Performance evaluation methods are various and peer assessment is one of them. This study investigates how anonymous peer evaluation differs from a named one. This study conducted a semester-long field quasi-experiment to a senior level college course. During the experiment, “cooperative learning group” was designed and subjects were randomly assigned to different groups with 4-6 subjects in each. Each group member’s performance was evaluated both by the instructor and their teammates. The peer assessment was implemented by either anonymously or not. This research aims to explore: 1. Whether assessors in peer evaluation gave different assessment under anonymous and named conditions. 2. Whether assessors of different genders behave significantly in anonymous and named assessment conditions in peer assessment. 3. Whether assessors of same-gender and mixed-gender group composition will behave significantly different in the peer-assessment. This study adopted questionnaire and quasi-experimental design, and its data source was drawn from the students of “Organization Behavior” course in a public university in northern Taiwan. Statistical analysis techniques were employed to analyze data. The results found that: 1. Comparing with their counterparts, female assessors had more similar peer-evaluation results across anonymous and named assessment conditions. 2. Females might be more suitable to teamwork than males. They tend to have better group interaction. 3. Our study found that mix-gender group had the best team performance. Implications of this study conclude the research.

Authors:
Huey-Wen Chou, National Central University, Taiwan
Ting-Wei Fan, National Central University, Taiwan

About the Presenter(s)
Professor Huey-Wen Chou is a University Professor/Principal Lecturer at National Central University in Taiwan

See this presentation on the full schedule – Friday Schedule

Bookmark