Dr. Andrea Tresidder, Henley Business School, Henley-on-Thames

European SoTL research highlights common challenges in work-based and apprenticeship learning, particularly around learner belonging, academic integration, and navigating multiple learning contexts (Curto-Reverte et al., 2025). Learner feedback across degree apprenticeship programmes at a business school in the UK consistently identified two related concerns: feelings of isolation and uncertainty about academic progress. Such challenges are widely reported in European work-integrated learning contexts, where learners balance professional and academic demands with limited opportunities for peer interaction (Curto-Reverte et al., 2025). In response, structured peer feedback was embedded as a core feature of two apprenticeship programmes to foster more connected, learner-centred learning environments, aligning with European Higher Education Area priorities that emphasise student-centred learning, learner agency, and the development of learning communities (EHEA, 2015).

This pedagogical choice was informed by SoTL and formative assessment literature, which positions peer feedback as a means of building learning communities and supporting learner agency, rather than merely as an assessment technique. Peer feedback was therefore used to promote collaboration, shared responsibility, and mutual support. Formative assessment research highlights its role in helping learners understand standards, reflect on their work, and develop evaluative judgement (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006), while dialogic feedback positions learners as active participants rather than passive recipients (Boud and Molloy, 2013). These principles informed the design of peer review activities in a year-three dissertation module, where apprentices exchanged feedback on draft work at key stages of the process.

Despite these intentions, early implementation revealed challenges. Many learners were initially hesitant to critique each other’s work and tended to offer general affirmation rather than constructive, developmental feedback. Engagement was also lower than anticipated, with only around one third of the cohort participating. This response highlighted the emotional and relational dimensions of peer feedback: learners were concerned about causing offence, lacked confidence in their judgement, and were unfamiliar with feedback as a shared learning practice rather than a tutor-led activity.

In response, I worked collaboratively with colleagues to scaffold peer feedback earlier in the programme through low-stakes, formative activities. These focused on identifying strengths, asking questions, and making suggestions rather than evaluating quality. By gradually increasing complexity and expectations, learners developed confidence and a shared language for feedback. Over time, peer review became normalised as a supportive and integral part of learning rather than an intimidating or optional add-on.

Now in its second year, approximately 80% of learners engage in the peer feedback activity, as evidenced by completion data from peer submission points. In addition, review of peer feedback forms indicates that the quality of feedback has improved, with learners providing more specific and actionable comments and demonstrating greater awareness of assessment criteria. Module feedback further suggests that learners feel reassured by seeing others’ work, more confident in judging their own progress, and less isolated in their learning.

Building on this success, I extended the dialogic approach through the co-creation of short video resources with learners. Apprentices collaborated to produce videos reflecting on their dissertation journeys, sharing practical insights, common challenges, and advice for future cohorts. These resources amplified learner voice and strengthened continuity and belonging across cohorts. For new learners, hearing directly from peers who had navigated similar challenges helped demystify expectations and reinforce the message that progress is often non-linear.

This approach is readily adaptable across European higher education contexts, as it does not rely on specific national apprenticeship structures but on principles of scaffolding, dialogue, and learner participation that can be embedded within a wide range of work-based and part-time programmes. Institutions can tailor the timing, format, and assessment alignment of peer feedback to suit local curricula and learner profiles.

Overall, this case demonstrates that structured, dialogic peer feedback is a transferable and effective pedagogical strategy for European educators seeking to reduce learner isolation, strengthen learner agency, and build inclusive learning communities within work-based and apprenticeship education.

References

Boud, D. and Molloy, E. (2013) Feedback in higher and professional education: Understanding it and doing it well. London: Routledge.

Curto-Reverte, A., Peguera-Carré, M.C., Cobos-Rius, H. and Vidal-Marti, C. (2025) ‘The role of work-integrated learning in the European Higher Education Area: A systematic review’, Review of Education, 13(3), e70114

Nicol, D.J. and Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), pp. 199–218.