What if pupils can assess their peers anonymously? A quasi-experimental study

Peer assessment has proven to be a promising assessment form, but there is only limited research about how to decrease the undesirable social effects that are inherent to the process, such as peer pressure and fear of disapproval. In previous research, anonymity has proven to be an important factor in peer assessment in higher education. In the current research, peer assessment was studied in secondary education and classroom response technology (CRT) was introduced as a tool that enables anonymity within face-to-face settings. A quasi-experimental study was set up in four classes to compare traditional non-anonymous peer assessment (raising score cards) with anonymous peer assessment (giving scores using CRT). It was questioned whether students felt more positive towards anonymous peer assessment, and reported to feel less negative social effects. Subsequently, the hypothesis that anonymous peer assessment would be a more valid methodology is verified. Finally, teachers' experiences with both peer assessment interventions were studied. Although some concerns were raised about the validity of anonymous peer assessment, it has been found that pupils felt more positive towards peer assessment and experienced less peer pressure and fear of disapproval when scores were given anonymously using CRT. Teachers reported that using CRT was an objective way of assessing but raised some concerns with regard to the control of the teacher, and the classroom characteristics. In this regard, implications for future research are discussed. Peer assessment in secondary education is examined in a quasi-experimental study.The impact and validity of providing anonymity in peer assessment are studied.Classroom response technology is a valuable tool for anonymous peer assessment.Anonymous peer assessment leads to more positive and less negative feelings.Teachers agree that the use of CRT is preferable over traditional peer assessment.

[1]  Robin H. Kay,et al.  Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[2]  John Hattie,et al.  Formative and Summative Interpretations of Assessment Information , 2003 .

[3]  Brigid Barron.  When Smart Groups Fail , 2003 .

[4]  Michele H. Jackson,et al.  The learning environment in clicker classrooms: student processes of learning and involvement in large university‐level courses using student response systems , 2007 .

[5]  Annelies Raes,et al.  Increasing anonymity in peer assessment by using classroom response technology within face-to-face higher education , 2015 .

[6]  Gavin T. L. Brown,et al.  Opportunities and obstacles to consider when using peer- and self-assessment to improve student learning: Case studies into teachers' implementation , 2013 .

[7]  David Boud,et al.  Does student engagement in self-assessment calibrate their judgement over time? , 2013 .

[8]  D. Sluijsmans,et al.  The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review , 1999 .

[9]  L. Steinberg,et al.  Age differences in resistance to peer influence. , 2007, Developmental psychology.

[10]  Menucha Birenbaum,et al.  New Insights Into Learning and Teaching and Their Implications for Assessment , 2003 .

[11]  K. Topping.  Peer Assessment Between Students in Colleges and Universities , 1998 .

[12]  D. Sluijsmans,et al.  Towards an integrated model for developing sustainable assessment skills , 2013 .

[13]  C. Reich.  Peer assessment. , 1985, Canadian Medical Association journal.

[14]  Yao-Ting Sung,et al.  How many heads are better than one? The reliability and validity of teenagers' self- and peer assessments. , 2010, Journal of adolescence.

[15]  Adam Finkelstein,et al.  Understanding the effects of professors' pedagogical development with Clicker Assessment and Feedback technologies and the impact on students' engagement and learning in higher education , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[16]  Frank Fischer,et al.  Commentary: Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective , 2010 .

[17]  Martin Valcke,et al.  The impact of an innovative instructional intervention on the acquisition of oral presentation skills in higher education , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[18]  Karen Stepanyan,et al.  Student Engagement with Peer Assessment: A Review of Pedagogical Design and Technologies , 2009, ICWL.

[19]  R. Mayer,et al.  Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction , 2011 .

[20]  Zacharias C. Zacharia,et al.  Investigating Secondary School Students' Unmediated Peer Assessment Skills. , 2011 .

[21]  Jan-Willem Strijbos,et al.  The impact of a rubric and friendship on peer assessment: Effects on construct validity, performance, and perceptions of fairness and comfort , 2013 .

[22]  B. Latané.  The psychology of social impact. , 1981 .

[23]  Richard Badger,et al.  A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class , 2006 .

[24]  Bram De Wever,et al.  Peer assessment in a Wiki: product improvement, students' learning and perception regarding peer feedback , 2012 .

[25]  D. Sluijsmans,et al.  Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions , 2010 .

[26]  J. V. van Merriënboer,et al.  Training teachers in peer-assessment skills: effects on performance and perceptions , 2004 .

[27]  David Istance,et al.  Analysing and designing learning environments for the 21st century , 2010 .

[28]  Zacharias C. Zacharia,et al.  Peer versus expert feedback: An investigation of the quality of peer feedback among secondary school students , 2014, Comput. Educ..

[29]  P. Kirschner,et al.  Social and Cognitive Factors Driving Teamwork in Collaborative Learning Environments , 2006 .

[30]  David E. Conroy.  Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory , 2017 .

[31]  Mien Segers,et al.  Peer assessment for learning from a social perspective: The influence of interpersonal variables and structural features , 2009 .

[32]  James Oigara,et al.  Interdisciplinary Journal of E-learning and Learning Objects Teaching and Learning with Clickers: Are Clickers Good for Students? , 2022 .

[33]  Linda Bol,et al.  A Comparison of Anonymous versus Identifiable e-Peer Review on College Student Writing Performance and the Extent of Critical Feedback. , 2007 .

[34]  Jan-Willem Strijbos,et al.  Peer feedback content and sender's competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? , 2010 .

[35]  Xiongyi Liu,et al.  Assessment training effects on student assessment skills and task performance in a technology-facilitated peer assessment , 2014 .

[36]  Martyn Denscombe,et al.  Communities of Practice , 2008 .

[37]  Laurence Steinberg,et al.  The developmental pattern of resistance to peer influence in adolescence: will the teenager ever be able to resist? , 2009, Journal of adolescence.

[38]  Patricia Cartney,et al.  Exploring the use of peer assessment as a vehicle for closing the gap between feedback given and feedback used , 2010 .

[39]  Theodore W. Frick,et al.  Anonymity to Promote Peer Feedback: Pre-Service Teachers' Comments in Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication , 2010 .

[40]  Dominique Sluijsmans,et al.  Student involvement in assessment. The training of peer assessment skills. , 2002 .

[41]  Nigel K. L. Pope,et al.  The impact of stress in self‐ and peer assessment , 2005 .

[42]  David Boud,et al.  Reframing assessment as if learning were important , 2007 .

[43]  Marlene Scardamalia,et al.  Big Change Questions Will Educational Institutions, within their Present Structures, be Able to Adapt Sufficiently to Meet the Needs of the Information Age? , 2001 .

[44]  A. Cooper,et al.  Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Peer Assessment: A Case for Student and Staff Development , 2002 .

[45]  John Hattie,et al.  INSTRUCTION BASED ON FEEDBACK , 2010 .

[46]  K. Topping.  Self and Peer Assessment in School and University: Reliability, Validity and Utility , 2003 .

[47]  D. Boud,et al.  Peer Learning and Assessment , 1999 .

[48]  M. Deutsch,et al.  A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgement. , 1955, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[49]  Mien Segers,et al.  Peer Assessment as a Collaborative Learning Activity: The Role of Interpersonal Variables and Conceptions. , 2010 .

[50]  J. Biggs.  Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment , 1996 .

[51]  Margaret I. Brown,et al.  Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system , 2004, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[52]  Claire O'Malley,et al.  Anonymity in classroom voting and debating , 2011 .

[53]  Jane E Caldwell,et al.  Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. , 2007, CBE life sciences education.

[54]  Annelies Raes,et al.  Face-to-Face Peer Assessment in Secondary Education: Does Anonymity Matter? , 2012 .

[55]  Lorena Blasco-Arcas,et al.  Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[56]  Helena Seli,et al.  "Clickers" and metacognition: A quasi-experimental comparative study about metacognitive self-regulation and use of electronic feedback devices , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[57]  N. Falchikov,et al.  Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks , 2000 .

[58]  Keith J. Topping,et al.  Methodological quandaries in studying process and outcomes in peer assessment , 2010 .

[59]  Jan-Willem Strijbos,et al.  Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological, functional, and conceptual developments , 2010 .

[60]  Lan Li,et al.  Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback , 2010, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[61]  P. Black,et al.  Assessment and Classroom Learning , 1998 .