Anonymity to Promote Peer Feedback: Pre-Service Teachers' Comments in Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication

Abstract

In this quasi-experimental case study, we compared five sections of a basic undergraduate technology course. Within an asynchronous web forum, pre-service teachers wrote short critiques of websites designed by their classmates. This peer feedback was provided anonymously by students in two classes (n = 35) whereas providers and recipients of peer feedback were identified by their real names in three other classes (n = 37). Computer-Mediated discourse analysis methods (Herring, 2004) were used to code student written comments according to substance and tone of feedback. Next, we estimated likelihoods of specific feedback patterns through Analysis of Patterns in Time (Frick, 1990). Results indicated that students who were anonymous were approximately five times more likely to provide substantively critical feedback than were those whose identities were known to their recipients. When feedback was given anonymously, students were approximately four times more likely to provide reasons for needed improvement to a website, and then to suggest design alternatives. In light of advantages afforded by this form of pseudonymity, we conclude with a discussion of pedagogical prescriptions for supporting learners' production of feedback.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brown

(2001). Process of community-building in distance learning classes. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 18–35.

Cherny

(1999). Conversation and community: Chat in a virtual world. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

Chester

, & Gwynne

(1998). Online teaching: Encouraging collaboration through anonymity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(2). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue2/chester.html

Chun

D. M.

, & Plass

J. L.

(2000). Networked multimedia environments for second language acquisition. In Warshauer

& Kern

(Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 151–170). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cross

(2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5). 427–441.

Dreher

, & Maurer

(2006, June). The worth of anonymous feedback. Paper presented at the 19th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference, Bled, Slovenia: European Commission.

Duffy

T. M.

, & Cunningham

(1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In Jonnasen

(Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–198). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ertmer

P. A.

Richardson

J. C.

Belland

Camin

Connolly

, & Coulthard

(2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), article 4. Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/ertmer.html

10.

Flinn

, & Maurer

(1995). Levels of anonymity. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 1(1), 35–47.

11.

Flower

(1994). The construction of negotiated meaning: A social cognitive theory of writing. Southern Illinois University Press.

12.

Frick

T. W.

(1990). Analysis of patterns in time (APT): A method of recording and quantifying temporal relations in education. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 180–204.

13.

Frick

T. W.

Howard

C. D.

Barrett

A. F.

Enfield

, & Myers

(2009). Alternative research methods: MAPSAT your data to prevent aggregation aggravation. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Educational Communications & Technology, Louisville, KY.

14.

Frick

T. W.

, & Semmel

M. I.

(1978). Observer agreement and reliabilities of classroom observational measures. Review of Educational Research, 48(1), 157–184.

15.

Gee

J. P.

, & Green

J. L.

(1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–169.

16.

Gunawardena

(2004). Designing the social environment for online learning: The role of social presence. In Murphy

Carr

Taylor

, & Wong

(Eds.), Distance education and technology: Issues and practice (pp. 255–270). Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong Press.

17.

Hannafin

Land

, & Oliver

(1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In Reigeluth

C. M.

(Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. II, pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

18.

Herring

S. C.

(2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In Schiffrin

D. T. D.

& Hamilton

(Ed.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612–634). Oxford: Blackwell.

19.

Herring

S. C.

(2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In Barab

S. A.

Kling

, & Gray

J. H.

(Eds.), Designing for virtual communities (pp. 338–376). New York: Cambridge University Press.

20.

Herring

S. C.

(2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer mediated discourse. Language @ Internet, 4, article 1. Retrieved September 6, 2008 from http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2761

21.

Herring

S. C.

Johnson

D. A.

, & DiBenedetto

(1998). Participation in electronic discourse in a ‘feminist’ field. In Coates

(Ed.), Language and gender: A reader (pp. 197–210). Oxford: Blackwell.

22.

Herring

S. C.

, & Nix

C. G.

(1997, March). Is “serious chat” an oxymoron? Academic vs. social uses of Internet Relay Chat. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Orlando, FL.

23.

Jeong

A. C.

(2003). The sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in online threaded discussions. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 25–43.

24.

Jonassen

(1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In Reigeluth

C. M.

(Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. II, pp. 215–239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

25.

Jonassen

D. H.

(2008). Instructional design as design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology Magazine: The Magazine for Managers of Change in Education, 48(3), 21–26.

26.

Kern

, & Warschauer

(2000). Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In Warschauer

& Kern

(Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1–19). New York: Cambridge University Press.

27.

K. K.

(1996). Structural characteristics of computer-mediated language: A comparative analysis of interchange discourse. Electronic Journal of Communication/REC, 6(3), article 2. Retrieved November 11, 2008 from http://www.cios.org/www/ejc/v6n396.htm

28.

Koh

(2008). The use of scaffolding in introductory technology skills introduction for preservice teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University Graduate School.

29.

Landis

J. R.

, & Koch

G. G.

(1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.

30.

Lin

S. S. J.

Liu

E. Z. F.

, & Yuan

S. M.

(2001). Web-based peer assessment: Feedback for students with various thinking-styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 420–432.

31.

McLaughlin

(1984). Conversation: How talk is organized. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

32.

Pfitzmann

, & Köhntopp

(2001). Anonymity, unobservability, and pseudonymity—A proposal for terminology. In Federrath

(Ed.), Designing privacy enhancing technologies (pp. 1–9). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

33.

Pica

(1991). Classroom interaction, negotiation, and comprehension: Redefining relationships. System, 19(4), 437–452.

34.

Postmes

Spears

, & Lea

(1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-Effects of computer mediated communication. Communication Research, 25(6), 689–715.

35.

Postmes

Spears

Sakhel

, & de Groot

(2001). Social influence in computer-mediated communication: The effects of anonymity on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1243–1254.

36.

Raitman

Augar

, & Zhou

(2005). Employing wikis for online collaboration in the e-learning environment: case study. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information Technology and Applications (ICITA 2005) 2 (pp. 142–146). Sydney, NSW: IEEE.

37.

Reigeluth

C. M.

, & Moore

(1999). Cognitive education and the cognitive domain. In Reigeluth

C. M.

(Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. II, pp. 51–68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

38.

Rheingold

(2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

39.

Schön

(1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potential. London: RIBA.

40.

Schwier

R. A.

Campbell

, & Kenny

(2004). Instructional designers' observations about identity communities of practice, and change agency. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1), 69–100.

41.

Shute

V. J.

(2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.

42.

Stockwell

(2007). A review of technology choice for teaching language skills and areas in the CALL literature. ReCall, 19, 105–120.

43.

Valacich

J. S.

Dennis

A. R.

, & Nunamaker

J. F.

Jr. (1992). Group size and anonymity effects on computer-mediated idea generation. Small Group Research, 2(1), 49–73.

44.

Wallace

P. M.

(1999). The psychology of the Internet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

45.

Walther

(1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–34.

46.

Warschauer

(2000). On-line learning in second language classrooms. In Warschauer

& Kern

(Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 41–58). New York: Cambridge University Press.

47.

Warschauer

(2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

48.

Wellman

, & Frank

K. A.

(2001). Network capital in a multilevel world: Getting support from personal communities. In Lin

Cook

, & Burt

R. S.

(Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 233–273). Chicago: Aldine DeGruyter.

49.

Yates

S. J.

(1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing: A corpus based study. Pragmatics & Beyond, 39, 29–46.

50.

Zhang

, & Zhao

(2008). The effects of anonymity on critical feedback in a teacher preparation program. Technology and Teacher Education Annual Conference Proceedings, 19(5), 3229–3234.

51.

Zhao

(1998). The effects of anonymity on computer-mediated peer review. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 4(4), 311–345.