A comparison of anonymous versus identifiable e-peer review on college student writing performance and the extent of critical feedback

Journal of Interactive Online Learning

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 100-115

  Lu, Ruiling ^a   Bol, Linda ^a  

^a OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547609637     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15414914     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (59)

1. Asberg, P., & Nulden, U. (n.d.). Making peer review in large undergraduate courses an option. The Viktoria Institute and Department of Informatics, School of Economics and Commercial Laws, Goteborg University, Sweden.
2. Bagley, C., & Hunter, B. (1992, July). Restructuring, constructivism, and technology: Forging a new relationship. Educational Technology, 22-27.
3. Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Graham, S. (2003). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: Research-based applications and examples. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 109-124.
4. Bornstein, R. F. (1993). Costs and benefits of reviewer anonymity: A survey of journal editors and manuscript reviewers. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8(3), 355-370.
5. Bostock, S. (2000). Student peer assessment. Retrieved August 19, 2003, from Keele University, Learning Technology Web site: http://www.keele. ac.uk/depts/cs/Stephe_Bostock/docs/bostock_peer_assessm.
6. Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students' perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 1-19.
7. th Annual TESOL Convention, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
8. Connolly, T., Jessup, L. M., & Valacich, J. S. (1990). Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Management Science, 36(6), 689-703.
9. Dyrud, M. A. (2001). Group projects and peer review. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 106-113.
10. Eisenberg, M. B., & Ely, D. P. (1993). Plugging into the Net. ERIC review, 2(3), 2-10.
11. st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, F3A, 1-5.
12. Falchikov, N. (1996). Improving learning through critical peer feedback and reflection. HERDSA conference. Retrieved September 9, 2003, from http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/falchikov.html
13. Ghorpade, J., & Lackritz, J. R. (2001). Peer evaluation in the classroom: A check for sex and race/ethnicity effects. Journal of Education for Business, 76(5), 274-282.
14. Guilford, W. H. (2001). Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing. Advances in Physiology Education, 25(3), 167-175.
15. Haaga, D. A. (1993). Peer review of term papers in graduate psychology courses. Teaching of Psychology, 20(1), 28-32.
16. Hartman, K., Neuwirth, C. M., Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., Cochran, C., Palmquist, M., & Zubrow, D. (1991). Patterns of social interaction and learning to write: Some effects of network technologies. Written Communication, 8, 79-113.
17. Harvard's Expository Writing Program (2002). Longitudinal Study Highlights Importance of Writing. Retrieved June 20, 2003, from http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~expos/index.cgi?section=archive&version= longitudinal
18. Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation: Human communication via computer. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
19. Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group-decision making. Human Communication Research, 13(2), 225-252.
20. Jessup, L. M., Connolly, T., & Tansik, D. A. (1990). Toward a theory of automated group work: he deindividuating effects of anonymity. Small Group Research, 21(3), 333-347.
21. Kelm, O. (1996). The application of computer networking in foreign language education: Focusing on principles of second language acquisition. In M. Warsehauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in Foreign Language Learning. Hawaii: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, 19-28.
22. Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1981). Ringelmann revisited: Alternative explanations for the social loafing effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7(2), 224-231.
23. Kerr, P. M., Park, K. H., & Domazlicky, B. R. (1995). Peer grading of essays in a principles of microeconomics course. Journal of Education for Business, July/August, 356-361.
24. Leidner, D. E., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1995). The use of information technology to enhance management school education: A theoretical view. MIS Quarterly, 19(3), 265-291.
25. Li, L., & Steckelberg, A. (2004). Using_peer feedback to enhance student meaningful learning. Chicago, IL: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED485111).
26. Lin, S. J., Liu, Z. F., Chiu, C. H., & Yuan, S. M. (1999). Peer review: An effective web-learning strategy with the learner as both adapter and reviewer. IEEE Transactions on Education.
27. Lin, S. J., Liu, Z. F., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web based peer assessment: Attitude and achievement. 2001 IEEE. Retrieve June 28, 2003, from http://www.ece.msstate.edu/~hagler/May2001/05/Begin.htm
28. Liu, E. Z., Lin, S. S., Chiu, C. H., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web-based peer review: The learner as both adapter and reviewer. IEEE Transactions on Education, 44(3), 246-251.
29. Mabrito, M. (1991). Electronic mail as a vehicle for peer response. Written Communication, 8(4), 509-532.
30. MacLeod, L. (1999). Computer-aided peer review of writing. Business Communication Quarterly, 62(3), 87-95.
31. Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46(3), 275-285.
32. National Center For Education Statistics (1998). Writing: State Report for Virginia. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, NCES 1999-463.
33. Nilson, L. B. (2003). Improving student peer feedback. College Teaching, 51(1), 34-39.
34. Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289.
35. Pelaez, N. J. (2002). Problem-based writing with peer review improves academic performance in physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 26(3), 174-184.
36. Plutsky, S., & Wilson, B. A. (Winter 2004). Comparison of the three methods for teaching and evaluating writing: A quasi-experimental study. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 46(1), 50-61.
37. Quible, Z. K. (1997). The efficacy of several writing feedback system. Business Communication Quarterly, 60(2), 109-124.
38. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London, Routledge.
39. Ransdell, S., & Levy, C. M. (1996). Working memory constraints on writing quality and fluency. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications. Mahwah, N. J., Erlbaum.
40. Ransdell, S., Levy, C. M., & Kellog, R. T. (2002). The structure of writing processes as revealed by secondary task demands. Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 2, 141-163.
41. th ed.). American Educational Research Association, Washington, D. C.
42. Richer, D. L. (1992). The effects of two feedback systems on first year college students writing proficiency. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(08A), 2722.
43. Robinson, J. M. (1999). Computer assisted peer review. Computer Assisted Assessment, 95-102.
44. Schaffer, J. (1996). Peer response that works. Journal of Teaching Writing, 15(1), 81-89.
45. Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157-187.
46. Shaw, V. N. (2002). Peer review as a motivating device in the training of writing skills for college students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 33(1), 68-77.
47. Stone, E. F., Spool, M. D., & Rabinowitz, S. (1997). Effects of anonymity and retaliatory potential on student evaluations of faculty performance. Research in Higher Education, 6, 313-325.
48. Strever, J., & Newman, K. (1997). Using electronic peer audience and summary writing with ESL students. (English as a second language). Journal of College Reading and Learning, 28(1), 24-34.
49. Tannacito, T. (2001). Teaching professional writing online with electronic peer response. Kairos, 6(2), 1-7.
50. Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 294-297.
51. Tuautmann, N., Carlsen, W., Yalvac, B., Cakir, M., & Kohl, C. (2003, March). Learning nature of science concepts through online peer review of student research reports. Presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
52. Valacich, J., Dennis, A. R., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). Group size and anonymity effects on computer-mediated idea generation. Small Group Research, 23(1), 49-73.
53. Vinson, M. N. (1996). The pros and cons of 360-degree feedback: Making it work. Training & Development, 50(4), 11-14.
54. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, M.I.T. Press.
55. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
56. Williams, K., Harkins, S., & Latare, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 303-311.
57. Zhao, Y. (1998). The effects of anonymity on computer-mediated peer review. International Journal of Educational Telecommunication, 4(4), 311-345.
58. Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students' comments and interaction. Written Communication, 12(4), 492-528.
59. Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. LeVine (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 237-307). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.