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.

The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis of Control Group Studies

“…However, the efficacy of peer assessment, like traditional feedback, is likely to be contingent on a range of factors including characteristics of the learning environment, the student, and the assessment itself (Kluger and DeNisi 1996;Ossenberg et al 2018). Some of the characteristics that have been proposed to moderate the efficacy of feedback include anonymity (e.g., Rotsaert et al 2018;Yu and Liu 2009), scaffolding (e.g., Panadero and Jonsson 2013), quality and timing of the feedback (Diab 2011), and elaboration (e.g., Gielen et al 2010b). Drawing on the previously mentioned narrative reviews and empirical evidence, we now briefly outline the evidence for each of the included theoretical moderators.…”

“…Because peer assessment is fundamentally a collaborative assessment practice, interpersonal variables play a substantial role in determining the type and quality of peer assessment (Strijbos and Wichmann 2018). Some researchers have argued that anonymous peer assessment is advantageous because assessors are more likely to be honest in their feedback, and interpersonal processes cannot influence how assessees receive the assessment feedback (Rotsaert et al 2018). Qualitative evidence suggests that anonymous peer assessment results in improved feedback quality and more positive perceptions towards peer assessment (Rotsaert et al 2018;Vanderhoven et al 2015).…”

Integration of good practices of active methodologies with the reuse of student-generated content

“…In addition, for students of the current generation, giving and receiving peer reviews are common practices, evidenced in the "likes", comments on blog posts or digital content, and the continuous feedback of online chats. Using the presented methodology, we performed PR in an orderly, systematic manner without authorship conflicts as in (Rotsaert et al, 2018), facilitating participants' (self ) critical thinking and the selection of reusable SGC.…”

“…These skills are necessary in Higher Education in the twenty-first century (Wanner & Palmer, 2018. ) To perform such assessments responsibly, the learning environment must enable students to feel comfortable and involved in the learning process (McGarr & Clifford, 2013;Rotsaert, Panadero, & Schellens, 2018). These assessments moreover require that the design and implementation should be performed reflectively to ensure their effectiveness (Wanner & Palmer, 2018).…”

“…It can be established an anonymous phase followed by a non-anonymous phase. When a transition from an anonymous to a non-anonymous peer assessment environment is facilitated, students' peer feedback quality in the anonymous phase increases over time and the peer feedback quality in the non-anonymous sessions eventually becomes comparable (Rotsaert et al, 2018). Furthermore, an anonymous review does not reflect reality, as people give and receive feedback with known identities (Panadero & Brown, 2017).…”