What characterizes the language choices of untrained student peer reviewers? Undergraduate students (N = 83) were randomly assigned to provide peer feedback on persuasive presentation manuscripts to three peers from their same and/or different course section. A total of 233 peer reviews were analyzed in terms of politeness, quality, and valence. Content and statistical analyses revealed similar politeness levels and quality regardless of the assessors’ identified gender or section of the assessee. However, students produced significantly more positively valenced reviews for same-section classmates, suggesting that students soften feedback through warmer language for peers with whom they have frequent interaction.
AlqassabM.StrijbosJ.PanaderoE.RuizJ. F.WarrensM.ToJ. (2023). A systematic review of peer assessment design elements. Educational Psychology Review, 35(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09723-7
2.
AndersonL. W.KrathwohlD. R.AirasianP. W.CruikshankK. A.MayerR. E.PintrichP. R.RathsJ.WittrockM. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. Longman.
3.
AshenafiM. M. (2017). Peer-assessment in higher education: Twenty-first century practices, challenges and the way forward. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 226–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1100711
BloomA. J.HautaluomaJ. E. (1987). Effects of message valence, communicator credibility, and source anonymity on reactions to peer feedback. The Journal of Social Psychology, 127(4), 329–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1987.9713712
6.
BrownP.LevinsonS. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
7.
BrummernhenrichB.JucksR. (2013). Managing face threats and instructions in online tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031928
8.
BrutusS.DoniaM. B. L.RonenS. (2013). Can business students learn to evaluate better? Evidence from repeated exposure to a peer-evaluation system. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(1), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0204
ChengK.HouH.WuS. (2014). Exploring students’ emotional responses and participation in an online peer assessment activity: A case study. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(3), 271–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2011.649766
11.
DibbleJ. L.WisnerA. M.DobbinsL.CacalM.TaniguchiE.PeytonA.van RaalteL.KubulinsA. (2015). Hesitation to share bad news: By-product of verbal message planning or functional communication behavior?Communication Research, 42(2), 213–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212469401
12.
DijksM. A.BrummerL.KostonsD. (2018). The anonymous reviewer: The relationship between perceived expertise and the perceptions of peer feedback in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1258–1271. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1447645
13.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.
14.
HattieJ.GanM. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In MayerR. E.AlexanderP. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 249–271). Routledge.
HayesA. F.KrippendorffK. (2007). Answering the call for a standard of reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664
17.
HearnW. M.TurleyF.RainwaterL. H. (2017). Virtual versus face to face peer evaluations: On the net, I may not know you, but I know your work. The International Journal of Management Education, 15(3), 539–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.10.003
18.
HowardC. D.BarrettA. F.FrickT. W. (2010). Anonymity to promote peer feedback: Pre-service teachers’ comments in asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(1), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.43.1.f
19.
HuismanB.SaabN.van den BroekP.van DrielJ. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: A meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863–880.
20.
JohnsonD. M.RoenD. H. (1992). Complimenting and involvement in peer reviews: Gender variation. Language in Society, 21(1), 27–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500015025
21.
KobayashiM. (2020). Does anonymity matter? Examining quality of online peer assessment and students’ attitudes. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 98–110. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4694
LechermeierJ.FassnachtM. (2018). How do performance feedback characteristics influence recipients’ reactions? A state-of-the-art review on feedback source, timing, and valence effects. Management Review Quarterly, 68(2), 145–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-018-0136-8
24.
LiL. (2017). The role of anonymity in peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(4), 645–656. https://doi.org/10.1080.02602938.2016.1174766
25.
LinG. (2018). Anonymous versus identified peer assessment via a Facebook-based learning application: Effects on quality of peer feedback, perceived learning, perceived fairness, and attitude toward the system. Computers and Education, 116, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.010
26.
LiuN. F.CarlessD. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.
27.
LeungK.ChanM.MaxwellG.PoonT. (2010). A qualitative analysis of sub-degree students commentary styles and patterns in the context of gender and peer e-feedback. In TsangP.CheungS. K. S.LeeV. S. K.HuangR. (Eds), Hybrid learning (pp. 149–159). Springer.
28.
LuR.BolL. (2007). A comparison of anonymous versus identifiable e-peer review on college student writing performance and the extent of critical feedback. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(2), 100–115.
29.
MaginD. (2001). Reciprocity as a source of bias in multiple peer assessment of group work. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070020030715
30.
MinH. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293–308.
31.
NicolD.ThomsonA.BreslinC. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122.
32.
NobaranyS.BoothK. S. (2015). Use of politeness strategies in signed open peer review. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(5), 1048–1064.
33.
OcampoJ. C.PanaderoE.ZamoranoD.Sanchez-IglesiasI.Diez RuizF. (2023). The effects of gender and training on peer feedback characteristics. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(4), 539–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2286432
34.
PanaderoE.AlqassabM. (2019). An empirical review of anonymity effects in peer assessment, peer feedback, peer review, peer evaluation and peer grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(8), 1253–1278.
35.
PanaderoE.RomeroM.StrijbosJ. W. (2013). The impact of a rubric and friendship on peer assessment: Effects on construct validity, performance, and perceptions of fairness and comfort. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(4), 195–203.
36.
PatchanM. M.SchunnC. D.CorrentiR. J. (2016). The nature of feedback: How peer feedback features affect students’ implementation rate and quality of revisions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(8), 1098–1120. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000103
37.
PfitzmannA.KöhntoppM. (2001). Anonymity, unobservability, and pseudonymity: A proposal for terminology. In FederrathH. (Ed.), Designing privacy enhancing technologies (pp. 1–9). Springer.
38.
PloegerN. A.KelleyK. M.BiselR. S. (2011). Hierarchical mum effect: A new investigation of organizational ethics. Southern Communication Journal, 76(5), 465–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794x.2010.500343
39.
Ploeger-LyonsN. A.BiselR. S. (2023). Confronting idea stealers in the workplace: The unfortunate moral credentialing granted to power-holders. International Journal of Business C0mmunication, 60(4), 1123–1147. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884211047994
RaesA.VanderhovenE.SchellensT. (2015). Increasing anonymity in peer assessment by using classroom response technology within face-to-face higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 40(1), 178–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.823930
42.
RotsaertT.PanaderoE.SchellensT. (2018). Anonymity as an instructional scaffold in peer assessment: Its effects on peer feedback quality and evolution in students’ perceptions about peer assessment skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(1), 75–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0339-8
43.
SimonsmeierB. A.PeifferH.FlaigM.SchneiderM. (2020). Peer feedback improves students’ academic self-concept in higher education. Research in Higher Education, 61, 706–724.
44.
SmitherJ. W.WalkerA. G. (2004). Are the characteristics of narrative comments related to improvement in multirater feedback ratings over time?Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 575–581. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.575
45.
TesserA.RosenS. (1975). The reluctance to transmit bad news. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 191–232). Academic Press.
46.
ToppingK. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249
47.
ToppingK. J. (2023). Advantages and disadvantages of online and face-to-face peer learning in higher education: A review. Education Sciences, 13(4), 326–339. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040326
48.
Van den BergI.AdmiraalW.PilotA. (2006). Designing student peer assessment in higher education: Analysis of written and oral peer feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(2), 135–147.
49.
Van der PolJ.Van den BergB. A. M.AdmiraalW. F.SimonsP. R. J. (2008). The nature, reception, and use of online peer feedback in higher education. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1804–1817.
50.
Van HeerdenM.BharuthramS. (2021). Knowing me, knowing you: The effects of peer familiarity on receiving peer feedback for undergraduate student writers. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(8), 1191–1201. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1863910
51.
VanderhovenE.RaesA.MontrieuxH.RotsaertT.SchellensT. (2015). What if pupils can assess their peers anonymously? A quasi-experimental study. Computers and Education, 81, 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.001
52.
VanderhovenE.RaesA.SchellensT.MontrieuxH. (2012). Face-to-face peer assessment in secondary education: Does anonymity matter?Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1340–1347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.071
53.
WilsonM. J.DiaoM. M.HuangL. (2015). “I’m not here to learn how to mark someone else’s stuff”: An investigation of an online peer-to-peer review workshop tool. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.881980
54.
YuF.LiuY. (2009). Creating a psychologically safe online space for a student-generated questions learning activity via different identity revelation modes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(6), 1109–1123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00905.x
55.
YuF.SungS. (2016). A mixed methods approach to the assessor’s targeting behavior during online peer assessment: Effects of anonymity and underlying reasons. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(7), 1674–1691. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1041405
