The aim was to achieve practice‑oriented learning. The theory is not particularly complex. The challenges arise in the practical application. Therefore, the course places strong emphasis on assignments, and through peer learning, participants have the opportunity to discuss the assignments and provide feedback to one another.

Of the four principles for digitally supported learning, the following are relevant:

Variation:

Using the workshop module in Moodle introduces variation in the teaching. Exercises involving peer feedback provide a useful alternative to other teaching methods. Students receive feedback from several peers, gaining multiple and diverse inputs for their own work. Variation also arises from the need to alternate between giving and receiving feedback.

Collaboration and Openness:

The workshop module in Moodle gives students a unique opportunity to collaborate in a way that would not be manageable without a software solution to distribute assignments and ensure that submissions are delivered to the correct recipients.

Co-determination and Empowerment:

Working with peer feedback promotes students’ co‑determination and empowerment, as the learning format ensures active participation and allows them to influence their own learning process.

(You can read about their content below, or you can find additional information here: https://www.iaspbl.aau.dk/projects/principles-for-digitally-supported-pbl)

1. Variation: Students are motivated and learn in different ways, making variation beneficial for all students by providing multiple approaches to learning, teaching and education. Digital tools can expand opportunities for education and support variation as a principle across several practice levels.
2. Collaboration and Openness: Digital technologies make possible new forms of collaboration that extend beyond the individual course or project work and facilitate involvement of external stakeholders, larger groups of participants, cross‑cutting cooperation or entirely new forms of collaboration.
3. Co-determination and Empowerment: Digital technologies can support empowerment and increase students’ participation beyond project work. They can enable larger and more active learning communities involving both students and lecturers within individual education programmes and across them.
4. Inclusion: Digital technologies can help support inclusion by focusing on accessibility, diversity and flexibility. The principle aims to make educational and teaching activities accessible to all students and ensure that each student feels able to participate based on their individual conditions.

The teaching consisted of two days of confrontation of seven hours each and three exercises carried out between and after the days of confrontation. The first exercise was to write an article. The second was to conduct three peer reviews of other students’ articles using the workshop module in Moodle, and the final exercise was to submit a revised article based on the feedback received during the course. Peer feedback was used both orally during the days of confrontation and in written form through the workshop module in Moodle. The course was passed by completing the three exercises.

The first day was used to present relevant theory. Afterwards, the students were given time to reflect on how they would apply the theory they had just heard when writing their own article. Finally, they were given the opportunity to provide group‑based feedback on each other’s reflections. 

Between the two days of confrontation, two exercises were completed. Firstly, they had to write their own article, and secondly, they had to give feedback on three other articles from their group through Moodle.

The second day included reflections both based on, and also about, the feedback received through Moodle. Role-playing sessions were conducted where feedback was given from the author to the reviewer and afterwards from the reviewer to the author. At the end of the second day, an editorial board for a journal was simulated as a role‑play activity. Students were divided into two larger groups. Each group acted as be the committee and selected half of the articles from the other group for publication. Each group also designated a “best paper”, and based on these selections, two “award winners” were chosen. 

The final exercise was executed after day two. Students assessed how the collected feedback could be used to improve their article and, on that basis, prepare a revised version. 

Overall, peer feedback is worked with in several different contexts.

It is an advantage that students receive feedback at eye level from their peers. This creates greater involvement and intensity in the teaching.

The disadvantage is that they may feel they lack feedback from an experienced academic writer. However, we have assessed that the intensity and learning gained from peer feedback more than compensate for the absence of an “expert” within the group. The expert's perspective, on the other hand, comes through in the plenary sessions, where the educators comment on the reflections from the exercises.

This teaching approach is only feasible with a software solution. Otherwise, too many errors would occur. The wrong people risk being assigned the wrong tasks, or assignments might fail to return to the correct recipients. Technology can, of course, also fail, but we have only experienced this once in two decades.

• The workshop module can be highly recommended. It requires some familiarisation (and possibly sparring from CDUL), but it is a strong tool for peer learning. For example, distributing the assignments among students in the module went surprisingly smoothly.
• Do not leave it to the last moment. All new tools require time to learn.
• Create a sandbox simulation so you can test the setup without involving real students.
• Use groups of either 5 or 6 students; this works for all class sizes above 19.
• It is also ideal to have students give feedback to three others, as this is the easiest distribution model. We used fixed models for this distribution. If the group consisted of six students, it was divided into two halves, and each half gave feedback to the other. If the group consisted of five students, we used another model, illustrated below. If a group ended up with four members (due to absence), each student gave feedback to the three others. If a group dropped to three members, it was necessary to redistribute the groups.
• Model for feedback in a group of five members (Aster, Blake, Cameron, Demi, Eli):
  Aster bedømmer Blake, Cameron og Demi
  Blake bedømmer Cameron, Demi og Eli
  Cameron bedømmer Demi, Eli og Aster
  Demi bedømmer Eli, Aster og Blake
  Eli bedømmer Aster, Blake og Cameron