A mixed methods approach to the assessor's targeting behavior during online peer assessment: effects of anonymity and underlying reasons

Interactive Learning Environments

Volumn 24, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 1674-1691

  Yu, Fu Yun ^a   Sung, Shannon ^b  

^a NATIONAL CHENG KUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b SPELMAN COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

anonymity; mixed methods; online learning environment; peer assessment; social network analysis; targeting behavior

Indexed keywords

EID: 84929439418     PISSN: 10494820     EISSN: 17445191     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2015.1041405     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. S.E.Ainsworth, G.Gelmini-Hornsby, K.Threapleton, C.Crook, C.O'Malley, & M.Buda, (2011). The impact of anonymity in classroom debates. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 365–378. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.05.001
2. J.J.Ammer, (1998). Peer evaluation model for enhancing writing performance of students with learning disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 14(3), 263–282. doi:10.1080/1057356980140303
3. R.Ballantyne, K.Hughes, & A.Mylonas, (2002). Developing procedures for implementing peer assessment in large classes using an action research process. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 427–441. doi:10.1080/0260293022000009302
4. A.Bandura, (1986). Social foundations of thought and action:A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
5. A.K.Beuchert, & J.L.Mendoza, (1979). A Monte Carlo comparison of ten item discrimination indices. Journal of Educational Measurement, 16, 109–117. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1979.tb00092.x
6. P.Bonacich, (2007). Some unique properties of eigenvector centrality. Social Networks, 29(4), 555–564. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2007.04.002
7. S.P.Borgatti, & M.G.Everett, (1997). Network analysis of 2-mode data. Social Networks, 19, 243–269. doi:10.1016/S0378-8733(96)00301-2
8. D.Boud, R.Cohen, & J.Sampson, (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413–426. doi:10.1080/0260293990240405
9. C.Brindley, & S.Scoffield, (1998). Peer assessment in undergraduate programmers. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(1), 79–90. doi:10.1080/1356215980030106
10. J.G.Carson, & G.L.Nelson, (1996). Chinese students' perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 1–19. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90012-0
11. C.Chan, (2010). Assessment:Self and peer assessment. Retrieved from http://ar.cetl.hku.hk/self_peer.htm
12. A.Chester, & G.Gwynne, (1998). Online teaching:Encouraging collaboration through anonymity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(2). Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1998.tb00096.x/
13. Y.H.Cho, & K.Cho, (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39, 629–643. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9146-1
14. J.W.Creswell, & V.L.Plano Clark, (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
15. M.De Laat, V.Lally, L.Lipponen, & R.J.Simons, (2007). Investigating patterns of interaction in networked learning and computer-supported collaborative learning:A role for social network analysis. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 87–103. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9006-4
16. D.Dodd, (1985). Robbers in the classroom:A deindividuation exercise. Teaching of Psychology, 12, 89–91. doi:10.1207/s15328023top1202_9
17. M.Ediger, (2006). Present day philosophies of education. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(3), 179–182.
18. M.D.Engelhart, (1965). A comparison of several item discrimination indices. Journal of Educational Measurement, 2(1), 69–76. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1965.tb00393.x
19. N.Falchikov, & J.Goldfinch, (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education:A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322. doi:10.3102/00346543070003287
20. S.Fallows, & B.Chandramohan, (2001). Multiple approaches to assessment:Reflection on use of tutor, peer and self-assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 229–246. doi:10.1080/13562510120045212
21. K.Faust, (2006). Comparing social networks:Size, density, and local structure. Metodoloski zvezki, 3, 185–216.
22. S.L.Franzoi, (2006). Social psychology (4th ed.). New York, NJ:McGraw Hill.
23. L.C.Freeman, (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7
24. R.M.Gagné, (1965). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. New York, NY:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
25. T.Gatfield, (1999). Examining student satisfaction with group projects and peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 365–377. doi:10.1080/0260293990240401
26. N.A.E.van Gennip, M.Segers, & H.H.Tillema, (2009). Peer assessment for learning from a social perspective:The influence of interpersonal and structural features. Educational Research Review, 4(1), 41–54. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2008.11.002
27. N.A.E.van Gennip, M.M.Segers, & H.H.Tillema, (2010). Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity:The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 280–290. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.010
28. J.Ghorpade, & J.R.Lackritz, (2001). Peer evaluation in the classroom:A check for sex and race/ethnicity effects. Journal of Education for Business, 76(5), 274–281. doi:10.1080/08832320109599648
29. B.G.Glaser, & A.L.Strauss, (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL:Aldine Transaction.
30. S.Habeshaw, G.Gibbs, & T.Habeshaw, (1986). Interesting ways to assess your students. Bristol:Technical and Educational Services.
31. T.M.Haladyna, & S.M.Downing, (1989). A taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules. Applied Measurement in Education, 2(1), 37–50. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame0201_3
32. R.Hannemann, & M.Riddle, (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA:University of California.
33. S.J.Hanrahan, & G.Isaacs, (2001). Assessing self- and peer-assessment:The students' views. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(1), 53–70. doi:10.1080/07294360123776
34. D.L.Hansen, B.Shneiderman, & M.Smith, (2011). Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL:Insights from a connected world. Amsterdam:Elsevier, Morgan Kaufmann.
35. S.C.Herring, (2003). Gender and power in online communication. In J.Holmes & M.Meyerhoff (Eds.), Handbook of language and gender (pp. 202–228). Oxford:Blackwell.
36. M.A.Hogg, K.S.Fielding, D.Johnson, B.Masser, E.Russell, & A.Svensson, (2006). Demographic category membership and leadership in small groups:A social identity analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 335–350. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.007
37. M.A.Hogg, D.van Knippenberg, & D.E.Rast III, (2012). The social identity theory of leadership:Theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments. European Review of Social Psychology, 23, 258–304. doi:10.1080/10463283.2012.741134
38. I.Hosack, (2004). The effects of anonymous feedback on Japanese university students' attitudes towards peer review. Language and its Universe, 3, 297–322.
39. L.R.Izquierdo, & R.A.Hanneman, (2006). Introduction to the formal analysis of social networks using mathematica. Retrieved from http://www.luis.izquierdo.name
40. L.Johnston, & L.Miles, (2004). Assessing contributions to group assignments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), 751–768. doi:10.1080/0260293042000227272
41. W.A.Kahn, (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. doi:10.2307/256287
42. J.H.Kaufman, & C.D.Schunn, (2011). Students' perceptions about peer assessment for writing:Their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39(3), 387–406. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9133-6
43. I.Kollar, & F.Fischer, (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning:A cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 344–348. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.005
44. M.Lea, R.Spears, & D.de Groot, (2001). Knowing me, knowing you:Anonymity effects on social identity processes within groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(5), 526–537. doi:10.1177/0146167201275002
45. Q.Li, (2007a). Bullying in the new playground:Research into cyberbullying and cyber victimization. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(4), 435–454.
46. Q.Li, (2007b). New bottle but old wine:A research of cyberbullying in schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1777–1791. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.10.005
47. Y.S.Lincoln, & E.G.Guba, (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
48. R.Lu, & L.Bol, (2007). 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, 6(2), 100–115.
49. A.Martinez, Y.Dimitriadis, B.Rubia, E.Gomez, & P.de la Fuente, (2003). Combining qualitative evaluation and social network analysis for the study of classroom social interactions. Computers & Education, 41, 353–368. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2003.06.001
50. K.Matheson, & M.P.Zanna, (1990). Computer-mediated communications:The focus is on me. Social Science Computer Review, 8(1), 1–12. doi:10.1177/089443939000800102
51. T.Miyazoe, & T.Anderson, (2011). Anonymity in blended learning:Who would you like to be? Educational Technology and Society, 14(2), 175–187.
52. F.Moral-Toranzo, J.Canto-Ortiz, & L.Gómez-Jacinto, (2007). Anonymity effects in computer-mediated communication in the case of minority influence. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1660–1674. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.09.002
53. J.M.Morse, (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40, 120–123. doi:10.1097/00006199-199103000-00014
54. M.M.Nelson, & C.D.Schunn, (2009). The nature of feedback:How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375–401. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x
55. S.Ohlsson, (1996). Learning from performance errors. Psychological Review, 103(2), 241–262. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.241
56. K.A.Oldfield, & J.M.K.MacAlpine, (1995). Peer and self-assessment at tertiary level – an experiential report. Assessment in Higher Education, 20(1), 125–132. doi:10.1080/0260293950200113
57. S.J.Osterlind, (1998). Constructing test items:Multiple-choice, constructed-response, performance and other formats. Boston, MA:Kluwer Academic.
58. J.Palme, & M.Berglund, (2002). Anonymity on the Internet. Retrieved from http://people.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/society/anonymity.html
59. T.Palonen, & K.Hakkarainen, (2000). Patterns of interaction in computer-supported learning:A social network analysis. In B.Fishman & S.O'Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 334–339). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
60. E.Panadero, M.Romero, & J.-W.Strijbos, (2013). The impact of a rubric and friendship on peer assessment:Effects on construct validity, performance, and perceptions of fairness and comfort. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(4), 195–203. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.005
61. J.A.Pearce II, (2013). Using social identity theory to predict managers' emphases on ethical and legal values in judging business issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 497–514. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1274-x
62. E.Pharo, & K.de Salas, (2009). Implementing student peer review:Opportunity versus change management. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33(2), 199–207. doi:10.1080/03098260802276748
63. N.Pope, (2001). An examination of the use of peer rating for formative assessment in the context of the theory of consumption values. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(3), 235–246. doi:10.1080/02602930120052396
64. T.Postmes, & M.Lea, (2000). Social processes and group decision making:Anonymity in group decision support systems. Ergonomics, 43, 1252–1274. doi:10.1080/00140130050084978
65. H.C.Purchase, (2000). Learning about interface design through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4), 341–352. doi:10.1080/026029300449245
66. R Core Team. (2013). R:A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna:R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
67. L.D.Roberts, & C.J.Rajah-Kanagasabai, (2013). I'd be so much more comfortable posting anonymously:Identified versus anonymous participation in student discussion boards. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(5), 612–625.
68. G.Robins, P.Pattison, Y.Kalish, & L.Dean, (2007). An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Social Networks, 29(2), 173–191. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2006.08.002
69. B.Rosenshine, C.Meister, & S.Chapman, (1996). Teaching students to generate questions:A review of intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221. doi:10.3102/00346543066002181
70. H.Tajfel, (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
71. H.Tajfel, & J.C.Turner, (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.Worchel & W.G.Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL:Nelson-Hall.
72. J.S.Tinson, & A.G.Close, (2012). Young women's' social identity and peer groups at the high school prom:A typology of event resistance and event ambassadorship. American marketing association marketing & public policy academic conference proceedings (pp. 12). Atlanta, GA.
73. K.J.Topping, (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276. doi:10.3102/00346543068003249
74. K.J.Topping, (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20–27. doi:10.1080/00405840802577569
75. A.Venables, & R.Summit, (2003). Enhancing scientific essay writing using peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(3), 281–290. doi:10.1080/1470329032000103816
76. M.Walrave, & W.Heirman, (2011). Cyberbullying:Predicting victimization and perpetration. Children & Society, 25(1), 59–72. doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2009.00260.x
77. E.White, (2009). Student perspectives of peer assessment for learning in a public speaking course. Asian EFL Journal, 33(1), 1–36.
78. S.L.Yelon, (1996). Powerful principles of instruction. White Plains, NY:Longman.
79. F.Y.Yu, (2009). Scaffolding student-generated questions:Design and development of a customizable online learning system. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 1129–1138. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.05.002
80. F.Y.Yu, & Y.H.Liu, (2009). Creating a psychologically safe online space for a student-generated questions learning activity via different identity revelation modes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(6), 1109–1123. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00905.x
81. F.Y.Yu, & C.P.Wu, (2011). Different identity revelation modes in an online peer-assessment learning environment:Effects on perceptions toward assessors, classroom climate and learning activities. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2167–2177. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.012
82. Y.Zhang, Y.Fang, K.Wei, & H.Chen, (2010). Exploring the role of psychological safety in promoting the intention to continue sharing knowledge in virtual communities. International Journal of Information Management, 30, 425–436. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.02.003
83. P.G.Zimbardo, (1969). The human choice:Individuation, reason, and order vs. deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In W.J.Arnold & D.Levine (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on Motivation (Vol. 17, pp. 237–307). Lincoln, NE:University of Nebraska Press.