Problem-Based-Learning (PBL) is a teaching approach that originated as case-studies for medical students, to train the appliance of theoretical knowledge to real-world scenarios. Today, PBL is understood as a teaching strategy that relies on self-responsibility and group work, thereby opposing traditional teaching approaches, like, e.g., lectures. As such, PBL can be incorporated into a wide variety of academic areas. This method of teaching has three main goals: to facilitate learning (I), to provide students with a skillset that will allow them to find relevant information as life-long learners (II) and to develop social skills and group-work competence that will prove useful in their future working career (III) (1). One important cornerstone of PBL as a concept is constant evaluation in the form of a self-evaluation or feedback given by peers.
Different types of evaluation or feedback
Evaluation can be carried out in many different ways. For example, self-evaluation is a personal reflection of the own performance while peer-evaluation is the commenting on the performances of others in the group. This form of feedback is most often more accurate and truthful than the self- reflection, but it is also more complicated to give and receive with regard to interpersonal relationships (2,3). While the two first types of evaluation focus on an individual’s performance, group evaluations are used to assess the success of the group, as a whole, regarding learning but also group dynamics.
The effectiveness of evaluations can differ depending on multiple aspects. If there is a power imbalance between the person giving feedback and the person receiving (tutor to student or student to tutor) the feedback is regarded as asymmetric. For example, if the giver of the feedback has a higher status as the receiver the empathy of the giver can be diminished, which will ultimately lessen the quality of the feedback. In contrast to that we speak of symmetric feedback when the people who evaluate each other are on the same academic level (peers). It is a strength of the PBL setting, that peers are able to provide the more productive type of feedback, the symmetric feedback (1).
Is feedback always beneficial in group-learning-processes?
A study from 2013 wanted to address 3 research questions evaluating the effectiveness of midterm peer feedback in a PBL setting. The study focused on investigating if the quality of individual contributions increased after the midterm feedback (I), the effectiveness of feedback depends on whether the students are new to PBL or acquainted with the concept (II) and which points, do students think, can be improved (III). To answer these questions 87 first- and second-year students from Maastricht University performed a pre-test in the beginning of the term that would rate the quality of their PBL contributions, followed by an intervention in form of a midterm peer feedback and followed up by the same performance rating in the end of the term. This quantitative assessment of performance was complemented with a questionnaire that allowed for qualitative assessment of each individuals perception of peer feedback (4). Evaluating the data of the individual performance tests it was concluded that the feedback did not improve the performance of students that were already doing well in the pre-test. However, students with a poor rating in the pre-test profited from peer feedback and improved their contributions to the PBL group, which ultimately increases the quality of the PBL for the whole group. Unsurprisingly, students that were new to the PBL setting improved more than students of the second year as these are already comfortable in the setting of a PBL and so less susceptible for feedback or less willing to work on further improvements (4). One limitation of the study is that the peer feedback was given in written form. A pivotal part of receiving feedback is to completely understand what the other person means. The possibility of face- to-face discussion is crucial for feedback to be understood, accepted and heeded (3).
Another study brings forth the aspect of feedback tools not just being able to improve a groups cognitive performance but also the social interactions and satisfaction with the collaborative learning process (5). In this study the feedback tools “Rader” (peer feedback tool) and “Reflector” (self- evaluation) were used throughout the whole duration of the group project which could be superior to the one-time feedback approach the first study mentioned used. This could be a hint towards the importance of continuous evaluation throughout the whole process of a PBL semester.
Another possibility in which feedback can be elevating the quality of a PBL session is to evaluate not just the students but also the tutor’s performance. A study from 2017 found that peer coaching is an effective way to improve a tutor’s facilitation skillset. It was also observed that while self-evaluation after reviewing video footage can help to recognise bad behavioural patterns, peer feedback is required in most cases to actually improve the behaviour. Tutors claimed that a peer evaluation was benefiting them not just improving their approaches but also reassuring them in their work (6). A peer evaluation system for tutors can be a tool to improve the framework of a PBL to give the students the chance to profit most from a group learning approach.
Conclusion
Considering all points mentioned above one can conclude that using evaluations and feedback effectively is not an easy task. There are many different types of feedback and it is usually dependent on the situation but also on the personalities of the one giving and the one receiving the feedback, which type of evaluation is the most applicable (3). These circumstances could explain the results in studies which do not find any major improvements of group work performance after a feedback intervention. In a study from 2014 no enhancement of the quality of individual PBL contributions could be found after a one-time peer feedback intervention. However the authors proclaimed that just having 3 meetings after the intervention is probably too short of a time to establish new learning patterns and improvements in group interactions (7).
However, there is a lot of evidence to be found in the scientific literature that points to evaluation as a vital tool for improving group work performances (both intellectual and interpersonal). This is especially true when the right form of feedback is given with regard to the situation. It is also crucial to provide a professional environment, in which each group member feels comfortable giving and receiving feedback.
References
- Holen A. The PBL group: Self-reflections and feedback for improved learning and growth. Med Teach. 2000;22(5):485–8.
- Eva KW. Assessing Tutorial-Based Assessment. Vol. 6, Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2001.
- Archer JC. State of the science in health professional education: effective feedback. Med Educ. 2010 Jan 1;44(1):101–8.
- Kamp RJA, Dolmans DHJM, Van Berkel HJM, Schmidt HG. The effect of midterm peer feedback on student functioning in problem-based tutorials. Adv Heal Sci Educ. 2013 May 1;18(2):199– 213.
- Phielix C, Prins FJ, Kirschner PA, Erkens G, Jaspers J. Group awareness of social and cognitive performance in a CSCL environment: Effects of a peer feedback and reflection tool. Comput Human Behav. 2011 May 1;27(3):1087–102.
- Garcia I, James RW, Bischof P, Baroffio A. Self-Observation and Peer Feedback as a Faculty Development Approach for Problem-Based Learning Tutors: A Program Evaluation. Teach Learn Med. 2017 Jul 3;29(3):313–25.
- Kamp RJA, van Berkel HJM, Popeijus HE, Leppink J, Schmidt HG, Dolmans DHJM. Midterm peer feedback in problem-based learning groups: The effect on individual contributions and achievement. Adv Heal Sci Educ. 2014 Mar;19(1):53–69.