A Comparison of Anonymous versus Identifiable e-Peer Review on College Student Writing Performance and the Extent of Critical Feedback.

Peer review has become commonplace in composition courses and is increasingly employed in the context of telecommunication technology. The purpose of this experiment was to compare the effects of anonymous and identifiable electronic peer (e-peer) review on college student writing performance and the extent of critical peer feedback. Participants were 92 undergraduate freshmen in four English composition classes enrolled in the fall semesters of 2003 and 2004. The same instructor taught all four classes, and in each semester, one class was assigned to the anonymous e-peer review group and the other to the identifiable e-peer review group. All other elements—course content, assignments, demands, and classroom instruction— were held constant. The results from both semesters showed that students participating in anonymous e-peer review performed better on the writing performance task and provided more critical feedback to their peers than did students participating in the identifiable e-peer review.

[1]  Susan Plutsky,et al.  Comparison of Three Methods for Teaching and Evaluating Writing: A Quasi-Experimental Study. , 2004 .

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

[3]  Peter M. Kerr,et al.  Peer Grading of Essays in a Principles of Microeconomics Course , 1995 .

[4]  R. T. Kellogg,et al.  The structure of writing processes as revealed by secondary task demands , 2002 .

[5]  L. Vygotsky,et al.  Thought and Language , 1963 .

[6]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Patterns of Social Interaction and Learning to Write , 1991 .

[7]  Eric Zhi-Feng Liu,et al.  Web based peer assessment: attitude and achievement , 2001, IEEE Trans. Educ..

[8]  K. Williams,et al.  Identifiability as a deterrant to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. , 1981 .

[9]  David A. F. Haaga,et al.  Peer Review of Term Papers in Graduate Psychology Courses , 1993 .

[10]  K. Mangelsdorf,et al.  Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? , 1992 .

[11]  D. Laplane.  Thought and language. , 1992, Behavioural neurology.

[12]  Eugene F. Stone,et al.  Effects of anonymity and retaliatory potential on student evaluations of faculty performance , 1977 .

[13]  L. S. Vygotskiĭ,et al.  Mind in society : the development of higher psychological processes , 1978 .

[14]  J. Lackritz,et al.  Peer Evaluation in the Classroom: A Check for Sex and Race/Ethnicity Effects , 2001 .

[15]  Sarah Ellen Ransdell,et al.  Working memory constraints on writing quality and fluency. , 2013 .

[16]  Zane K. Quible,et al.  The Efficacy of Several Writing Feedback Systems , 1997 .

[17]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  The Use of Information Technology to Enhance Management School Education: A Theoretical View , 1995, MIS Q..

[18]  Lan Li,et al.  Using Peer Feedback to Enhance Student Meaningful Learning. , 2004 .

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

[20]  T. Connolly,et al.  Toward Atheory of Automated Group Work , 1990 .

[21]  Elizabeth A. Eschenbach.  Improving technical writing via web-based peer review of final reports , 2001, 31st Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Impact on Engineering and Science Education. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.01CH37193).

[22]  S. R. Hiltz,et al.  Experiments in group decision making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. , 1986 .

[23]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group processes in computer-mediated communication☆ , 1986 .

[24]  Jane Schaffer.  Peer Response That Works , 1996 .

[25]  Donald P. Ely,et al.  Plugging into the "Net.". , 1993 .

[26]  Victor N. Shaw,et al.  Peer Review as a Motivating Device in the Training of Writing Skills for College Students , 2002 .

[27]  Virginia Richardson,et al.  Handbook of Research on Teaching , 2001 .

[28]  Mark Mabrito.  Electronic Mail as a Vehicle for Peer Response , 1991 .

[29]  Gayle L. Nelson,et al.  Chinese students' perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction , 1996 .

[30]  Linda B. Nilson,et al.  Improving Student Peer Feedback , 2003 .

[31]  P. Zimbardo.  The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. , 1969 .

[32]  W H Guilford,et al.  Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing. , 2001, Advances in physiology education.

[33]  Mustafa Cakir,et al.  Learning Nature of Science Concepts through Online Peer Review of Student Research Reports 1 , 2003 .

[34]  Marilyn A. Dyrud.  Group Projects and Peer Review , 2001 .

[35]  R. Gersten,et al.  Teaching Expressive Writing to Students with Learning Disabilities , 1999, Journal of learning disabilities.

[36]  Carole A. Bagley,et al.  Restructuring, constructivism, and technology: forging a new relationship , 1992 .

[37]  Eric Zhi-Feng Liu,et al.  Web-based peer review: the learner as both adapter and reviewer , 2001, IEEE Trans. Educ..

[38]  Mary N. Vinson,et al.  The pros and cons of 360-degree feedback: making it work , 1996 .

[39]  Laura MacLeod,et al.  Computer-Aided Peer Review of Writing , 1999 .

[40]  C. Michael Levy,et al.  The Science of Writing : Theories, Methods, Individual Differences and Applications , 1996 .

[41]  P. Ramsden.  Learning to Teach in Higher Education , 1991 .

[42]  N. Pelaez,et al.  Problem-based writing with peer review improves academic performance in physiology. , 2002, Advances in physiology education.

[43]  J. Valacich,et al.  Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups , 1990 .

[44]  Urban Nuldén,et al.  Making Peer Review in Large Undergraduate Courses an Option , 1999, WebNet.

[45]  Wei Zhu,et al.  Effects of Training for Peer Response on Students' Comments and Interaction , 1995 .

[46]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Network Nation: Human Communication Via Computer , 1979 .

[47]  Trena M. Paulus,et al.  The Effect of Peer and Teacher Feedback on Student Writing , 1999 .