Anonymity as an instructional scaffold in peer assessment: its effects on peer feedback quality and evolution in students’ perceptions about peer assessment skills

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Ainsworth, S., Gelmini-Hornsby, G., Threapleton, K., Crook, C., O’Malley, C., & Buda, M. (2011). Anonymity in classroom voting and debating. Learning and Instruction, 21, 365–378. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

  3. Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., & Mylonas, A. (2002). Developing procedures for implementing peer assessment in large classes using an action research process. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 427–441. doi:10.1080/0260293022000009302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

  5. Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167. doi:10.1080/713695728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boud, D., & Soler, R. (2015). Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–14 doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1018133.

  7. 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.

  8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(May 2015), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brown, S. (2004). Assessment for learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 2004–2005.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/03075071003642449.

  11. Cartney, P. (2010). Exploring the use of peer assessment as a vehicle for closing the gap between feedback given and feedback used. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 551–564. doi:10.1080/02602931003632381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2010). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629–643. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9146-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.pdf

  16. 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.

  17. Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83, 70–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: developing peer assessment. Innovations in Education & Training International, 32(2), 175–187. doi:10.1080/1355800950320212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fastré, G. M. J., van der Klink, M. R., Sluijsmans, D., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Towards an integrated model for developing sustainable assessment skills. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(5), 611–630. doi:10.1080/02602938.2012.674484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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

  21. Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Structuring peer assessment: comparing the impact of the degree of structure on peer feedback content. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 315–325. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304–315. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2013). Opportunities and obstacles to consider when using peer- and self-assessment to improve student learning: case studies into teachers’ implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 101–111. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

  25. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Havnes, A., Smith, K., Dysthe, O., & Ludvigsen, K. (2012). Formative assessment and feedback: making learning visible. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38, 21–27. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hogg, M. A., Fielding, K. S., Johnson, D., Masser, B., Russell, E., & Svensson, A. (2006). Demographic category membership and leadership in small groups: a social identity analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 335–350. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hogg, M. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Rast, D. E. (2012). The social identity theory of leadership: theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments. European Review of Social Psychology, 23(1), 258–304. doi:10.1080/10463283.2012.741134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

  30. 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 

  31. Howard, C. D., Barrett, A. F., & Frick, T. W. (2010). Anonymity to promote peer feedback: pre-service teachers’ comments in asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(1), 89–112. doi:10.2190/EC.43.1.f.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. doi:10.2307/256287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing. Theory Into Practice, 41(1), 33–39. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4101_6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310.

  35. Li, L. (2016). The role of anonymity in peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2938(April), 1–12. doi:10.1080/02602938.2016.1174766.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lu, L., & Bol, R. (2007). A comparison of anonymous versus identifiable e-peer review on college student writing performance and the extent of critical feedback. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(2), 100–115. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Magana, S., & Marzano, R. J. (2014). Using Polling Technologies to Close Feedback Gaps. Educational Leadership, 82–83.

  39. Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2011). Anonymity in blended learning: who would you like to be? Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 175–187.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 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.

  41. 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 

  42. Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 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 

  44. Panadero, E., & Brown, G. T. L. (2017). Teachers’ reasons for using peer assessment: positive experience predicts use. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(1), 133–156. doi:10.1007/s10212-015-0282-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pearce, J. A. (2013). Using social identity theory to predict managers’ emphases on ethical and legal values in judging business issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), 497–514. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1274-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Strijbos, J. (2005). Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: a case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 417–444. doi:10.1080/02602930500099219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Raes, A., Vanderhoven, E., & Schellens, T. (2013). Increasing anonymity in peer assessment by using classroom response technology within face-to-face higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 0(0), 1–16. doi:10.1080/03075079.2013.823930.

    Google Scholar 

  49. 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.

  50. 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.

  51. 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.

  52. Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 535–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sluijsmans, D. M. A. (2002). Student involvement in assessment: the training of peer assessment skills. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen.

  54. Strijbos, J.-W., & Sluijsmans, D. (2010). Unravelling peer assessment: methodological, functional, and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction, 20, 265–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Strijbos, J.-W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, 20, 291–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., Chang, T.-H., & Yu, W.-C. (2010). How many heads are better than one? The reliability and validity of teenagers’ self- and peer assessments. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 135–145. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.04.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249. doi:10.2307/1170598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Topping, K. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20–27. doi:10.1080/00405840802577569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Topping, K. J. (2010). Methodological quandaries in studying process and outcomes in peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 339–343. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Tsai, C.-C., Lin, S. S., & Yuan, S.-M. (2002). Developing science activities through a networked peer assessment system. Computers & Education, 38(1–3), 241–252. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00069-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Van der Pol, J., Van den Berg, B. A. M., Admiraal, W. F., & Simons, P. R. J. (2008). The nature, reception, and use of online peer feedback in higher education. Computers & Education, 51, 1804–1817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. van Gennip, N. A. E., Segers, M. S. R., & Tillema, H. H. (2009). Peer assessment for learning from a social perspective: the influence of interpersonal variables and structural features. Educational Research Review, 4, 41–54. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2008.11.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. van Gennip, N. A. E., Segers, M. S. R., & Tillema, H. H. (2010). Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: the role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 20, 280–290. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 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.

  65. Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G., Sercu, L., & Van den Bergh, H. (2010). The effect of instruction type and dyadic or individual emulation on the quality of higher-order peer feedback in EFL. Learning and Instruction, 20, 316–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Vanderhoven, E., Raes, A., Montrieux, H., Rotsaert, T., & Schellens, T. (2015). What if pupils can assess their peers anonymously? A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 81, 123–132. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 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.

  68. Vickerman, P. (2009). Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: an attempt to deepen learning? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34, 221–230. doi:10.1080/02602930801955986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 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.

  70. Yu, F.-Y., & Liu, Y.-H. (2009). Creating a psychologically safe online space for a student-generated questions learning activity via different identity revelation modes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(6), 1109–1123. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00905.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 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.

  72. Zhang, Y., Fang, Y., Wei, K.-K., & Chen, H. (2010). Exploring the role of psychological safety in promoting the intention to continue sharing knowledge in virtual communities. International Journal of Information Management, 30(5), 425–436. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The first author’s research was funded by Ghent University BOF fund number BOF13/24J/115.

The second author’s research was funded by the Spanish Ramón y Cajal program number RYC-2013-13469.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tijs Rotsaert.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6 Rubric criteria
Table 7 Example: principle of gradualism

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E. & Schellens, T. Anonymity as an instructional scaffold in peer assessment: its effects on peer feedback quality and evolution in students’ perceptions about peer assessment skills. Eur J Psychol Educ 33, 75–99 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0339-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Anonymity
  • Peer assessment
  • Peer feedback