Increasing anonymity in peer assessment by using classroom response technology within face-to-face higher education

Studies in Higher Education

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 178-193

  Raes, Annelies ^a   Vanderhoven, Ellen ^a   Schellens, Tammy ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

anonymity; classroom response technology; face to face setting; higher education; peer assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84918558230     PISSN: 03075079     EISSN: 1470174X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2013.823930     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Ainsworth, Shaaron, Giulia Gelmini-Hornsby, Kate Threapleton, Charles Crook, Claire O'Malley, and Marie Buda. 2011. Anonymity in classroom voting and debating. Learning and Instruction 21, no. 3 (June): 365–78. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.05.001
2. Ballantyne, Roy, Karen Hughes, and Aliisa Mylonas. 2002. Developing procedures for implementing peer assessment in large classes using an action research process. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 27, no. 5: 427–41. doi: 10.1080/0260293022000009302
3. Birenbaum, Menucha. 2003. New insights into learning and teaching and their implications for assessment. In Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards, ed. Mien Segers, Filip Dochy, and Eduardo Cascallar, 13–37. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
4. Boud, David. 1995. Assessment and learning: Contradictory or complementary? In Assessment for Learning in Higher Education, ed. Knight Peter, 35–48. London: Kogan Page.
5. Boud, David, Ruth Cohen, and Jane Sampson. 1999. Peer learning and assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 24, no. 4 (December): 413–26. doi: 10.1080/0260293990240405
6. Cartney, Patricia. 2010. Exploring the use of peer assessment as a vehicle for closing the gap between feedback given and feedback used. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35, no. 5 (August): 551–64. doi: 10.1080/02602931003632381
7. Cheng, Winnie, and Martin Warren. 1997. Having second thoughts: Student perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education 22, no. 2 (January): 233–39. doi: 10.1080/03075079712331381064
8. Cohen, Louis, Lawrence Manion, and Keith Morrison. 2011. Research Methods in Education. London, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
9. Denscombe, Martyn. 2008. Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research (April 8). doi:10.1177/1558689808316807
10. Deutsch, Morton, and Harold B. Gerard. 1955. A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51, no. 3: 629–36. doi: 10.1037/h0046408
11. De Wever, Bram, Hilde Van Keer, Tammy Schellens, and Martin Valcke. 2011. Assessing collaboration in a wiki: The reliability of university students' peer assessment. The Internet and Higher Education 14, no. 4 (September): 201–6. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.07.003
12. Dochy, Filip, Mien Segers, and Dominique Sluijsmans. 1999. The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education 24, no. 3: 331–50. doi: 10.1080/03075079912331379935
13. Draper, Stephen W., and M.I. Brown. 2004. Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20, no. 2: 81–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00074.x
14. Dumont, Hanna, and David Istance. 2010. Analysing and designing learning environments for the 21st century. In The Nature of Learning: Using Research to Inspire Practice, ed. Hanna Dumont, David Instance, and Francisco Benavides, 19–34. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/chapter/9789264086487-3-en.
15. Falchikov, Nancy. 2003. Involving students in assessment. Psychology Learning & Teaching 3, no. 2: 102. doi: 10.2304/plat.2003.3.2.102
16. Falchikov, Nancy, and Judy Goldfinch. 2000. Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research 70, no. 3 (January 9): 287–322. doi: 10.3102/00346543070003287
17. Gardner, John. 2006. Assessment and Learning. London: SAGE.
18. Hattie, John. 2003. Formative and summative interpretations of assessment information. http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/webdav/site/education/shared/hattie/docs/formative -and-summative-assessment-%282003%29.pdf.
19. Kay, Robin H., and Ann LeSage. 2009. Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education 53, no. 3 (November): 819–27. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001
20. Kollar, Ingo, and Frank Fischer. 2010. Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction 20, no. 4 (August): 344–48. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.005
21. Latané, Bibb. 1981. The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist 36, no. 4: 343–56. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.36.4.343
22. Li, Lan, Xiongyi Liu, and Allen L. Steckelberg. 2010. Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology 41, no. 3: 525–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00968.x
23. Nelson, Melissa M., and Christian D. Schunn. 2008. The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science 37, no. 4 (April 4): 375–401. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x.
24. Pope, Nigel K. Ll. 2005. The impact of stress in self- and peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 30, no. 1: 51–63. doi: 10.1080/0260293042003243896
25. Robson, Colin. 2002. Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Oxford: Wiley.
26. Sluijsmans, Dominique M.A. 2002. Student involvement in assessment: The training of peer assessment skills. Unpublished Doctoral Diss. Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen.
27. Sluijsmans, Dominique M.A., Saskia Brand-Gruwel, Jeroen J.G. van Merriënboer, and Rob L. Martens. 2004. Training teachers in peer-assessment skills: Effects on performance and perceptions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 41, no. 1: 59–78. doi: 10.1080/1470329032000172720
28. Smith, Holly, Ali Cooper, and Les Lancaster. 2002. Improving the quality of undergraduate peer assessment: A case for student and staff development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 39, no. 1: 71–81. doi: 10.1080/13558000110102904
29. Steinberg, Laurence, and Kathryn C. Monahan. 2007. Age differences in resistance to peer influence. Developmental Psychology 43, no. 6 (November): 1531–43. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1531
30. Stepanyan, Karen, Richard Mather, Hamilton Jones, and Carlo Lusuardi. 2009. Student engagement with peer assessment: A review of pedagogical design and technologies. In Advances in Web Based Learning – ICWL 2009, ed. Marc Spaniol, Qing Li, Ralf Klamma, and Rynson W.H. Lau, 367–75. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5686. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-03426-8_44.
31. Strijbos, Jan-Willem, and Dominique Sluijsmans. 2010. Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological, functional, and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction 20, no. 4 (August): 265–69. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.002.
32. Sumter, Sindy R, Caroline L. Bokhorst, Laurence Steinberg, and P. Michiel Westenberg. 2009. The developmental pattern of resistance to peer influence in adolescence: Will the teenager ever be able to resist? Journal of Adolescence 32, no. 4 (August): 1009–21. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.08.010
33. Sung, Yao-Ting, Kuo-En Chang, Tzyy-Hua Chang, and Wen-Cheng Yu. 2010. How many heads are better than one? The reliability and validity of teenagers' self- and peer assessments. Journal of Adolescence 33, no. 1 (February): 135–45. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.04.004
34. Topping, Keith J. 1998. Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research 68, no. 3: 249. doi: 10.3102/00346543068003249
35. Topping, Keith J. 2003. Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards, ed. Mien Segers, Filip Dochy, and Eduardo Cascallar, 55–87. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
36. Van den Bossche, Piet, Wim H. Gijselaers, Mien Segers, and Paul A. Kirschner. 2006. Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: Team learning beliefs and behaviors. Small Group Research 37, no. 5 (January 10): 490–521. doi: 10.1177/1046496406292938
37. van Gennip, Nanine A.E., Mien S.R. Segers, and Harm H. Tillema. 2010. Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction 20, no. 4 (August): 280–90. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.010
38. van Zundert, Marjo, Dominique Sluijsmans, and Jeroen van Merriënboer. 2010. Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction 20, no. 4 (August): 270–79. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004
39. Vickerman, Philip. 2009. Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: An attempt to deepen learning? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34, no. 2: 221–30. doi: 10.1080/02602930801955986
40. Yang, Yu-Fang, and Chin-Chung Tsai. 2010. Conceptions of and approaches to learning through online peer assessment. Learning and Instruction 20, no. 1 (February): 72–83. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.01.003