Use of PebblePad to Develop Scaffolded Critical Reflection in Scientific Practice

  • Mary Sarah-Jane GregoryEmail author
  • Peter R. Johnston


This chapter will discuss the implementation of a suite of PebblePad activities and assessment tasks across the Bachelor of Science Advanced (Honours) undergraduate degree program. Enrolled in this program are students who scored in the top 11 percentile of all university entrants and are intentionally on a scientific research career trajectory. In preparation for the embedded honour component of the program, students undertake three core research project courses across the second and third academic year levels, each designed to develop an array of different research capabilities within a student’s specific discipline. In these courses, students complete many traditional communication methods practiced by scientists. In the past, there has been limited focus on a key component of scientific process, the contextual reflection on the undertaking of scientific research. The PebblePad platform is a flexible tool that provides an opportunity to augment the existing research experiences through the development of scaffolded critical reflection of scientific practices holistically. This chapter will present the application of best practices associated with both blended design and undergraduate research experiences. It will explore the benefits of this combination and how to successfully enhance a critical component of developing the next generation of scientists using best practice blended learning design strategies.


Undergraduate research Reflective writing PebblePad Critical evaluation 



We would like to acknowledge the significant support in the refinement and implementation of this project provided by the Griffith Sciences Blended Learning team, Christopher Allan and David Green; Curriculum Consultant Julie Crough; and Employability Curriculum Consultant Gayle Brent.


  1. Adekola, J., Dale, V. H., & Gardiner, K. (2017). Development of an institutional framework to guide transitions into enhanced blended learning in higher education. Research in Learning Technology, 25.Google Scholar
  2. Alammary, A., Sheard, J., & Carbone, A. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Three different design approaches. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4).
  3. Arthur, L. C., & Bena, K. E. (Eds.). (2008). Learning and leading with habits of mind: 16 essential characteristics for success: Alexandria. VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  4. Auchincloss, L. C., Laursen, S. L., Branchaw, J. L., Eagan, K., Graham, M., Hanauer, D. I., … Dolan, E. L. (2014). Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: A meeting report. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13.1, 29–40.Google Scholar
  5. Baird, R. J., Fensham, P., Gunstone, R., & White, R. (1991). The importance of reflection in improving science teaching and learning (Vol. 28).Google Scholar
  6. Bath, D., & Bourke, J. (2010). Getting started with blended learning. GIHE.Google Scholar
  7. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boelens, R., De Wever, B., & Voet, M. (2017). Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 1–18. Scholar
  9. Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2012). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  10. Bonwell, C., & Eison, J. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.Google Scholar
  11. Brew, A. (2010). Imperatives and challenges in integrating teaching and research. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(2), 139–150. Scholar
  12. Brew, A. (2013). Understanding the scope of undergraduate research: A framework for curricular and pedagogical decision-making (Vol. 66).Google Scholar
  13. Brownell, S. E., & Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology. Studies in Higher Education, 40(3), 525–544. Scholar
  14. Dawson, P. (2017). Assessment rubrics: Towards clearer and more replicable design, research and practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 347–360. Scholar
  15. Dickfos, J., Cameron, C., & Hodgson, C. (2014). Blended learning: Making an impact on assessment and self-reflection in accounting education. Education+Training, 56(2/3), 190–207.Google Scholar
  16. Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A critical review of research on formative assessment: The limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in education. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(7), 1–11.Google Scholar
  17. Eynon, B., Gambino, L. M., & Torok, J. (2014). What difference does ePortfolio make? A field report from the connect to learning project. The International Journal of ePortfolio, 4(1).Google Scholar
  18. Gregory, M. S.-J., & Lodge, J. M. (2015). Academic workload: The silent barrier to the implementation of technology-enhanced learning strategies in higher education. Distance Education, 197–210.
  19. Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. York, UK: Higher Education Academy. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from
  20. Jones, S., & Yates, B. (2011). Learning and Teaching academic standards project—Science. Strawberry Hills, NSW Retrieved from
  21. Jorre de St Jorre, T., Johnson, L., & O’Dea, G. (2017). Me in a Minute: A simple strategy for developing and showcasing personal employability. In H. Partridge, K. Davis, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Me, Us, IT! Proceedings ASCILITE2017: 34th International Conference on Innovation, Practice and Research in the Use of Educational Technologies in Tertiary Education (pp. 117–120).Google Scholar
  22. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. Scholar
  23. Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2008). Ten steps to complex learning: A new approach to instruction and instructional design. In T. L. Good (Ed.), 21st century education: A reference handbook (pp. 244–253). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of management learning & education, 4(2), 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). FT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.Google Scholar
  27. Laird, T. F. N., Shoup, R., Kuh, G. D., & Schwarz, M. J. (2008). The effects of discipline on deep approaches to student learning and college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 49(6), 469–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Linn, M. C., Palmer, E., Baranger, A., Gerard, E., & Stone, E. (2015). Undergraduate research experiences: Impacts and opportunities. Science, 347(6222), 1261757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mathieson, L. (2016). Synergies in critical reflective practice and science: Science as reflection and reflection as science. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 13(2).Google Scholar
  30. McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7–22.Google Scholar
  31. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47.Google Scholar
  32. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education (74).Google Scholar
  33. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series: ERIC.Google Scholar
  34. National Academies of Sciences, E., & Medicine. (2017). Undergraduate research experiences for STEM students: Successes, challenges, and opportunities (James Gentile, Kerry Brenner, & A. Stephens Eds.). National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  35. Oakley, G. (2016). From diffusion to explosion: Accelerating blended learning at the University of Western Australia (C. P. Lim & L. Wang Eds.). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.Google Scholar
  36. Overton, T., & Johnson, L. (2016). Evidence-based practice in learning and teaching for STEM disciplines. Retrieved from Melbourne.Google Scholar
  37. Russell, S. H., Hancock, M. P., & McCullough, J. (2007). Benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science(Washington), 316(5824), 548–549.Google Scholar
  38. Scott, C. (2015). The Futures of Learning 3: What kind of pedagogies for the 21st century?Google Scholar
  39. Tang, C. M., & Chaw, L. Y. (2013). Readiness for blended learning: Understanding attitude of university students. International Journal of Cyber Society and Education, 6(2), 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Weber, K., & Myrick, K. (2018). Reflecting on reflecting: Summer undergraduate research students’ experiences in developing electronic portfolios, a meta-high impact practice. International Journal of ePortfolio, 8(1).Google Scholar
  42. Willison, J. (2012). When academics integrate research skill development in the curriculum. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(6), 905–919.Google Scholar
  43. Willison, J., & O’Regan, K. (2015). RSD 7 Framework. Adelaide: University of Adelaide.Google Scholar
  44. Willison, J., & O’Regan, K. (2007). Commonly known, commonly not known, totally unknown: A framework for students becoming researchers. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(4), 393–409.Google Scholar
  45. Wisker, G. (2017). Frameworks and Freedoms: Supervising the Undergraduate Dissertation. Paper presented at the International Conference on Models of Engaged Learning and Teaching (I-MELT), Adelaide, South Australia.
  46. Zhang, C., & Swaid, S. (2017). Undergraduate research experience for STEM students: Efforts and outcomes. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (Online), 10(4), 213–218.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Environment and Science, Griffith UniversityNathanAustralia

Personalised recommendations