Within Problem-Based Learning successful learning depends on the quality of cognitive, social and motivational contributions students make to the tutorial group. But at the same time, not all students in PBL automatically contribute in a high quality manner, which might impede successful group functioning. This study investigated whether peer process feedback combined with goal setting can be used to improve the quality of students’ individual contributions. A mixed-methods explanatory design, in which 74 second-year Health Sciences students participated, combined a pre- and posttest with a focus group. The results indicated that the quality of the contributions only increased for students with a below average score on the pre-test. The qualitative data confirmed that the impact of the feedback could be increased by combining individual reflection by means of goal setting with face-to-face discussion. Another suggestion is to investigate whether midterm peer process feedback is more effective for first year students, because they are still developing their tutorial behavior, as opposed to second year students.

The results prove that peers are able to provide reliable and valid information about a student's active participation in the tutorial group, if at least four peer ratings are attainable, out of a group of eight students. In conclusion, the M-PARS is a valid and reliable instrument.

Even though peer process feedback is an often used tool to enhance the effectiveness of collaborative learning environments like PBL, the conditions under which it is best facilitated still need to be investigated. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of individual versus shared reflection and goal setting on students' individual contributions to the group and their academic achievement. In addition, the influence of prior knowledge on the effectiveness of peer feedback was studied. In this pretest-intervention-posttest study 242 first year students were divided into three conditions: condition 1 (individual reflection and goal setting), condition 2 (individual and shared reflection and goal setting), and condition 3 (control group). Results indicated that the quality of individual contributions to the tutorial group did not improve after receiving the peer feedback, nor did it differ between the three conditions. With regard to academic achievement, only males in conditions 1 and 2 showed better academic achievement compared with condition 3. However, there was no difference between both ways of reflection and goal setting with regard to achievement, indicating that both ways are equally effective. Nevertheless, it is still too early to conclude that peer feedback combined with reflection and goal setting is not effective in enhancing students' individual contributions. Students only had a limited number of opportunities to improve their contributions. Therefore, future research should investigate whether an increase in number of tutorial group meetings can enhance the effectiveness of peer feedback. In addition, the effect of quality of reflection and goal setting could be taken into consideration in future research.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the contributions students make to the problem-based tutorial group process as observed by their peers, self-study time and achievement. To that end, the Maastricht Peer Activity Rating Scale was administered to students participating in Problem-Based Learning tutorial groups. With this rating scale students had to rate the constructive, collaborative and motivational activities of their peers within the tutorial group. In addition, time spent on self-study was measured with a self-estimation method and achievement was measured with a unit test and a group assignment. A causal model of these variables was developed, in which the three types of activities were assumed to affect time spent on self-study, which would in turn affect unit test scores and group assignment scores. A structural equation modeling analysis indicated acceptable model fit. Especially apparent was the evidence for the causal relations between a student's constructive activities and his/her unit test score and between a student's collaborative activities and the group assignment score. On the other hand, time spent on self-study was not affected by the students' contributions, nor did it have an effect on the unit test score. These results suggest that there are indeed causal relations between a student's contributions to the tutorial group process and achievement.

The purpose of this study is to determine what good coaching during design-based learning (DBL) entails by integrating theoretical and practical perspectives on good coaching. For this purpose, a grounded theory approach was used. For the practical perspective, themes on good coaching were derived from a qualitative study on coaching by observing and interviewing teachers and students involved in a DBL project. For the theoretical perspective, we consulted and analyzed literature on scaffolding, feedback, and formative assessment and coaching in problem-based learning from the learning sciences and the studio model from arts and design literature. Synthesizing themes from both perspectives led to the development of a theoretical coaching model consisting of three main categories (and four subcategories), seventeen themes and thirteen propositions. The model and propositions might be of use for those involved in coaching students in DBL and provide relevant directions for research on coaching in DBL.