Face-to-Face Peer Assessment in Secondary Education: Does Anonymity Matter?

Pupils involved in peer assessment often state that they do not feel entirely comfortable with publicly evaluating their peers. It is found that peer-pressure might cause stress and a lack of accuracy of the assessment (Falchikov, 2003). Based on social impact theories (e.g. Latane, 1981), anonymity within peer assessment can be considered as a solution. Yet, although the benefits of anonymity are previously investigated in the context of classroom voting and debating in higher education (Ainsworth et al., 2011), no research is found regarding anonymity in the context of peer assessment in a face-to-face secondary education setting. To fill this gap, the present study was set up to investigate whether anonymity of the assessors in peer assessment can counter undesirable social effects. It was hypothesized that anonymous modes of peer assessment will induce a reduced perception of peer pressure, a reduced fear of failure, and more positive attitudes towards peer assessment. Classroom response technology (CRT) was introduced as a tool that enables anonymity within face-to-face settings (Kay & Knaack, 2009). A quasi-experimental study was set up in four secondary classes in Belgium (n=69). In all classes, pupils had to assess each others’ group presentations on different criteria in a face-to-face classroom setting. In the control group (2 classes) a traditional peer assessment approach was used, i.e. raising score cards-, while in the experimental group (2 classes) CRT was used to give scores anonymously. In the latter, score distributions were presented on a screen in front of the class. Feelings of peer-pressure, fear of failure towards the other, and pupils’ general attitudes towards peer assessment were measured using a post-questionnaire. It was found that the pupils who used CRT as a tool to give scores anonymously, felt less peer pressure and fear of failure than those in the classic peer assessment condition. They also reported more positive attitudes towards this kind of evaluation. Implications of these results are discussed.

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

[2]  N. Falchikov.  Involving Students in Assessment , 2004 .

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

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

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

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

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

[8]  W. Cheng,et al.  Having second thoughts: Student perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise , 1997 .

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

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

[11]  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.

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

[13]  Aliisa Mylonas,et al.  Developing Procedures for Implementing Peer Assessment in Large Classes Using an Action Research Process , 2002 .

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

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

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

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

[18]  Robin Kay,et al.  Exploring the Use of Audience Response Systems in Secondary School Science Classrooms , 2009 .

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

[20]  Chin-Chung Tsai,et al.  Conceptions of and approaches to learning through online peer assessment , 2010 .

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

[22]  Janet Hughes,et al.  Formative Automated Computer Testing (FACT) , 2002, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

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

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

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

[26]  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.

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

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

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

[30]  Philip Vickerman,et al.  Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: an attempt to deepen learning? , 2009 .

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

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