Anonymity to Promote Peer Feedback: Pre-Service Teachers' Comments in Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication

In this quasi-experimental case study, we compared five sections of a basic undergraduate technology course. Within an asynchronous web forum, pre-service teachers wrote short critiques of websites designed by their classmates. This peer feedback was provided anonymously by students in two classes (n = 35) whereas providers and recipients of peer feedback were identified by their real names in three other classes (n = 37). Computer-Mediated discourse analysis methods (Herring, 2004) were used to code student written comments according to substance and tone of feedback. Next, we estimated likelihoods of specific feedback patterns through Analysis of Patterns in Time (Frick, 1990). Results indicated that students who were anonymous were approximately five times more likely to provide substantively critical feedback than were those whose identities were known to their recipients. When feedback was given anonymously, students were approximately four times more likely to provide reasons for needed improvement to a website, and then to suggest design alternatives. In light of advantages afforded by this form of pseudonymity, we conclude with a discussion of pedagogical prescriptions for supporting learners' production of feedback.

[1]  Andrea Chester,et al.  Online Teaching: Encouraging Collaboration through Anonymity , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[2]  J. Valacich,et al.  Group Size and Anonymity Effects on Computer-Mediated Idea Generation , 1992 .

[3]  Dorothy M. Chun,et al.  Network-based Language Teaching: Networked multimedia environments for second language acquisition , 2000 .

[4]  Joyce Hwee Ling Koh,et al.  The use of scaffolding in introductory technology skills instruction for pre -service teachers , 2008 .

[5]  Mark Warschauer,et al.  NETWORK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING , 2008 .

[6]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Constructivism: Implications for the Design and Delivery of Instruction , 1996 .

[7]  V. Shute.  Focus on Formative Feedback , 2007 .

[8]  Theodore W. Frick,et al.  MAPSAT Your Data to Prevent Aggregation Aggravation , 2010 .

[9]  Barry Wellman,et al.  Network Capital in a Multi-level World: Getting Support in Personal Communities , 2001 .

[10]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[11]  Mark Warschauer,et al.  Network-based Language Teaching: On-line learning in second language classrooms: An ethnographic study , 2000 .

[12]  Peg A Ertmer,et al.  Open Learning Environments, Foundations, Methods, and Models , 2012 .

[13]  Simeon Yates,et al.  Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing : A corpus based study , 1996 .

[14]  Judith L. Green,et al.  Chapter 4: Discourse Analysis, Learning, and Social Practice: A Methodological Study , 1998 .

[15]  Peggy A. Ertmer,et al.  Using Peer Feedback to Enhance the Quality of Student Online Postings: An Exploratory Study , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[16]  Ragnar Andreas Audunson,et al.  Technology and Social Inclusion. Rethinking the Digital Divide , 2006, J. Documentation.

[17]  T. Pica.  Classroom interaction, negotiation, and comprehension: Redefining relationships , 1991 .

[18]  Hermann A. Maurer,et al.  Levels of Anonymity , 1995, J. Univers. Comput. Sci..

[19]  Andreas Pfitzmann,et al.  Anonymity, Unobservability, and Pseudonymity - A Proposal for Terminology , 2000, Workshop on Design Issues in Anonymity and Unobservability.

[20]  Wanlei Zhou,et al.  Employing Wikis for Online Collaboration in the E-Learning Environment: Case Study , 2005, Third International Conference on Information Technology and Applications (ICITA'05).

[21]  S. Herring.  Computer‐Mediated Discourse , 2005 .

[22]  Judith L. Green,et al.  Discourse Analysis, Learning, and Social Practice: A Methodological Study , 1998 .

[23]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Instructional design as design problem solving: An iterative process , 2008 .

[24]  D. Hindman.  The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier , 1996 .

[25]  C. Pollard,et al.  Center for the Study of Language and Information , 2022 .

[26]  Richard A. Schwier,et al.  Instructional designers' observations about identity, communities of practice and change agency , 2004 .

[27]  Patricia Wallace.  The Psychology of the Internet , 1999 .

[28]  S. Herring.  Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis : An Approach to Researching Online Behavior , 2004 .

[29]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Expertise in Design: an overview , 2004 .

[30]  T. Postmes,et al.  Social Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication: The Effects of Anonymity on Group Behavior , 2001 .

[31]  StockwellGlenn.  A review of technology choice for teaching language skills and areas in the CALL literature , 2007 .

[32]  Eric Zhi-Feng Liu,et al.  Web-based peer assessment: feedback for students with various thinking-styles , 2001, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[33]  Susan C. Herring,et al.  A Faceted Classification Scheme for Computer-Mediated Discourse , 2007 .

[34]  Margaret McLaughlin,et al.  Conversation: How Talk Is Organized , 1984 .

[35]  T. Postmes,et al.  Breaching or Building Social Boundaries? Side-Effects of Computer-Mediated Communication. , 2002 .

[36]  Theodore W. Frick,et al.  Observer Agreement and Reliabilities of Classroom Observational Measures , 1978 .

[37]  Theodore W. Frick.  Analysis of Patterns in Time: A Method of Recording and Quantifying Temporal Relations in Education , 1990 .

[38]  Allan Jeong.  The Sequential Analysis of Group Interaction and Critical Thinking in Online , 2003 .

[39]  L. Flower.  The Construction of Negotiated Meaning: A Social Cognitive Theory of Writing , 1994 .

[40]  Thomas A. Dutton,et al.  The Design Studio: An Exploration of its Traditions and Potential , 1989 .

[41]  Kwang-Kyu Ko,et al.  Structural Characteristics of Computer-Mediated Language: A Comparative Analysis of InterChange Discourse. , 1996 .