An empirical review of anonymity effects in peer assessment,peer feedback,peer review,peer evaluation and peer grading

Abstract

Peer assessment has proven to have positive learning outcomes. Importantly, peer assessment is a social process and some claim that the use of anonymity might have advantages. However, the findings have not always been in the same direction. Our aims were: (a) to review the effects of using anonymity in peer assessment on performance, peer feedback content, peer grading accuracy, social effects and students’ perspective on peer assessment; and (b) to investigate the effects of four moderating variables (educational level, peer grading, assessment aids, direction of anonymity) in relation to anonymity. A literature search was conducted including five different terms related to peer assessment (e.g., peer feedback) and anonymity. Fourteen studies that used a control group or a within group design were found. The narrative review revealed that anonymous peer assessment seems to provide advantages for students’ perceptions about the learning value of peer assessment, delivering more critical peer feedback, increased self-perceived social effects, a slight tendency for more performance, especially in higher education and with less peer assessment aids. Some conclusions are that: (a) when implementing anonymity in peer assessment the instructional context and goals need to be considered, (b) existent empirical research is still limited, and (c) future research should employ stronger and more complex research designs.     

The anonymous reviewer: the relationship between perceived expertise and the perceptions of peer feedback in higher education

Peer feedback often has positive effects on student learning processes and outcomes. However, students may not always be honest when giving and receiving peer feedback as they are likely to be biased due to peer relations, peer characteristics and personal preferences. To alleviate these biases, anonymous peer feedback was investigated in the current research. Research suggests that the expertise of the reviewer influences the perceived usefulness of the feedback. Therefore, this research investigated the relationship between expertise and the perceptions of peer feedback in a writing assignment of 41 students in higher education with a multilevel analysis. The results show that students perceive peer feedback as more adequate when knowing the reviewer perceives him/herself to have a high level of expertise. Furthermore, the results suggest that students who received feedback from a peer who perceives their expertise as closer to the reviewee’s own perceived expertise was more willing to improve his or her own assignment.     

From plans to actions: A process model for why feedback features influence feedback implementation

Implementing peer feedback in revisions is a complex process involving first planning to fix problems and then actual implementing feedback through revisions. Both phases are influenced by features of the peer feedback itself, but potentially in different ways, and yet prior research has not examined their separate role in planning or the mediating role of planning in the relationship of feedback features and implementation. We build on a process model to investigate whether feedback features had differing relationships to plans to ignore or act on feedback versus actual implementation of feedback in the revision, and whether planning mediated the relationship of feedback features and actual implementation. Source data consisted of peer feedback comments received, revision plans made, and revisions implemented by 125 US high school students given a shared writing assignment. Comments were coded for feedback features and implementation in the revision. Multiple regression analyses revealed that having a comment containing a specific solution or a general suggestion predicted revision plans whereas having a comment containing an explanation predicted actual implementation. Planning mediated the relationship to actual implementation for the two feedback features predicting plans, suggestion and solution. Implications for practice are discussed.

     

Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider

This paper reviews studies of peer feedback from the novel perspective of the providers of that feedback. The possible learning benefits of providing peer feedback in online learning have not been extensively studied. The goal of this study was therefore to explore the process of providing online peer feedback as a learning activity for the provider. We concluded that (1) providing online peer feedback has several potential learning benefits for the provider; (2) when providing online peer feedback, students use different cognitive processes; (3) the cognitive processes and the potential learning benefits can be realised when students use specific elements in the feedback they provide.     

The bilateral benefits of providing and receiving peer feedback in academic writing across varying L2 proficiency

Although the effectiveness of peer review has been examined, few have tested the joint benefits of providing and receiving feedback features and quality in L2 contexts. The present study investigated variation in key features and quality of feedback provided and received by high and low L2 proficiency students and its benefits on revision in the authentic setting of students experiencing both roles of providing and receiving peer feedback in English academic writing. Analyses on two drafts from 50 students, 1356 idea units of anonymous implementable peer feedback and back-evaluation ratings revealed that the combined effect of providing and receiving feedback on revision was prominent for all students. But the bilateral benefits of providing and receiving feedback features were more significant for high proficiency students, while providing feedback features and quality benefited low proficiency students more. The study implies that students need more bilateral training with both providing and receiving feedback.     

Student revision with peer and expert reviewing

In a previous study we found that students receiving feedback from multiple peers improve their writing quality more than students receiving feedback from a single expert. The present study attempted to explain that finding by analyzing the feedback types provided by experts and peers, how that feedback was related to revisions, and how revisions affected quality. Participants were 28 undergraduates who received feedback from a single expert (SE), a single peer (SP), or multiple peers (MP), thus forming three groups, respectively. The MP group received more feedback of all types. Non-directive feedback predicted complex repairs that the MP group made more than both other groups. Complex repairs were associated with improved quality.     

Self-regulation of peer feedback quality aspects through different dimensions of experience within prior peer feedback assignments

Although peer review is a widely-used pedagogical technique, its value depends upon the quality of the reviews that students produce, and much research remains to be done to systematically study the nature, causes, and consequences of variation in peer review quality. We propose a new framework that conceptualizes five larger dimensions of peer review quality and then present a study that investigated three specific peer review quality constructs in a large dataset and further explored how these constructs change through different types of self-regulation peer reviewing experiences. Peer review data across multiple assignments were analyzed from 2,092 undergraduate students enrolled in one of three offerings of a biology course at a large public research university in the United States. Peer review quality was measured in terms of comment amount, comment accuracy, and rating accuracy; the measures of reviewing experience focused upon self-regulated learning factors such as practice, feedback, others’ modeling, and relative performance. Meta-correlation (for testing reliability, separability, and stability) and meta-regression (as a time-series analysis for testing the relationship of changes across assignments in reviewing quality with experiences as reviewer and reviewee) are used to establish the robustness of effects and meaningful variation of effects across course offerings and assignments. Results showed that there were three meaningful review quality constructs (i.e., were measured reliably, separable, and semi-stable over time). Further, all three showed changes in response to previous reviewer and reviewee experiences, but only feedback helpfulness, in particular, showed effects of all four examined types of self-regluation experiences (practice, feedback, others’ modeling, and relative performance). The findings suggest that instructors can improve review quality by providing comment prompt scaffolds that lead to longer comments as well as by matching authors with similarly performing reviewers.     

The alignment of written peer feedback with draft problems and its impact on revision in peer assessment

Despite the wide use of peer assessment, questions about the helpfulness of peer feedback are frequently raised. In particular, it is unknown whether, how and to what extent peer feedback can help solve problems in initial texts in complex writing tasks. We investigated this research gap by focusing on the case of writing literature reviews in an academic writing course. The dataset includes two drafts from 21 students, sampled to represent a wide range of document qualities, and 84 anonymous peer reviews, involving 1,289 idea units. Our study revealed that: (1) at both substance and high prose levels, drafts of all quality levels demonstrated more common problems on advanced writing issues (e.g. counter-argument); (2) peer feedback was driven by difficulty of the problem rather than overall draft quality, peer comments were not well aligned with the relative frequency of problems, more comments were given to less difficult problems; (3) peer feedback had a moderate impact on revision, and importantly, receiving multiple comments on the same issue led to more repairs and improvement of draft quality, but consistent with the comments received, authors tended to fix basic problems more often. Implications for practice and research are drawn from these findings.     

Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning

The present study examined the effectiveness of (a) peer feedback for learning, more specifically of certain characteristics of the content and style of the provided feedback, and (b) a particular instructional intervention to support the use of the feedback. A quasi-experimental repeated measures design was adopted. Writing assignments of 43 students of Grade 7 in secondary education showed that receiving ‘justified’ comments in feedback improves performance, but this effect diminishes for students with better pretest performance. Justification was superior to the accuracy of comments. The instructional intervention of asking assessees to reflect upon feedback after peer assessment did not increase learning gains significantly.     

A GEARed peer feedback model and implications for learning facilitation

This study proposes a model to view and analyse college students’ written peer feedback after they assess each other’s formative task assignment and provide comments. The model was developed by: (a) revisiting learning-oriented assessment and feedback theories, (b) reviewing and summarising existing peer feedback analysis approaches as detailed in published empirical studies, and (c) analysing a small set of primary learner peer feedback data. In the proposed GEARed model of peer feedback, each complete piece of comment on one improvable unit may have four cognitive elements, i.e. identification of the Gap between performance and goal, Explanation of the gap, gap-bridging Aspirations, and being Resourceful to reach beyond the current knowledge/skill level. Two social-affective-interactive elements also play a part, i.e. being encouraging to the peer feedback receiver and doubtful toward the provider self. Each feedback comment may contain any or all of these incremental elements rather than being assigned only to one category. It is argued that the absent or unresolved aspects in feedback leave room for the receiver to reflect and may suggest instructional actions for teachers. Finally, different patterns of GEARed component combinations are hypothesised and their implications for learning and teaching are discussed.     

The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance

Although providing feedback is commonly practiced in education, there is no general agreement regarding what type of feedback is most helpful and why it is helpful. This study examined the relationship between various types of feedback, potential internal mediators, and the likelihood of implementing feedback. Five main predictions were developed from the feedback literature in writing, specifically regarding feedback features (summarization, identifying problems, providing solutions, localization, explanations, scope, praise, and mitigating language) as they relate to potential causal mediators of problem or solution understanding and problem or solution agreement, leading to the final outcome of feedback implementation. To empirically test the proposed feedback model, 1,073 feedback segments from writing assessed by peers was analyzed. Feedback was collected using SWoRD, an online peer review system. Each segment was coded for each of the feedback features, implementation, agreement, and understanding. The correlations between the feedback features, levels of mediating variables, and implementation rates revealed several significant relationships. Understanding was the only significant mediator of implementation. Several feedback features were associated with understanding: including solutions, a summary of the performance, and the location of the problem were associated with increased understanding; and explanations of problems were associated with decreased understanding. Implications of these results are discussed.

Using peer feedback in a Master's programme: a multiple case study

This article draws on the findings of a longitudinal case study, which investigated the writing experiences of five students who spoke English as an additional language (EAL). The major interest was in examining what it was like to be an EAL writer and what changes occurred in EAL students' perceptions of academic writing and of themselves as academic writers during their one-year Taught Masters course at a major UK University. This article reflects on the perceptions of peer feedback held by research participants and their engagement with providing and receiving peer comments. Although peer feedback is often viewed as an attractive tool for supporting student writing, most participants did not fully capitalise on the benefits of these practices. Such factors as students' lack of prior peer feedback and their perceptions of peers' ability to provide valid feedback constituted potential barriers to the success of peer feedback. The article suggests that the use of well-structured collaborative activities and tutors' intervention are required for peer feedback to be effective.     

Student perspectives on formative feedback as part of writing portfolios

Despite the crucial role that students play in formative assessment practices, student perspectives on such practices are relatively under-researched. Through a qualitative analysis of 128 reflection notes written by student teachers of English, this article investigates the students’ perceptions of formative feedback as part of portfolio assessment at two teacher education institutions in Norway. As such, it contributes to bridging the gap between research and practice. Students received peer and teacher feedback on assignments and wrote reflection notes during the semester. Findings show that students are positive towards teacher feedback and highlight the significance of teacher praise. Main objections raised against peer feedback concern the lack of constructive criticism. However, positive attitudes towards peer discussion groups suggest that they may be a more effective way of implementing peer assessment than formalised written peer commentary. Student reflections suggest that a failure to understand the task and the feedback is a possible hindrance to successfully revising assignments. Overall, students’ positive attitudes towards the portfolio process, which includes multiple drafting, suggest that students in higher education would benefit from more opportunities to revise and resubmit their work, yet they need adequate practice in providing peer feedback, and interpreting and implementing feedback in general.     

Designing and implementing peer formative feedback within online learning environments

With increasing need to achieve appropriate balance between learning support and self-regulation within the context of online learning, formative feedback has been identified as a viable means to achieve meaningful engagement. Specifically, this study sought to establish how peer–peer formative feedback was facilitated in an online course and to what extent this engaged students in meaningful learning experiences. This case study entailed an in-depth investigation into the design and implementation of an online course in a New Zealand university. The studied course was part of a postgraduate programme in continuing (in-service) teacher education. The study adopted a case study methodology with a bias on qualitative techniques. Online observations, analysis of the archived course discourse and interviews were utilised as sources of data. The data from multiple sources were subsequently triangulated to corroborate the evidence. The findings indicate that peer formative feedback promoted active learners’ participation and meaningful engagement. The findings further showed that opportunities for dialogic peer formative feedback promoted learning support and self-regulation.     

A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum

This study examines whether peer feedback can be a substitute for teacher feedback and which measures can be taken to improve its effectiveness. A pre‐test post‐test control group design examined the long‐term learning effects of individual peer feedback and of collective teacher feedback on writing assignments in secondary education. Moreover, it examined the added value of a priori question forms and a posteriori reply forms aimed at supporting the assessee's response to peer feedback. The study supports the ‘non‐inferiority’ hypothesis of there being no significant difference in students’ progress after plain substitutional peer feedback or teacher feedback. Both groups (plain peer feedback and teacher feedback), however, improved significantly less than the groups that worked with question or reply forms, confirming the added‐value of these forms. Almost half of the students found the received peer feedback helpful, but less than a quarter considered giving feedback an aid in their own learning process.     

Assessment training effects on student assessment skills and task performance in a technology-facilitated peer assessment

This study examines the impact of an assessment training module on student assessment skills and task performance in a technology-facilitated peer assessment. Seventy-eight undergraduate students participated in the study. The participants completed an assessment training exercise, prior to engaging in peer-assessment activities. During the training, students reviewed learning concepts, discussed marking criteria, graded example projects and compared their evaluations with the instructor’s evaluation. Data were collected in the form of initial and final versions of students’ projects, students’ scoring of example projects before and after the assessment training, and written feedback that students provided on peer projects. Results of data analysis indicate that the assessment training led to a significant decrease in the discrepancy between student ratings and instructor rating of example projects. In addition, the degree of student vs. instructor discrepancy was highly predictive of the quality of feedback that students provided to their peers and the effectiveness of revisions that they made to their own projects upon receiving peer feedback. Smaller discrepancies in ratings were associated with provision of higher quality peer feedback during peer assessment, as well as better revision of initial projects after peer assessment.     

Grudges and gratitude: the social-affective impacts of peer assessment

Abstract

Students’ dissatisfaction with peer assessment has been widely documented. While most relevant literature places focus on the cognitive (content and uptake of feedback) or structural (feedback design) dimensions, students’ emotions in peer assessment have received scant attention. This study investigates the social-affective impacts of peer assessment by analysing students’ appeal letters addressed to their tutors, reflective posts in the online discussion forum and responses to a survey. A thematic analysis of data indicated three main aspects of students’ (dis)satisfaction: content, scores and process of peer assessment. The most negative emotion that students expressed was related to ‘disrespectful’ behaviour and attitudes of peer reviewers, whereas the feeling of appreciation was triggered by the helpful feedback attributes which were perceived as reflecting reviewers’ respect to others’ works. Students generally held mixed feelings toward peer assessment, valuing learning in the process of providing and receiving feedback but showing resistance to using peer assessment for summative purposes. The findings highlight the significance of respect in peer assessment and argue that the perceived lack of mutual respect seems to underpin the nature of students’ dissatisfaction. This study carries implications for nurturing students’ respectful attitudes and behaviour in and through peer assessment.     

Leveraging new media skills in a peer feedback tool

Today's youth thrive in informal participatory communities where they not only consume but also act as contributors or producers. Through active participation they develop new media skills encompassing cultural competencies and social skills. In a participatory culture of learning, students' active contributions to their learning are stressed and peer feedback is considered an important component. In this paper we consider how to leverage aspects of these skills and the environments in which they are developed in the design of a peer feedback tool for students engaged in collaborative inquiry learning. The tool needs to be lightweight, and “playful” and draw on these participatory skills in order to entice and motivate students to give and receive feedback.     

Peer feedback on academic writing: undergraduate students’ peer feedback role,peer feedback perceptions and essay performance

Within the higher education context, peer feedback is frequently applied as an instructional method. Research on the learning mechanisms involved in the peer feedback process has covered aspects of both providing and receiving feedback. However, a direct comparison of the impact that providing and receiving peer feedback has on students’ writing performance is still lacking. The current study compared the writing performance of undergraduate students (N = 83) who either provided or received anonymous written peer feedback in the context of an authentic academic writing task. In addition, we investigated whether students’ peer feedback perceptions were related to the nature of the peer feedback they received and to writing performance. Results showed that both providing and receiving feedback led to similar improvements of writing performance. The presence of explanatory comments positively related both to how adequate students perceived the peer feedback to be, as well as to students’ willingness to improve based upon it. However, no direct relation was found between these peer feedback perceptions and students’ writing performance increase.     

Assessing postgraduate student perceptions and measures of learning in a peer review feedback process

Peer review feedback, developed to assist students with increasing the quality of group reports and developing peer review skills, was added to a master’s level Climate Change Policy and Planning unit. A pre- and post-survey was conducted to determine whether students found the process a valuable learning opportunity: 87% of students responding to the post-review survey indicated they saw benefit in both developing and receiving peer review feedback. Peer review design minimising the potential for plagiarism resulted in low levels of student concern surrounding plagiarism. Marks allocated by students were valid (consistent with the lecturer) and were generally reliable; however, distribution of marks had a higher variance where group report quality was low. Training on completing the peer review template could result in more reliable feedback. Consistent with the literature, the feedback developed during the peer review process focused on style and presentation preferentially to content. Seven out of eight group reports improved between report submissions, with all groups responding to peer review feedback. Peer review feedback and changes made to group reports indicated students had limited capacity to judge the quality of referencing and critical analysis.