Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer


Vol. 14 No. 1 (2023): University didactics, innovation and inclusion. Assessment and feedback

Using the Progressive Design Method in higher education: An analysis of cohesion, collaboration and inclusion dimensions

January 20, 2023


Many cognitive benefits for learning have been highlighted in the literature, due to peer feedback, but the relational aspects of this way of working, when it is implemented with groups of students, have been little investigated. This study aims to analyze some relational aspects of the use of peer feedback in the university context, considering in particular how the cohesion in the network of exchanges, the level of collaboration and inclusion of students, change during an activity carried out with a method based on peer feedback called Progressive Design Method. Eighteen undergraduate students participated in the study and worked in teams to develop projects in successive phases, each of which involved peer feedback in an online environment, Knowledge Forum. The results showed an increase in the values of the three dimensions (cohesion, collaboration and inclusion) in the first phases of work and a decrease in the last phase. The implications of the study focus on the possibility of creating collaborative learning environments in universities based on this method of work.


  1. Bereiter C., Scardamalia M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In: Corte E. D., Vershaffel L., Entwistle N. and Van Merrienboer J., editors, Unravelling basic components and dimensions of powerful learning environments (pp. 55-68). European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction: Pergamon.
  2. Blumenfeld P., Soloway E., Marx R., Krajcik J., Guzdial M. and Palincsar A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3/4): 369-398. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139.
  3. Braojos C. G., Gámez J. M., Vilches M. D. F. P. and Jiménez A. E. M. (2020). Evaluation of research on the Knowledge Building pedagogy: a mixed methodological approach. Relieve: Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa, 26(1): 1-22. DOI: 10.7203/relieve.26.1.16671.
  4. Cacciamani S. (2017). Experiential learning and knowledge building in higher education: An application of the progressive design method. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 13(1): 27-38. DOI: 10.20368/1971-8829/151.
  5. Cacciamani S., Mangione G. R. J. and Pieri M. (2022). Activating teachers’ epistemic agency to implement knowledge building in classroom: A case analysis of the “Classi in rete” project. Qwerty-Open and Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education, 17(2): 84-102. DOI: 10.30557/QW000059.
  6. Cacciamani S., Perrucci V. and Iannaccone A. (2018). Il peer feedback in un corso universitario blended: costruzione di uno schema di codifica. Qwerty-Open and Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education, 13(2): 32-48. DOI: 10.30557/QW000003.
  7. Chen C. H., Yang Y. C. (2019). Revisiting the effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis investigating moderators. Educational Research Review, 26: 71-81.DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2018.11.001.
  8. Ching Y. H., Hsu Y. C. (2013). Peer feedback to facilitate project-based learning in an online environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(5): 258-276. DOI: 10.19173/irrodl.v14i5.1524.
  9. Cocco S. (2006). “Student leadership development: The contribution of project-based learning” (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Royal Roads University, Victoria, BC, Canada.
  10. Jongsma M. V., Scholten D. J., van Muijlwijk-Koezen J. E. and Meeter M. (2022). Online Versus Offline Peer Feedback in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 0(0): 1-26 DOI: 10.1177/07356331221114181.
  11. Huisman B., Saab N., van den Broek P. and van Driel J. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: a Meta-Analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6): 863-880. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896.
  12. Liu N. F., Carless D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher education, 11(3): 279-290.
  13. Kokotsaki D., Menzies V. and Wiggins A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3): 267-277. DOI: 10.1177/1365480216659733.
  14. Nicol D., Thomson A. and Breslin C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1): 102-122. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2013.795518.
  15. Scardamalia M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum. In: Kovalchick A., Dawson K., editors, Education and Technology: An Encyclopedia (pp. 183-192). ABC-CLIO.
  16. Scardamalia M., Bereiter C. (2010). A brief history of Knowledge Building. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 36(1): 397-417. DOI: 10.21432/T2859M.
  17. Soliman D., Costa S. and Scardamalia M. (2021). Knowledge building in online mode: Insights and reflections. Education Sciences, 11(8): 425. DOI: 10.3390/educsci11080425.
  18. Tabassum S., Pereira F. S., Fernandes S. and Gama J. (2018). Social network analysis: An overview. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 8(5), e1256. DOI: 10.1002/widm.1256.
  19. Tan S. C., Chan C., Bielaczyc K., Ma L., Scardamalia M. and Bereiter C. (2021). Knowledge building: aligning education with needs for knowledge creation in the digital age. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(4): 2243-2266. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-020-09914-x.
  20. Topping K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3): 249-276. DOI: 10.3102/00346543068003249.
  21. Wyngaerden F., Nicaise P., Dubois V. and Lorant V. (2019). Social support network and continuity of care: an ego-network study of psychiatric service users. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 54(6): 725-735. DOI: 10.1007/s00127-019-01660-7.


Metrics Loading ...