Face-to-Face Peer Assessment in Secondary Education: Does Anonymity Matter?

Abstract

Pupils involved in peer assessment often state that they do not feel entirely comfortable with publicly evaluating their peers. It is found that peer-pressure might cause stress and a lack of accuracy of the assessment (Falchikov, 2003). Based on social impact theories (e.g. Latané, 1981), anonymity within peer assessment can be considered as a solution. Yet, although the benefits of anonymity are previously investigated in the context of classroom voting and debating in higher education (Ainsworth et al., 2011), no research is found regarding anonymity in the context of peer assessment in a face-to-face secondary education setting. To fill this gap, the present study was set up to investigate whether anonymity of the assessors in peer assessment can counter undesirable social effects. It was hypothesized that anonymous modes of peer assessment will induce a reduced perception of peer pressure, a reduced fear of failure, and more positive attitudes towards peer assessment. Classroom response technology (CRT) was introduced as a tool that enables anonymity within face-to-face settings (Kay & Knaack, 2009). A quasi-experimental study was set up in four secondary classes in Belgium (n=69). In all classes, pupils had to assess each others’ group presentations on different criteria in a face-to-face classroom setting. In the control group (2 classes) a traditional peer assessment approach was used, i.e. raising score cards-, while in the experimental group (2 classes) CRT was used to give scores anonymously. In the latter, score distributions were presented on a screen in front of the class. Feelings of peer-pressure, fear of failure towards the other, and pupils’ general attitudes towards peer assessment were measured using a post-questionnaire. It was found that the pupils who used CRT as a tool to give scores anonymously, felt less peer pressure and fear of failure than those in the classic peer assessment condition. They also reported more positive attitudes towards this kind of evaluation. Implications of these results are discussed.