Andrew Luxton-Reilly
Arthur Lewis
Beryl Plimmer
ABSTRACT
The practice of Peer Review is widespread across a range of academic disciplines. We report on a study that compared two different approaches of peer reviewing program code --- reviewing a sequence of solutions to the same problem (sequential code review), and reviewing a set of multiple solutions side-by-side (parallel code review). We found that the parallel approach was preferred by the majority of participants in the study and there were some indications that it might be more helpful for reviewers, but the sequential approach elicited more written comments in general, and more specific critical comments compared with the parallel approach. Although parallel reviews may be preferred by reviewers, using sequential reviews appears to result in increased levels of formative feedback for the recipient.
- Karen Anewalt. 2005. Using Peer Review As a Vehicle for Communication Skill Development and Active Learning. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 21, 2 (Dec. 2005), 148--155. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1089053.1089074Google Scholar
Digital Library
- R. E. Boyatzis. 1998. Thematic Analysis and Code Development: Transforming Qualitative Information. Sage Publications I, London.Google Scholar
- Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77--101. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Robert Davies and Teresa Berrow. 1998. An Evaluation of the Use of Computer Supported Peer Review for Developing Higher-level Skills. Computers & Education 30, 1 (1998), 111--115. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nancy Falchikov. 1995. Peer Feedback Marking: Developing Peer Assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 32, 2 (1995), 175--187. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mark Freeman and Jo McKenzie. 2001. Aligning Peer Assessment with Peer Learning for Large Classes: The Case for an Online Self and Peer Assessment System. In Peer Learning in Higher Education, David Boud, Ruth Cohen, and Jane Sampson (Eds.). Kogan Page, 156--169.Google Scholar
- Sarah Gielen, Elien Peeters, Filip Dochy, Patrick Onghena, and Katrien Struyven. 2010. Improving the Effectiveness of Peer Feedback for Learning. Learning and Instruction 20 (Aug 2010), 304--315. Google ScholarCross Ref
- John Hamer, Quintin Cutts, Jana Jackova, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Robert McCartney, Helen Purchase, Charles Riedesel, Mara Saeli, Kate Sanders, and Judithe Sheard. 2008. Contributing Student Pedagogy. SIGCSE Bulletin 40, 4 (2008), 194--212. Google ScholarDigital Library
- John Hamer, Helen Purchase, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Paul Denny. 2015. A Comparison of Peer and Tutor Feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 40, 1 (2015), 151--164. Google ScholarCross Ref
- John Hamer, Helen C. Purchase, Paul Denny, and Andrew Luxton-Reilly. 2009. Quality of Peer Assessment in CS1. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 27--36. Google ScholarDigital Library
- John Hamer, Helen C. Purchase, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Judithe Sheard. 2010. Tools for "Contributing Student Learning". In Proceedings of the 2010 ITiCSE working group reports (ITiCSE-WGR '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1--14. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stephanie J. Hanrahan and Geoff Isaacs. 2001. Assessing Self- and Peer-assessment: The Students' Views. Higher Education Research & Development 20 (2001), 53--69. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christopher Hundhausen, Anukrati Agrawal, Dana Fairbrother, and Michael Trevisan. 2009. Integrating Pedagogical Code Reviews into a CS 1 Course: An Empirical Study. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 291--295. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christopher D. Hundhausen, Pawan Agarwal, and Michael Trevisan. 2011. Online vs. Face-to-face Pedagogical Code Reviews: An Empirical Comparison. In Proceedings of the 42nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 117--122. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Karen Keefe, Judithe Sheard, and Martin Dick. 2006. Adopting XP Practices for Teaching Object Oriented Programming. In Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE '06). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, 91--100. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1151869.1151882Google Scholar
- Sunny Lin, Eric Liu, and Shyan-Ming Yuan. 2001. Web-based peer assessment: Feedback for students with various thinking styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 17 (Dec 2001), 420--432. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andrew Luxton-Reilly. 2009. A systematic review of tools that support peer assessment. Computer Science Education 19, 4 (Dec 2009), 209--232. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Paul Denny, Beryl Plimmer, and Daniel Bertinshaw. 2011. Supporting Student-generated Free-response Questions. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 153--157. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Paul Denny, Beryl Plimmer, and Robert Sheehan. 2012. Activities, Affordances and Attitude: How Student-generated Questions Assist Learning. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4--9. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Russell Mark, Haritos George, and Combes Alan. 2006. Individualising Students' Scores Using Blind and Holistic Peer Assessment. Engineering Education 1, 1 (2006), 50--60. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yongwu Miao and Rob Koper. 2007. An Efficient and Flexible Technical Approach to Develop and Deliver Online Peer Assessment. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL '07). International Society of the Learning Sciences, 506--515. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1599600.1599693Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ken Reily, Pam Ludford Finnerty, and Loren Terveen. 2009. Two Peers Are Better Than One: Aggregating Peer Reviews for Computing Assignments is Surprisingly Accurate. In Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 115--124. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Elaine Silva and Dilvan Moreira. 2003. WebCoM: A Tool to Use Peer Review to Improve Student Interaction. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC) 3, 1, Article 3 (Mar 2003). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Keith Topping. 1998. Peer Assessment Between Students in Colleges and Universities. Review of Educational Research 68, 3 (1998), 249--276. Google Scholar
- Scott A. Turner, Ricardo Quintana-Castillo, Manuel A. Pérez-Quiñones, and Stephen H. Edwards. 2008. Misunderstandings About Object-oriented Design: Experiences Using Code Reviews. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 97--101. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eira Williams. 1992. Student Attitudes Towards Approaches to Learning and Assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 17, 1 (1992), 45--58. Google ScholarCross Ref
- William J. Wolfe. 2004. Online Student Peer Reviews. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Information Technology Education (CITC5 '04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 33--37. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andreas Zeller. 2000. Making Students Read and Review Code. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE '00). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 89--92. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Comparing sequential and parallel code review techniques for formative feedback
Recommendations
Improving Student Peer Code Review Using Gamification
ACE '21: Proceedings of the 23rd Australasian Computing Education ConferencePeer code review has been shown to have several benefits for students, including the development of both technical skills and soft skills. However, a lack of motivation has been identified as one of the barriers to successful peer code review in ...
Investigating Accuracy and Perceived Value of Feedback in Peer Code Review Using Gamification
ITiCSE '21: Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1The practice of peer code review has been shown to deliver a variety of benefits to programming students. These include learning from producing and receiving feedback, and from being exposed to a range of problem-solving approaches and solutions. ...
A Review of Peer Code Review in Higher Education
Peer review is the standard process within academia for maintaining publication quality, but it is also widely employed in other settings, such as education and industry, for improving work quality and for generating actionable feedback to content ...
Comments