Abstract
In the framework of lifelong learning, learning outcomes target a set of skills for work based on contextualized previous experiences. Specially designed activities performed during the training path will become formative thanks to guiding and feedback, but also formative assessment before summative evaluation. Higher education learning performance motivates this learner-centered pedagogical choice that requires a real commitment from the audience. By relying on our practices in an engineering school and satisfaction surveys, the chapter puts the focus on how peer review during activities supports personal development. The authors present a gradual assessment process as a part of the pedagogical scenario for groups enrolled in initial and vocational trainings. This should provide a key lever to develop skills not only for the work but also for learning autonomy, commitment, human and social qualities, thanks to the external feedback from their peers and supervised debriefings. This process supports the satisfaction of all with respect to a common objective embodied by accepted and shared assessments.
TopIntroduction
The European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (AISBL) defines the European Standards and Guidelines for the learning performance of the training offer in Higher Education (ENQA, 2009). In compliance with the EU strategy “Europe 2020” and University Lifelong Learning accepted definition (Davies, 2007), the goal is to ensure the competences for the European citizen that support employability and mobility for socially integrated citizens. Thus, EU supports innovation and knowledge and a high level of employment partly based on digital evolution and lifelong skills development. The “future works” skills to be developed contribute to the autonomy of knowledge acquisition and the ability to use it to pursue specific goals and critical thinking. These are defined by Davies et al. (2011) as metacognitive abilities, collective and social intelligence, capability for virtual collaboration, computational thinking, cognitive load management and design mindset. The operational performance of HE Institutions (HEIs) requires a Community of Practice (CoP): a professional community of experts and partners for a better understanding of societal needs and working cultures. CoP supports an evolving and innovative educational culture based on trust, confidence, cross-boundary and collegial support (Trust & Horrock, 2019; Wenger, 2020). This professional learning network is regarded in a meso position with respect to education policies and training for relevance, flexibility, collaboration, support and scaffolding (Carpenter et al., 2021; Dille & Røkenes, 2021). The integration of digital technology should be seen as a means for facilitating work and learning. The assessment must be aligned with the chosen curriculum and pedagogy. In this framework, Work Integrated Learning (such as Continuous Vocational Training (CVT) and apprenticeship (Initial Vocational Training, IVT)) sounds like a key solution that merges learning at the university and learning in the company (Nuninger & Châtelet, 2020): work experience and active pedagogy support the personal reflection to enhance the learning ability. The aim is to support the commitment of all for knowledge ownership and to target professional skills in a specific field of expertise for the work. But the goal is also to gain in learning autonomy, in problem-solving skills and in social and collective intelligence (Goleman, 2007; Johnson, 2011). The chosen pedagogy must integrate core competences, the design of activities and situations, and support the reflexive learning to make such situations formative. Thus, it requires a formative assessment before final summative evaluation for a diploma.
In the following, the background focuses on formative activities and peer review to support learning performance, focusing on the concerns for our field of intervention. Then, in the framework of blended-oriented courses with collective projects, a 4-step gradual process of evaluation called SCPR for Self and Cross Peer Review is presented. The case study justifies motivation and improvements based on data processed between 2019 and 2022 with three groups enrolled in three different training paths of an engineering school. The satisfaction surveys related to the Teaching Units (TUs) show the relevance of SCPR, but also stress the concerns with today’s generations. Finally, the conclusion brings out the key levers and perspectives of our solution that gives understanding and trust, develops positive criticism and supports the learning with the essential role of the trainer-mentor.
Key Terms in this Chapter
Code Review: This is as software Quality Assurance activity that allows a group to valid a computer application with respect to specifications. Developers check the algorithm and source code, reading the sequences and testing to limit interruption due to not predictable errors. The concept supports quality, transfer of expertise, mutual responsibility and collective ownership of the final code.
Pair Programming: This refers to joint (i.e., by two people) operational development of a computer application, sharing the display of the workstation: one codes the previously thought-out functional solution, while the second controls the typed sequences in real time. They do so in an alternating manner, interacting and transferring expertise (SE and CA). During Rapid Application Development by a bigger team, peer-programming and mob-programming (PR) focuses on delayed code review while output and priority are argued during progress review respecting agile principles.
Integrative alternation: This is an organizational choice taking into account the available time and external constraints to find the best way to break down the time allocated to face-to-face sharing and self-directed activities. It is not an affixing of two contexts but an act of collaboration with commitment
Hybrid blended-courses: This pedagogical strategy mixes different pedagogical approaches, materials and means (including digital) for knowledge ownership. It favors “ learning by doing ” and the creation of individuals’ Personal Learning Environment, giving the students control over the time, place and pace of learning. It enhances commitment and collective debriefings. The activities, prepared beforehand, can be carried out remotely, during the face-to-face course at the school, but also during the virtual classroom. In that case, it requires tailored IT tools and an adequate time division to enhance the training momentum and ensure the co-presence of trainer and trainees. Hybridization of means promote flexibility for more Open Distance Learning (ODL); a point of view not to be confused with so-called “ hybrid lesson ” and ERT quickly promoted during COVID-19 pandemic, not specifying the true training modalities and requirement.
Assessments (SE, CA and PR): These are conceptualized in this chapter within a formative educational perspective. Self-evaluation (SE) leads the individual to make a judgment about their own work, production and results. By continuity beyond this task-specific personal evaluation, cross-assessment (CA) between members of the same team (regarded as a unitary system) encourages sharing and incent dialogic feedback that helps the team progress toward the learning goal. Peer review (PR) between teams allows for confrontation between new actors and the opportunity to trust judgment in the dialogue between new experts.
ONAAG: French acronym for “Outil Numérique d’Appui de l’Auto-Formation Guidée ” proposed to students to consolidate prerequisite mastery, facilitate new knowledge acquisition and understanding, then autonomy with respect to time management and collaborative work. The core of the pedagogical device is a set of learning activities of gradual complexity synchronized on Moodle with: hypertext lecture with educational videos, solved examples and self-assessment tests. The use of the pedagogical device by the trainer with asynchronous feedback and synchronous lessons in the classroom aims to incent worthwhile interaction in the group.
Teacher, Trainer, Tutor or Mentor: In the framework of active pedagogy, these terms refer interchangeably here to the facilitator experts who guide, support, give feedback, supervise debriefing and control the collective learning activity; the choice is related to the role that differs according to the stage of the SCPR process and the evolution of the groups.