find out more about the subject matter.

Student
1 I found the E-portfolios helpful in mapping my designs and concepts.
2 I found the blogs useful for sharing ideas and information with my peers.
3 I found the feedback from my peers useful in developing on the concepts and principles
of the project.
4 I found the blog and feedback from my peers helpful when confronted with problems in
the module.
5 I enjoyed the module.
6 I felt motivated to complete the project.
7 I attended most or all of the required contact hours for this module.
8 I have worked hard to succeed in this module.
9 Overall this was an effective module.

Additional Information
Please highlight any further details relating to your learning experience on this module.
European Journal of Teacher Education

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
197
Copyright of European Journal of Teacher Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.