Effects of anonymity on online peer review in second-language writing

被引:24
作者
van den Bos, Anne Hester [1 ]
Tan, Esther [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Appl Sci, Leiden, Netherlands
[2] Delft Univ Technol, Delft, Netherlands
关键词
Online peer review; Anonymity; (Non) directive peer feedback; Higher and lower-order feedback; Second-language writing; FEEDBACK PERCEPTIONS; REVISION; QUALITY; EXPERT; SCAFFOLD;
D O I
10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103638
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
This paper investigates the effect of anonymity in online peer review on feedback types (directive, non-directive, higher-order concern, lower-order concern) and students' revisions (processed, partly processed and not processed) in second-language writing. Participants were 114 Dutch second-year university students. They were assigned to two experimental conditions: anonymous and non-anonymous. Results showed that students in the anonymous condition provided significantly more feedback on higher-order concerns and offered significantly different types of feedback than students in the non-anonymous condition. As for revision, overall findings showed that assessees in the anonymous condition did not process more feedback (i.e., the adoption rate) than their non-identified peers, however, assessees in the anonymous condition processed significantly more directive higher-order feedback and scored significantly higher final grades for the writing module than their non-anonymous peers. These results might imply that anonymity could enable learners to provide unreservedly more higher-order concerns feedback type. On the self-same note, the adoption and revision of these higher-order feedback items was instrumental in the improved writing performance of students in the anonymous condition.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 49 条
[1]   Researching feedback dialogue: an interactional analysis approach [J].
Ajjawi, Rola ;
Boud, David .
ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2017, 42 (02) :252-265
[2]  
Berg E. C., 1999, Journal of Second Language Writing, V8, P215, DOI [DOI 10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5, 10.1016/s1060-3743(99)80115-5]
[3]   The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback [J].
Carless, David ;
Boud, David .
ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2018, 43 (08) :1315-1325
[4]   Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide [J].
Chi, MTH .
JOURNAL OF THE LEARNING SCIENCES, 1997, 6 (03) :271-315
[5]   Commenting on writing - Typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts [J].
Cho, K ;
Schunn, CD ;
Charney, D .
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION, 2006, 23 (03) :260-294
[6]   Student revision with peer and expert reviewing [J].
Cho, Kwangsu ;
MacArthur, Charles .
LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION, 2010, 20 (04) :328-338
[7]  
Collins A., 2018, Knowing, Learning, and Instruction, P453, DOI DOI 10.4324/9781315044408-14
[8]   Peer Feedback in Anonymous Peer Review in an EFL Writing Class in Spain [J].
Cote, Robert A. .
GIST-EDUCATION AND LEARNING RESEARCH JOURNAL, 2014, (09) :67-87
[9]   Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision [J].
De Guerrero, MCM ;
Villamil, OS .
MODERN LANGUAGE JOURNAL, 2000, 84 (01) :51-68
[10]  
Eksi G.Y., 2012, International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, V13, P33