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

Attitudes toward assessors
Perceptions toward interaction
process with assessors
Perceptions toward the engaged
learning activity
Discussion & Conclusions
Pre M (SD)
Post M (SD)
Adjusted M
Pre M (SD)
Post M (SD)
Adjusted M
Pre M (SD)
Post M (SD)
Adjusted M
85.4 (8.98)
87.64 (11.54)
84.52
89.61 (9.16)
90.22 (12.09)
87.45
29.61 (4.99)
28.31 (6.08)
26.37
75.55 (14.17)
78.61 (11.40)
81.58
81.42 (8.70)
85.68 (11.11)
88.84
24.97 (6.59)
25.87 (7.19)
27.34
79.43 (14.19)
78.86 (13.17)
79.43
85.71(11.99)
85.57 (13.21)
85.62
26.03 (6.18)
26.63 (7.15)
27.32
When compared to real identity situations, anonymity has been shown to reduce participants’ unsettled emotional
feelings and restraint in their interactions with others (Cooper et al., 1998; Moral-Toranzo et al., 2007; Pinsonneault
& Heppel, 1997-98; Postmes & Lea, 2000; Yu, 2003; Yu et al., 2008), or lead to deviant, harmful, and socially
undesirable behaviors due to the loss of a sense of self-awareness and individual accountability (DeSanctis &
Gallupe, 1987; Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984). Nicknames, on the other hand, have been suggested to hold
additional motivational value for participants by allowing them to be identified by any codes or symbols of their
choice at that point in time (Yu & Liu, 2009). Prior research has found that students exhibited statistically different
preferences for the three distinctly different identity revelation modes (with the majority preferred nickname modes
most when authoring or assessing questions) (Yu & Liu, 2009). This study was undertaken to further examine if any
comparative educative differences exist among these three modes.
The current study did not confirm the researcher’s hypothesis that different levels of identity revelation would affect
participants’ academic performance, or any aspects closely related to the engaged activities (including participants’
views toward the peer-assessment strategy, the interacting partners, interaction process, or engaged activity). Despite
this, important implications were derived by combing through related literature and closely examining the context of
investigation in search for insight and explanations.
A close analysis revealed several differences in structural features between existing studies and the current study.
First, existing studies on anonymity were mostly conducted within the framework of computer mediated group work
(e.g., electronic brainstorming, decision-making), or competitive gaming environments, whereas the current task
under investigation stressed the “mutual helping” (versus competitive) aspect of interaction and for the support of
“learning” (versus group work). Specifically, interacting parties in the study were expected to serve as partners in
learning and communicate with the intent of providing constructive feedback for the enhancement of questions their
peers generated as well as their overall learning associated with the studied contents.
Another dimension separating the present study from existing studies was the constituents of the formed groups.
Existing studies mostly involved temporarily formed groups of people whose relationships have not been formed
before the intervention while this study examined intact groups of classmates who have known each other for at least
one semester at the time of the study.
The third main difference was the duration of the experiment. Existing studies on anonymity were typically
conducted over a short period of time (with many CSCW studies adopted a one-shot approach) whereas this study
observed students interacting online for six periods, extended over six weeks.
The fourth difference might derive from different cultural settings within which the studies were carried out. The
present study was conducted in secondary school settings in an oriental country where collectivism is part of the
cultural norm, whereas most existing studies were conducted in western countries where individualism is valued.
As aforesaid, although no differences were observed in any of the examined variables, this study’s contradictory
findings to previous studies on anonymity have important implications. Foremost, the results and insights yielded
from studies done on groups with primarily oppositional or zero-interdependence relationships among users (usually
the case in competitive activities or computer-supported collaborative work, CSCW) who convened temporarily and
interacted for a short time, will be inappropriately generalizable to contexts where continuous, reciprocal assistance
70