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

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education

Volumn 44, Issue 8, 2019, Pages 1253-1278

  Panadero, Ernesto ^a   Alqassab, Maryam ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Anonymity; peer assessment; peer evaluation; peer feedback; peer grading; peer review

Indexed keywords

EID: 85064486403     PISSN: 02602938     EISSN: 1469297X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1600186     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. .
2. Adachi, C., Tai, J., & Dawson, P. (2018). A framework for designing, implementing, communicating and researching peer assessment. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(3), 453–467. doi:10.1080/07294360.2017.1405913.
3. Ainsworth, S., Gelmini-Hornsby, G., Threapleton, K., Crook, C., O’Malley, C., & Buda, M. (2011). Anonymity in classroom voting and debating. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 365–378. doi: doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.05.001.
4. *Bloom, A. J., & Hautaluoma, J. E. (1987). Effects of message valence, communicator credibility, and source anonymity on reactions to peer feedback. The Journal of Social Psychology, 127(4), 329–338. doi:10.1080/00224545.1987.9713712.
5. Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1997). Having second thoughts: Student perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 233–239. doi:10.1080/03075079712331381064.
6. Cooper, H. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.
7. Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer- and co-assessment in higher education. A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331–350. doi:10.1080/03075079912331379935.
8. Evans, C. 2013. “Making Sense of Assessment Feedback in Higher Education.” Review of Educational Research 83 (1):70–120. doi:10.3102/0034654312474350
9. Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Onghena, P. (2011). An inventory of peer assessment diversity. Assessment & Evaluation In Higher Education, 36(2), 137–155. doi:10.1080/02602930903221444.
10. * Güler, C. (2017). Use of WhatsApp in higher education: What's up with assessing peers anonymously? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(2), 272–289. doi:10.1177/0735633116667359.
11. * Howard, C. D., Barrett, A. F., & Frick, T. W. (2010). Anonymity to promote peer feedback: Pre-service teachers' comments in asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(1), 89–112. doi:10.2190/EC.43.1.f.
12. Li, H., Xiong, Y., Zang, X., Kornhaber, M. L., Lyu, Y., Chung, K. S., & Suen, H. K. (2015). Peer assessment in the digital age: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher ratings. Assessment & Evaluation In Higher Education, 1–20. doi:10.1080/02602938.2014.999746.
13. * Li, L. (2017). The role of anonymity in peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation In Higher Education, 1–12. doi:10.1080/02602938.2016.1174766.
14. * Lin, G. Y. (2018). Anonymous versus identified peer assessment via a Facebook-based learning application: Effects on quality of peer feedback, perceived learning, perceived fairness, and attitude toward the system. Computers & Education, 116, 81–92. doi: doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.010.
15. Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290. doi:10.1080/13562510600680582.
16. * Lu, R., & Bol, L. (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).
17. * Omelicheva, M. Y. (2005). Self and peer evaluation in undergraduate education: Structuring conditions that maximize its promises and minimize the perils. Journal of Political Science Education, 1(2), 191–205. doi:10.1080/15512160590961784.
18. Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment: A review and future directions. In G. T. L., Brown & L. R., Harris (Eds.), Handbook of Human and Social Conditions in Assessment (pp. 247–266). New York: Routledge.
19. Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Alqassab, M. (2018). Providing formative peer feedback: What do we know? In A. A., Lipnevich & J. K., Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback: Cambridge University Press.
20. Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Botella, J. (2017). Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: Four meta-analyses. Educational Research Review, 22, 74–98. doi: doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.004.
21. Panadero, E., Romero, M., & Strijbos, J. W. (2013). The impact of a rubric and friendship on construct validity of peer assessment, perceived fairness and comfort, and performance. Studies In Educational Evaluation, 39(4), 195–203. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.005.
22. * Peterson, C. H., & Peterson, N. A. (2011). Impact of peer evaluation confidentiality on student marks. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(2).
23. * Raes, A., Vanderhoven, E., & Schellens, T. (2013). Increasing anonymity in peer assessment by using classroom response technology within face-to-face higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 1–16. doi:10.1080/03075079.2013.823930.
24. * Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E., & Schellens, T. (2018). Anonymity as an instructional scaffold in peer assessment: Its effects on peer feedback quality and evolution in students’ perceptions about peer assessment skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33, 75–99. doi:10.1007/s10212-017-0339-8.
25. Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Martens, R. L. (2004). Training teachers in peer-assessment skills: Effects on performance and perceptions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), 59–78. doi:10.1080/1470329032000172720.
26. Strijbos, J. W., & Müller, A. (2014). Personale faktoren im feedbackprozess. In H., Ditton & A., Müller (Eds.), Feedback und rückmeldungen: Theoretische grundlagen, empirische befunde, praktische anwendungsfelder [Feedback and evaluation: Theoretical foundations, empirical findings, practical implementation] (pp. 87–134). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
27. Strijbos, J. W., Ochoa, T. A., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Segers, M., & Tillema, H. H. (2009). Fostering interactivity through formative peer assessment in (web-based) collaborative learning environments. In C., Mourlas, N., Tsianos, & P., Germanakos (Eds.), Cognitive and Emotional Processes in Web-Based Education: Integrating Human Factors and Personalization (pp. 375–395). Hersey, PA: IGI Global.
28. Topping, K. J. 2010. “Methodological Quandaries in Studying Process and Outcomes in Peer Assessment.” Learning and Instruction 20 (4):339–343. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.003
29. Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276. doi:10.3102/00346543068003249.
30. van Gennip, N. (2012). Assessing together. Peer assessment from an interpersonal perspective. (PhD), Universiteit Leiden.
31. van Gennip, N., Segers, M., & Tillema, H. H. (2009). Peer assessment for learning from a social perspective: The influence of interpersonal variables and structural features. Educational Research Review, 4(1), 41–54. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2008.11.002.
32. van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270–279. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004.
33. * Vanderhoven, E., Raes, A., Montrieux, H., Rotsaert, T., & Schellens, T. (2015). What if pupils can assess their peers anonymously? A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 81, 123–132. doi: doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.001.
34. * Yu, F. Y. (2012). Any effects of different levels of online user identity revelation? Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 64–77.
35. Yu, F. Y., & Liu, Y. H. (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.
36. * Yu, F. Y., & Sung, S. (2015). A mixed methods approach to the assessor's targeting behavior during online peer assessment: Effects of anonymity and underlying reasons. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–18. doi:10.1080/10494820.2015.1041405.
37. * Yu, F. Y., & Wu, C. P. (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.