Running head: EFFECTS OF E-PEER FEEDBACK 1

Effects of Anonymous e-Peer Feedback vs. Identifiable e-Peer Feedback on

Post-secondary Students’ Writing Performance and Attitude

Amanda Gill, Deep Kaur, Karina Zanrosso, and Paige McClelland

University of British Columbia

ETEC 500 Section 65A

ETEC 500: Assignment 1: Research Purpose Statement and Literature Search

Professor: Dr. Sunah Cho

February 11, 2017

Table of Contents

Part A

Purpose of the Research……………………………………………………………...……3

Research Questions………………………………………………………………..3

Hypotheses………………………………………………………………………...4

Variables………………………………………………………………………...………...4

Ethical Considerations and Assumptions………………………………………………….5

Part B

Literature/Internet Research Plan…………………………………………………………6

The Initial Plan…………………………………………………………………....6

Rationale for Future Literature Search……………………………………………8

Steps after Conducting the Research……………………………………………...9

Part C

References………………………………………………………………………………..10
EFFECTS OF E-PEER FEEDBACK 3

Part A

Purpose of the Research

Using Wikis has become immensely popular in English writing classrooms to facilitate peer

review for adult learners. A current trend is to offer students anonymous e-Peer feedback through

Wikis; our group has become especially interested in understanding and explaining this

phenomenon. However, further research needs to examine the effect of anonymous and

identifiable e-Peer feedback on adult learners’ performance and engagement in post-secondary

writing courses to determine the effectiveness of such interventions. Although plenty of research

has been conducted for ESL/EFL purposes, the generalizability for undergraduate post-

secondary students attending an introductory writing course remains limited. Thus, the purpose

of this study will be to examine and describe differences in students' performance and

engagement in writing based on anonymous vs. identifiable peer review through the use of a

Wiki in two introductory English writing courses for post-secondary students.

Research Questions

1. What effect does incorporating anonymous peer review in a post-secondary English

writing course have on students’ writing performance?

2. Does the use of anonymity in the peer review process result in better student writing

performance in a post-secondary English writing course? If so, which specific areas of

writing is there an improvement in?

3. Are there differences in student engagement when anonymous peer feedback is used,

compared to when identifiable peer feedback is used? If so, what is the direction and size

of the difference in engagement?

Hypotheses

1. H0: There will be no difference in student writing performance and engagement with the

use of anonymous feedback in the Wiki peer review process when compared to those

who received identifiable peer feedback.

2. H1: There will be a difference in student writing performance with the use of anonymous

feedback in the Wiki peer review process when compared to those who received

identifiable peer feedback.

3. H2: There will be a difference in student engagement with the use of anonymous

feedback in the Wiki peer review process when compared to those who received

identifiable peer feedback.

Variables

The following variables are independent: anonymous feedback and identifiable feedback. The

dependent variables include student engagement and student performance. In addition, this study

includes possible confounding variables:

1. students’ previous experience with peer feedback and their attitude towards receiving

peer feedback,

2. the teacher’s perceived attitudes regarding technology/Wikis,

3. availability of resources (equal access to Wifi; tech support; various platforms, such as

iPads, phones, laptops, etc.),

4. attitudes toward an English writing course and internal motivation,

5. teacher motivation and expertise with using Wiki as a peer feedback tool, and

6. equal access to support services.

Ethical Considerations and Assumptions

Ethical Considerations:

1. Participation is voluntary.

2. Consent is required from our participants (18+).

3. We will respect confidentiality and anonymity of our participants.

4. We will ensure our participants are protected from any harm.

5. A summary of the findings will be available for those who are interested.

Assumptions:

1. The students and teacher know how to use technology.

2. The teacher will receive technical training.

3. Equal access to technology for students and the teacher.

4. Students will use similar devices (because one technology might be more user-friendly

than the other; for example, a laptop has a wider screen, which is beneficial).

5. Equal Wifi availability strength, available tech support, and other EdTech resources to

the students.

6. Course content, assignments, classroom instruction, and peer review process will be the

same in both courses. One teacher will instruct both sections of the same course.

*Note: Based on these assumptions, students in the study will be given a brief introduction and

training session on how to give appropriate peer feedback and will be expected to follow the

same guidelines when participating in the study.

Part B

Literature/Internet Search Plan

The Initial Plan

After consulting the strategies discussed by Craig Mertler in Introduction to Educational

Research, we began this project with a topic in which we were all interested: “Creative and

meaningful assessment: Influences on student performance and self confidence in the

classroom.” As we began to do some preliminary research through Google Scholar and the

Summons website, we realized that this topic was too broad, so we made strides to narrow the

topic. Our team began by sharing a list of common interests:

1. ESL classroom, English/Language Arts, Writing

2. Effectiveness of social media for student engagement and assessment

3. Comparing social media with non social media assessment

4. Descriptive feedback and ESL writing achievement

After we completed the Library tutorial, we were inspired to develop a mind map to simplify our

search and narrow the topics even further:

Developing a mind map helped us to determine specific keywords and begin a more

comprehensive search for related literature in the education field. After establishing our topic,

“The impact of assessment on student performance and engagement for ESL students enrolled in

a Language Arts course,” we decided to state a preliminary research question: Is there a

difference in students’ performance and engagement in writing, dependent on the type of

assessment received in an ESL language arts course? If so, what is the direction and size of that

difference? After much brainstorming and deliberating over Skype and Google Docs, we realized

that the research problem was still too broad and our topic of interest had changed, so we needed

to define the topic and narrow the research question further. After doing some additional

research--this time expanding to specific databases such as Education Source--and applying the

deductive method, we decided to focus on the following keywords:

1. Wiki(s)

2. Peer review/Peer feedback/e-Feedback/Critical feedback

3. Anonymity/Anonymous feedback/Deindividuation/Identifiable feedback

4. English writing classroom/ NOT ESL or L2/ Introductory course

5. Adult learners/Mature students

6. Higher education/University/College/Postsecondary

7. Learning outcome(s)/Performance/Improvement

8. Learning process(es)/Engagement

By developing specific keywords, we were able to create the following topic: “The impact of

peer feedback on student performance and engagement using Wiki technology in an English

writing classroom.”
EFFECTS OF E-PEER FEEDBACK 8

As we did preliminary research, we focused on the historical context of our topic, research trends

related to our keywords, and how theory has informed practice (and vice versa). Once we noticed

specific patterns and trends in the research, especially in regards to anonymous and identifiable

feedback, we created a purpose statement: The purpose of this study will be to examine and

describe differences in students' performance and engagement in writing based on anonymous

vs. identifiable peer review through the use of a Wiki in two introductory English writing courses

for post-secondary students.

Rationale for Future Literature Search

As we move forward in our research study, we must consider the following to inform our

literature review:

1. Find additional primary sources through the Web and Summons website and ask the

following questions: Is the research objective? Has the author identified and explained

the extent of bias? What are the limitations of the research? Is the research empirical or

opinion-based? Has the literature been peer reviewed?

2. Identify themes in the research and synthesize the material into subtopics. For example,

What are the common delivery methods (i.e., traditional, online, or blended)? How have

other teachers implemented identifiable and anonymous peer review, and what problems

did they encounter? What are appropriate sample sizes related to the population of study?

Which aspects of academic writing have researchers assessed for engagement and

performance?

3. Analyze the reliability and validity of research in the field, especially because of the

ethical concerns regarding anonymous peer review.

After consulting the additional research, we may find that we need to refine our research

questions and hypotheses. We feel that we have a good start with the ten references listed below,

but we understand that we may need to further refine our resource selection.

Steps after Conducting the Research

Our next steps include developing suitable assessment instruments for the study and making

decisions around the kind of research and methods of data collection we will employ. Here is a

breakdown of what we plan to accomplish after gathering the appropriate information for the

literature review:

1. Write the literature review.

2. Design our research study and choose the appropriate type of data collection:

quantitative, qualitative, or mixed method.

3. Select instruments for data collection.

4. Design training sessions as well as assessment instruments for the students and teacher.
EFFECTS OF E-PEER FEEDBACK 10

Part C

References

Cole, M. (2009). Using Wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the

trenches. Computers & Education, 52(1), 141-146. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.003

Cowan, B. R., & Jack, M. A. (2014). The impact of identity on anxiety during Wiki editing in

higher education. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27(1), 56-65.

doi:10.1108/JEIM-09-2012-0057

Demirbilek, M. (2015). Social media and peer feedback: What do students really think about

using Wiki and Facebook as platforms for peer feedback? Active Learning in Higher

Education, 16(3), 211-224. doi:10.1177/1469787415589530

Lu, R., & Bol, L. (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. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/

Lu, J., & Law, N. (2012). Online peer assessment: Effects of cognitive and affective feedback.

Instructional Science, 40(2), 257-275. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9177-2

Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2011). Anonymity in blended learning: Who would you like to be?

Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 175-187. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/

Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2016). Relations between scripted online peer

feedback and processes and quality of written argumentative essay. Internet & Higher

Education, 31, 20-31. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.002

Xiao, Y, & Lucking, R. (2008). The impact of two types of peer assessment on students’

performance and satisfaction within a Wiki environment. Internet and Higher Education,

11(3-4), 186-193. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.005

Yang, S. C., & Lin, W. (2011). Exploring students’ perceptions of integrating Wiki technology

and peer feedback into English writing courses. English Teaching: Practice and Critique,

10(2), 88-103. Retrieved from

https://edlinked.soe.waikato.ac.nz/research/journal/index.php?id=1

Yang, Y-F. (2010). Students’ reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve

writing. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1202-1210. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.017