Anonymity as an instructional scaffold in peer assessment: its effects on peer feedback quality and evolution in students’ perceptions about peer assessment skills
- 129 Downloads
Although previous research has indicated that providing anonymity is an effective way to create a safe peer assessment setting, continuously ensuring anonymity prevents students from experiencing genuine two-way interactive feedback dialogues. The present study investigated how installing a transitional approach from an anonymous to a non-anonymous peer assessment setting can overcome this problem. A total of 46 bachelor’s degree students in Educational Studies participated in multiple peer assessment cycles in which groups of students assessed each other’s work. Both students’ evolution in peer feedback quality as well as their perceptions were measured. The content analysis of the peer feedback messages revealed that the quality of peer feedback increased in the anonymous phase, and that over time, the feedback in the consecutive non-anonymous sessions was of similar quality. The results also indicate that the transitional approach does not hinder the perceived growth in peer feedback skills, nor does it have a negative impact on their general conceptions towards peer assessment. Furthermore, students clearly differentiated between their attributed importance of anonymity and their view on the usefulness of a transitional approach. The findings suggest that anonymity can be a valuable scaffold to ease students’ importance level towards anonymity and their associated need for practice.
KeywordsAnonymity Peer assessment Peer feedback
- Andrade, H. L. (2010). Students as the definitive source of formative assessment: Academic selfassessment and the self-regulation of learning. Handbook of Formative Assessment, 1–18.Google Scholar
- Bolzer, M., Strijbos, J. W., & Fischer, F. (2015). Inferring mindful cognitive-processing of peerfeedback via eye-tracking: role of feedback-characteristics, fixation-durations and transitions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(5), 422–434. doi:10.1111/jcal.12091.Google Scholar
- Boud, D., & Soler, R. (2015). Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–14 doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1018133.
- Boud, D., Lawson, R., & Thompson, D. G. (2013). Assessment & evaluation in higher education does student engagement in self-assessment calibrate their judgement over time? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 37–41. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.769198.
- Brown, S. (2004). Assessment for learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 2004–2005.Google Scholar
- Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/03075071003642449.
- Chester, A., & Gwynne, G. (2006). Online teaching: encouraging collaboration through anonymity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(2), 0–0. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1998.tb00096.x.
- Cheng, K. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2012). Students’ interpersonal perspectives on, conceptions of and approaches to learning in online peer assessment. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28, 599–618.Google Scholar
- De Swert, K. (2012). Calculating inter-coder reliability in media content analysis using Krippendorff's Alpha. Retrieved from http://www.polcomm.org/wpcontent/ uploads/ICR01022012.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: a review. Studies in Higher Education, 24, 331–350. doi: 10.1080/03075079912331379935.Google Scholar
- Freeman, M., & McKenzie, J. (2000). Self and peer assessment of student teamwork: designing, implementing and evaluating SPARK, a confidential, web based system. In Flexible learning for a flexible society. Retrieved from http://ascilite.org.au/aset-archives/confs/aset-herdsa2000/procs/freeman.html
- Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 249–270). New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203839089.ch13.
- Hovardas, T., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2014). Peer versus expert feedback: An investigation of the quality of peer feedback among secondary school students. Computers and Education, 71, 133–152. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.019.Google Scholar
- Hosack, I. (2004). The effects of anonymous feedback on Japanese university students’ attitudes towards peer review. In R. Hogaku (Ed.), Language and its universe (pp. 297–322 3). Kyoto: Ritsumeikan Hogaku.Google Scholar
- Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310.Google Scholar
- Magana, S., & Marzano, R. J. (2014). Using Polling Technologies to Close Feedback Gaps. Educational Leadership, 82–83.Google Scholar
- Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2011). Anonymity in blended learning: who would you like to be? Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 175–187.Google Scholar
- Murdock, T. B., Stephens, J. M., & Grotewiel, M. M. (2016). Students Dishonesty in Face of Assessment: Who, Why and What We Can Do About It. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of Human and Social Conditions in Assessment. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. Van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 125–143). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment: a review and future directions. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Human factors and social conditions of assessment. New York: Routledge (pp. 1–39). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Panadero, E., Romero, M., & Strijbos, J. W. (2013). The impact of a rubric and friendship on peer assessment: effects on construct validity, performance, and perceptions of fairness and comfort. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(4), 195–203. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Reinholz, D. (2015). The assessment cycle: a model for learning through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 1–15. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1008982.
- Roberts, L. D., & Rajah-Kanagasabai, C. J. (2013). “I’d be so much more comfortable posting anonymously”: identified versus anonymous participation in student discussion boards. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(5). doi:10.14742/ajet.452.
- Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E., Schellens, T., & Raes, A. (2017). “Now you know what you’re doing right and wrong!” Peer feedback quality in synchronous peer assessment in secondary education. European Journal of Psychology of Education. doi: 10.1007/s10212-017-0329-x.Google Scholar
- Sluijsmans, D. M. A. (2002). Student involvement in assessment: the training of peer assessment skills. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen.Google Scholar
- van Ginkel, S., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2015). The impact of the feedback source on developing oral presentation competence. Studies in Higher Education, 1-15, doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1117064.
- van Zundert, M. J., Konings, K. D., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2012). Teaching domain-specific skills before peer assessment skills is superior to teaching them simultaneously. Educational Studies, 38(5), 541–557. doi:10.1080/03055698.2012.654920.Google Scholar
- Xu, Y., & Carless, D. (2016). “Only true friends could be cruelly honest”: cognitive scaffolding and social-affective support in teacher feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 1–13. doi:10.1080/02602938.2016.1226759.
- Yu, F.-Y., & Sung, S. (2015). A mixed methods approach to the assessor’s targeting behavior during online peer assessment: effects of anonymity and underlying reasons. Interactive Learning Environments. 1–18. doi:10.1080/10494820.2015.1041405.