Increasing anonymity in peer assessment using
classroom response technology
Annelies Raes, Ellen Vanderhoven & Tammy Schellens
Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University
Email: annelies.raes@ugent.be, tammy.schellens@ugent.be, ellen.vanderhoven@ugent.be
Introduction
Evaluation in revolution
• Testing  Assessment
(2)
• Innovative forms of assessment: self -, co- and peer-assessment
• Peer assessment has proven to be accurate and results in higher quality performances (4, 6)
Anonymity as an important issue to consider
• Experience of stress and discomfort (5)
• Peer pressure might cause lack of accuracy (3)
(1)
Classroom response technology (CRT)
• Anonymous way of giving scores
• Provides immediate visual feedback
• But limited, no argumentation
Research questions
• Does CRT as an anonymous way of PA reduce peer pressure, and so raise comfort and possitive attitudes towards PA?
• Is an additional oral and written feedback valuable?
• Is there a difference between anonymous and non-anonymous written feedback?
Procedure
• 51 third year Bachelor students in Educational Studies at Ghent University participated in:
• Training in
using rubrics
Students’ group
presentations
Peer Assessment
Oral feedback
CRT = Turning Point
(1-5)
Questionnaire
Written feedback
Anonymous
With name
Methodology
• Student questionnaire (5-point Likert scale) measuring anonymity, peer pressure, comfort, positive attitudes and perception of added value
according to 1) Peer Assessment with CRT, 2) Oral Feedback and 3) Written feedback
• Repeated Measures and ANOVA
Results
Peer Assessment
CRT = Turning Point
Anonymity (manipulation check)
Experience of peer pressure
Feeling comfortable
Positive attitudes
Perception of the added value
3.86
2.35
3.84
3.94
3.91
Oral Feedback
Written Feedback
Anonymous
4.08
2.36
3.76
3.61
4.07
1.71
2.55
3.39
3.52
4.12
>*
=
>**
>*
=
With name
2.94
2.29
3.42
3.02
3.82
Conclusion
•
Students positively evaluated peer assessment and the application of CRT: anonymity
•
Students acknowledge the added value of peer assessment: reflective practitioner, engagement
•
Oral and written feedback is suggested as a valuable extension
•
With regard to written feedback, students have a more positive attitude and feel more comfortable when feedback is anonymous
peer pressure
comfort
References
(1) Bloxham, S., & West, A. (2004). Understanding the rules of the game: marking peer assessment as a medium for developing students' conceptions of assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
29(6), 721 - 733.
(2) Dochy, F., & Segers, M. (1999). The Use of Self-, Peer and Co-assessment in Higher Education: a review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331.
(3) Falchikov, N. (2003). Involving students in assessment. Psychology Learning and Teaching, , 3(2), 102-108.
(4) Smith, H., Cooper, A., & Lancaster, L. (2002). Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Peer Assessment: A Case for Student and Staff Development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(1), 71 81.
(5) Stepanyan, K., Mather, R., Jones, H., & Lusuardi, C. (2009). Student Engagement with Peer Assessment: A Review of Pedagogical Design and Technologies Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5686, 367-375.
(6)Topping, K. J. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimizing new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and
standards (pp. 55-87). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.