Are men and women really different? The effects of gender and training on peer scoring and perceptions of peer assessment

Abstract

Abstract A number of studies have expressed that gender might be a source of difference and bias in peer assessment activities. However, evidence supporting this remains mixed and scant. The present study examined gender difference and accuracy bias between men and women assessors’ peer scoring of same-sex or opposite-sex writing samples using a quasi-experimental approach in which we implemented peer assessment training to explore if it could minimise gender difference and bias. Additionally, we also explored the effects on participants’ perceptions of trust and comfort in giving peer scores. A total of 145 (men = 25) psychology students enrolled in four separate courses participated in this study. Two of the classes received peer assessment training, while the other two only received task instructions. Participants were divided into eight scoring subgroups where they peer scored three writing samples of varying quality (poor, average and excellent) using a scoring rubric in Eduflow. We found that, regardless of their training condition, men and women assessors did not differ in their peer scores of men and women peers. Only untrained men assessors showed less trust in their abilities and discomfort when peer scoring women assessees’ writing samples.