调查形成性和终结性同行评估中的匿名性:对大学生社会情感因素、认知和偏好的影响

IF 2.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Studies in Educational Evaluation Pub Date : 2024-10-25 DOI:10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101410
Juan Fraile , Meritxell Monguillot , Carles González-Arévalo , Paula Lehane , Ernesto Panadero
{"title":"调查形成性和终结性同行评估中的匿名性:对大学生社会情感因素、认知和偏好的影响","authors":"Juan Fraile ,&nbsp;Meritxell Monguillot ,&nbsp;Carles González-Arévalo ,&nbsp;Paula Lehane ,&nbsp;Ernesto Panadero","doi":"10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study examines the impact of anonymity on students’ social-affective processes, as well as their perceptions and preferences regarding peer assessment and grading for both formative and summative purposes. 177 higher education students participated in this quasi-experimental study. They participated in two peer assessment activities after receiving training on the provision of effective feedback. The first peer assessment activity was formative in nature, while the second was summative. The study had two conditions: anonymous peer assessment and non-anonymous peer assessment. Results indicate that although 73.6 % of all students (90.5 % in the anonymous condition and 56.5 % in the non-anonymous condition) preferred anonymous peer assessment, this preference did not significantly impact perceptions of fairness or peer pressure. This challenges assumptions around the effects of anonymity. Interestingly, non-anonymous settings were still favourably viewed, with the open-ended responses indicating the value of face-to-face dialogue. This suggests that non-anonymous, highly formative peer assessment requiring more interaction may lead to better social and interpersonal outcomes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47539,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Educational Evaluation","volume":"83 ","pages":"Article 101410"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigating anonymity in formative and summative peer assessment: Effects on university students’ social-affective factors, perceptions and preference\",\"authors\":\"Juan Fraile ,&nbsp;Meritxell Monguillot ,&nbsp;Carles González-Arévalo ,&nbsp;Paula Lehane ,&nbsp;Ernesto Panadero\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101410\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This study examines the impact of anonymity on students’ social-affective processes, as well as their perceptions and preferences regarding peer assessment and grading for both formative and summative purposes. 177 higher education students participated in this quasi-experimental study. They participated in two peer assessment activities after receiving training on the provision of effective feedback. The first peer assessment activity was formative in nature, while the second was summative. The study had two conditions: anonymous peer assessment and non-anonymous peer assessment. Results indicate that although 73.6 % of all students (90.5 % in the anonymous condition and 56.5 % in the non-anonymous condition) preferred anonymous peer assessment, this preference did not significantly impact perceptions of fairness or peer pressure. This challenges assumptions around the effects of anonymity. Interestingly, non-anonymous settings were still favourably viewed, with the open-ended responses indicating the value of face-to-face dialogue. This suggests that non-anonymous, highly formative peer assessment requiring more interaction may lead to better social and interpersonal outcomes.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47539,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Educational Evaluation\",\"volume\":\"83 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101410\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Educational Evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X24000890\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Educational Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X24000890","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究探讨了匿名对学生社会情感过程的影响,以及他们对形成性和终结性同伴评价和评分的看法和偏好。177 名高校学生参与了这项准实验研究。他们在接受了提供有效反馈的培训后,参加了两次同伴互评活动。第一项同伴互评活动是形成性的,第二项是总结性的。研究分为两种情况:匿名同伴互评和非匿名同伴互评。结果表明,尽管 73.6% 的学生(匿名条件下为 90.5%,非匿名条件下为 56.5%)更喜欢匿名同伴互评,但这种偏好并没有对公平性或同伴压力的感知产生重大影响。这对有关匿名影响的假设提出了挑战。有趣的是,非匿名环境仍然受到好评,开放式回答显示了面对面对话的价值。这表明,需要更多互动的非匿名、高度形成性同伴评价可能会带来更好的社会和人际关系结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Investigating anonymity in formative and summative peer assessment: Effects on university students’ social-affective factors, perceptions and preference
This study examines the impact of anonymity on students’ social-affective processes, as well as their perceptions and preferences regarding peer assessment and grading for both formative and summative purposes. 177 higher education students participated in this quasi-experimental study. They participated in two peer assessment activities after receiving training on the provision of effective feedback. The first peer assessment activity was formative in nature, while the second was summative. The study had two conditions: anonymous peer assessment and non-anonymous peer assessment. Results indicate that although 73.6 % of all students (90.5 % in the anonymous condition and 56.5 % in the non-anonymous condition) preferred anonymous peer assessment, this preference did not significantly impact perceptions of fairness or peer pressure. This challenges assumptions around the effects of anonymity. Interestingly, non-anonymous settings were still favourably viewed, with the open-ended responses indicating the value of face-to-face dialogue. This suggests that non-anonymous, highly formative peer assessment requiring more interaction may lead to better social and interpersonal outcomes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.50%
发文量
90
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: Studies in Educational Evaluation publishes original reports of evaluation studies. Four types of articles are published by the journal: (a) Empirical evaluation studies representing evaluation practice in educational systems around the world; (b) Theoretical reflections and empirical studies related to issues involved in the evaluation of educational programs, educational institutions, educational personnel and student assessment; (c) Articles summarizing the state-of-the-art concerning specific topics in evaluation in general or in a particular country or group of countries; (d) Book reviews and brief abstracts of evaluation studies.
期刊最新文献
Teaching quality and student achievement inequalities in low- and middle-income countries: A hierarchical linear model analysis Do children speaking indigenous and regional languages benefit equally from updated curricula? A report on a longitudinal quasi-experimental pilot study in Central Asia Exploring the impact of student perceptions of Assessment for Learning on intrinsic motivation How are pre-service physical education teachers’ perceptions of educator-created (dis)empowering climates associated with their motivational processes and teaching intention? Online peer feedback training based on self-regulated learning in english as a foreign language writing: Perceived usefulness and students’ engagement
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1