January 2012 Volume 15 Number 1 - Educational Technology ...

to alert interacting parties of updated messages (in this case, newly posed responses to questions or assessments).
Finally, system functions can be dynamically changed to either suit the instructors’ educational goals and
instructional plans, or match students’ developmental stages, needs and preferences (Yu, 2009). All in all, these
guarantee more fluent question-generation for implementing teachers and students alike.
Why peer-assessment in conjunction with student question-generation?
Several cognitive processes are mobilized when students engage in peer assessment activities. Assessing peers’ work
stimulates critical thinking as constructive comments and objective judgments are the targeted outcomes. Reviewing
peers’ work in turn frequently re-directs students to re-examine their own work and the follow-up enhancements or
modifications. On the other hand, when students receive feedback from assessors, provided comments may introduce
cognitive conflict and challenge students to deal with incomplete or inaccurate conceptualizations. Knowledge
structuring and re-structuring are cultivated through a continuous process of self-examination, monitoring, evaluation,
correcting, adjustment, among other things. These processes, based on cognitive conflict theory, social
constructivism and social learning theory, should promote cognitive abilities and critical thinking (Falchikov &
Goldfinch, 2000; Topping, 1998; van Gennip, Segers, & Tillema, 2009). Empirical evidence further supports peerassessment’s
facilitative effects on promoting learners’ higher-order thinking, cognitive re-structuring, motivation,
academic performance and attitudes toward studied subject (Brindley & Scoffield, 1998; Falchikov & Goldfinch,
2000; Gatfield, 1999; Hanrahan & Isaacs, 2001; Liu et al., 2001; Purchase, 2000; Topping, 1998; Tsai, Lin, & Yuan,
2002; van Gennip et al., 2009).
The practicality of peer-assessment also adds value to question-generation activities. Providing feedback to
individual students about their work (in this case, questions generated by students) is important, but it is very timeconsuming
and effort-intensive for teachers when it is solely their responsibility. In view of this, making use of peers
as assessors allows for timely and personalized feedback while allowing instructors more time to focus on other
aspects of the class.
Why different online identity revelation modes?
Different levels of identity revelation can be made available online: real-identity (complete identity revelation),
created identity via nickname (partial identity revelation) and anonymity (complete identity concealment). According
to social psychology literature, evaluation anxiety and self-validation based on social comparison may be of less
concern to individuals participating in situations where they are not identified (Cooper et al., 1998; Franzoi, 2006;
Lea, Spears, & de Groot, 2001; Moral-Toranzo, Canto-Ortiz, & Gómez-Jacinto, 2007; Palme & Berglund, 2002;
Pinsonneault & Heppel, 1997-98; Postmes & Lea, 2000). By lessening inhibitions, anonymity has been suggested to
permit group members to meet needs that they cannot otherwise satisfy, and promote intimacy, affection, and
playfulness (Festinger, Pepitone, & Newcomb, 1952; Gergen, Gergen, & Barton, 1973).
Nicknames, on the other hand, have been reported to possess great motivational potential. Like anonymity,
nicknames can protect participants from being identified immediately. The flexibility, easiness and fun of changing
one’s identity to suit his or her mood at any given time holds further motivational value for participants (Yu & Liu,
2009). In view of its popularity among web-users and its prevalence in newsgroups, online chat-rooms, forums and
instant messaging space, the potential of identity self-creation, as compared to real-identity and no-identity
(anonymity), demands rigid investigation to warrant its inclusion and use in educational contexts.
Purpose of this study
While most research found anonymity to be statistically significantly different from identified situations with regards
to perceptual impression, communication and behavior (Cooper et al., 1998; Moral-Toranzo et al., 2007;
Pinsonneault & Heppel, 1997-98; Postmes & Lea, 2000; Yu, 2003; Yu, Han, & Chan, 2008), and students exhibited
significantly varied preferences for different identity revelation modes (Yu & Liu, 2009), it has not yet been found
whether different identity modes have different educative effects.
65