skip to main content
research-article

A Review of Peer Code Review in Higher Education

Published: 09 September 2020 Publication History

Abstract

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 authors. For example, in the software industry peer review of program source code—or peer code review—is a key technique for detecting bugs and maintaining coding standards. In a programming education context, although peer code review offers potential benefits to both code reviewers and code authors, individuals are typically less experienced, which presents a number of challenges. Some of these challenges are similar to those reported in the educational literature on peer review in other academic disciplines, but reviewing code presents unique difficulties. Better understanding these challenges and the conditions under which code review can be taught and implemented successfully in computer science courses is of value to the computing education community. In this work, we conduct a systematic review of the literature on peer code review in higher education to examine instructor motivations for conducting peer code review activities, how such activities have been implemented in practice, and the primary benefits and difficulties that have been reported. We initially identified 187 potential studies and analyzed 51 empirical studies pertinent to our goals. We report the most commonly cited benefits (e.g., the development of programming-related skills) and barriers (e.g., low student engagement), and we identify a wide variety of tools that have been used to facilitate the peer code review process. While we argue that more empirical work is needed to validate currently reported results related to learning outcomes, there is also a clear need to address the challenges around student motivation, which we believe could be an important avenue for future research.

References

[1]
Heidi Allen, Alexandra Cury, Thomas Gaston, Chris Graf, Hannah Wakley, and Michael Willis. 2019. What does better peer review look like? Underlying principles and recommendations for better practice. Learned Publishing 32, 2 (2019), 163--175.
[2]
Fernando Almeida. 2018. Framework for software code reviews and inspections in a classroom environment. Int. J. Modern Educ. Comput. Sci. 10, 10 (2018), 31--39.
[3]
Deepika Badampudi, Ricardo Britto, and Michael Unterkalmsteiner. 2019. Modern code reviews - Preliminary results of a systematic mapping study. In Proceedings of the Evaluation and Assessment on Software Engineering (EASE’19). ACM, New York, NY, 340--345.
[4]
K. Berkling and K. Neubehler. 2019. Boosting student performance with peer reviews; Integration and analysis of peer reviews in a gamified software engineering classroom. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON’19). 253--262.
[5]
Antonella Carbonaro and Mirko Ravaioli. 2017. Peer assessment to promote deep learning and to reduce a gender gap in the traditional introductory programming course. J. e-Learn. Knowl. Soc. 13, 3 (September 2017).
[6]
R. Chmiel and M. C. Loui. 2003. An integrated approach to instruction in debugging computer programs. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Frontiers in Education (FIE’03), Vol. 3. S4C1–S4C6.
[7]
Ryan Chmiel and Michael C. Loui. 2004. Debugging: From novice to expert. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’04). ACM, New York, NY, 17--21.
[8]
Kwangsu Cho and Charles MacArthur. 2010. Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learn. Instruct. 20, 4 (2010), 328--338.
[9]
Nicole Clark. 2004. Peer testing in software engineering projects. In Proceedings of the 6th Australasian Conference on Computing Education, Volume 30 (ACE’04). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, 41--48.
[10]
Stavros Demetriadis, Tina Egerter, Frank Hanisch, and Frank Fischer. 2011. Peer review-based scripted collaboration to support domain-specific and domain-general knowledge acquisition in computer science. Comput. Sci. Educ. 21, 1 (2011), 29--56.
[11]
Paul Denny. 2013. The effect of virtual achievements on student engagement. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 763--772.
[12]
Paul Denny, Fiona McDonald, Ruth Empson, Philip Kelly, and Andrew Petersen. 2018. Empirical support for a causal relationship between gamification and learning outcomes. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 1--13.
[13]
Sebastian Deterding, Miguel Sicart, Lennart Nacke, Kenton O’Hara, and Dan Dixon. 2011. Gamification. Using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. In CHI’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’11). ACM, New York, NY, 2425--2428.
[14]
Wade Fagen and Samuel Kamin. 2013. Measuring increased engagement using tablet PCs in a code review class. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’13). ACM, New York, NY, 465--470.
[15]
Nancy Falchikov. 2007. The place of peers in learning and assessment. Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning for the Longer Term (2007), 128--143.
[16]
Nancy Falchikov. 2013. Improving Assessment through Student Involvement: Practical Solutions for Aiding Learning in Higher and Further Education. Routledge.
[17]
Edward F. Gehringer, Donald D. Chinn, Manuel A. Pérez-Quiñones, and Mark A. Ardis. 2005. Using peer review in teaching computing. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’05). ACM, New York, NY, 321--322.
[18]
Harri Hämäläinen, Ville Hyyrynen, Jouni Ikonen, and Jari Porras. 2011. Applying peer-review for programming assignments. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Secur. 1 (2011), 3--17.
[19]
H. Hamalainen, J. Tarkkonen, K. Heikkinen, J. Ikonen, and J. Porras. 2009. Use of peer-review system for enhancing learning of programming. In Proceedings of the 2009 9th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. 658--660.
[20]
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 Bull. 40, 4 (Nov. 2008), 194--212.
[21]
John Hamer, Helen Purchase, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Paul Denny. 2015. A comparison of peer and tutor feedback. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 40, 1 (2015), 151--164.
[22]
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). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 27--36.
[23]
J. H. Hayes, I. R. Chemannoor, and E. A. Holbrook. 2011. Improved code defect detection with fault links. Softw. Test. Verif. Reliabil. 21, 4 (2011), 299--325.
[24]
Francis Heylighen, Iavor Kostov, and Mixel Kiemen. 2013. Mobilization systems: Technologies for motivating and coordinating human action. In The New Development Paradigm: Education, Knowledge Economy and Digital Futures. Routledge. Retrieved from http://pcp.vub.ac.be/Papers/MobilizationSystems.pdf.
[25]
Bart Huisman, Nadira Saab, Paul van den Broek, and Jan van Driel. 2019. The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: A meta-analysis. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 44, 6 (2019), 863--880.
[26]
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 Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’09). ACM, New York, NY, 291--295.
[27]
Christopher Hundhausen, Anukrati Agrawal, Dana Fairbrother, and Michael Trevisan. 2010. Does studio-based instruction work in CS 1?: An empirical comparison with a traditional approach. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’10). ACM, New York, NY, 500--504.
[28]
Christopher Hundhausen, Anukrati Agrawal, and Kyle Ryan. 2010. The design of an online environment to support pedagogical code reviews. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’10). ACM, New York, NY, 182--186.
[29]
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 ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’11). ACM, New York, NY, 117--122.
[30]
Christopher D. Hundhausen, Anukrati Agrawal, and Pawan Agarwal. 2013. Talking about code: Integrating pedagogical code reviews into early computing courses. Trans. Comput. Educ. 13, 3, Article 14 (Aug. 2013), 28 pages.
[31]
Theresia Devi Indriasari, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Paul Denny. 2020. Gamification of student peer review in education: A systematic literature review. Education and Information Technologies (2020).
[32]
Sam Kavanagh and Andrew Luxton-Reilly. 2016. Rubrics used in peer assessment. In Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference (ACSW’16). ACM, New York, NY.
[33]
Shivam Khandelwal, Sai Krishna Sripada, and Y. Raghu Reddy. 2017. Impact of gamification on code review process: An experimental study. In Proceedings of the 10th Innovations in Software Engineering Conference (ISEC’17). ACM, New York, NY, 122--126.
[34]
Barbara Kitchenham. 2004. Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele University Technical Report TR/SE-0401. Keele University. Available at http://www.it.hiof.no/~haraldh/misc/2016-08-22-smat/Kitchenham-Systematic-Review-2004.pdf.
[35]
Stephan Krusche, Mjellma Berisha, and Bernd Bruegge. 2016. Teaching code review management using branch based workflows. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE’16). ACM, New York, NY, 384--393.
[36]
Z. Kubincová and M. Homola. 2017. Code review in computer science courses: Take one. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Vol. 10473, 125--135.
[37]
Cen Li, Zhijiang Dong, Roland H. Untch, and Michael Chasteen. 2012. Facilitating peer review in an online collaborative learning environment for computer science students. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Frontiers in Education: Computer Science and Computer Engineering (FECS’12).
[38]
X. Li. 2006. Using peer review to assess coding standards—A case study. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference on Frontiers in Education. 9--14.
[39]
Xiaosong Li and Donald Joyce. 2008. Towards a framework for a code review process. N. Z. J. Appl. Comput. Inf. Technol. 12, 1 (2008).
[40]
Andrew Luxton-Reilly. 2009. A systematic review of tools that support peer assessment. Comput. Sci. Educ. 19, 4 (2009), 209--232.
[41]
Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Arthur Lewis, and Beryl Plimmer. 2018. Comparing sequential and parallel code review techniques for formative feedback. In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE’18). ACM, New York, NY, 45--52.
[42]
M. V. Mäntylä and C. Lassenius. 2009. What types of defects are really discovered in code reviews? IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35, 3 (May 2009), 430--448.
[43]
Mark Meysenburg, Tessa Durham Brooks, Raychelle Burks, Erin Doyle, and Timothy Frey. 2018. DIVAS: Outreach to the natural sciences through image processing. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’18). ACM, New York, NY, 777--782.
[44]
O. Mirmotahari, Y. Berg, E. Fremstad, and C. Damsa. 2019. Student engagement by employing student peer reviews with criteria-based assessment. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON’19). 1152--1157.
[45]
L. Moccozet, C. Tardy, W. Opprecht, and M. Léonard. 2013. Gamification-based assessment of group work. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL). IEEE, 171--179.
[46]
M. M. Müller. 2005. Two controlled experiments concerning the comparison of pair programming to peer review. J. Syst. Softw. 78, 2 (2005), 166--179.
[47]
Alexey Neznanov and Olga Maksimenkova. 2016. The PASCA: A mail based randomized blinded peer assessment system for complex artifacts. Proc. Comput. Sci. 96 (2016), 826--837.
[48]
N. O’Hara and D. O’Broin. 2016. Incorporating game elements into programming practical classes to encourage collaboration and knowledge sharing, T. M. Connolly and L. Boyle (Ed.). In Proceedings of the European Conference on Games-based Learning, 515--520.
[49]
M. Palomo-Duarte, J. Manuel Dodero, and A. García-Domínguez. 2014. Betting system for formative code review in educational competitions. Expert Syst. Appl. 41, 5 (2014), 2222--2230.
[50]
Ernesto Panadero and Maryam Alqassab. 2019. An empirical review of anonymity effects in peer assessment, peer feedback, peer review, peer evaluation and peer grading. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 44, 8 (2019), 1253--1278.
[51]
Jungkook Park, Yeong Hoon Park, Suin Kim, and Alice Oh. 2017. Eliph: Effective visualization of code history for peer assessment in programming education. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW’17). ACM, New York, NY, 458--467.
[52]
Jon Pearce, Raoul Mulder, and Chi Baik. 2009. Involving Students in Peer Review: Case Studies and Practical Strategies for University Teaching. Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne. https://people.eng.unimelb.edu.au/jonmp/pubs/Praze/Student_Peer_Review.pdf.
[53]
Joe Gibbs Politz, Joseph M. Collard, Arjun Guha, Kathi Fisler, and Shriram Krishnamurthi. 2016. The sweep: Essential examples for in-flow peer review. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE’16). ACM, New York, NY, 243--248.
[54]
Joe Gibbs Politz, Shriram Krishnamurthi, and Kathi Fisler. 2014. In-flow peer-review of tests in test-first programming. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’14). ACM, New York, NY, 11--18.
[55]
Heather Pon-Barry, Becky Wai-Ling Packard, and Audrey St. John. 2017. Expanding capacity and promoting inclusion in introductory computer science: A focus on near-peer mentor preparation and code review. Comput. Sci. Educ. 27, 1 (2017), 54--77.
[56]
Marta Ramon-Casas, Neus Nuño, Ferran Pons, and Toni Cunillera. 2019. The different impact of a structured peer-assessment task in relation to university undergraduates’ initial writing skills. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 44, 5 (2019), 653--663.
[57]
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, 115--124.
[58]
Peter C. Rigby and Christian Bird. 2013. Convergent contemporary software peer review practices. In Proceedings of the 2013 9th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE’13). ACM, New York, NY, 202--212.
[59]
G. Rong, J. Li, M. Xie, and T. Zheng. 2012. The effect of checklist in code review for inexperienced students: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 25th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training. 120--124.
[60]
Rochelle F. Rubin and Traci Turner. 2012. Student performance on and attitudes toward peer assessments on advanced pharmacy practice experience assignments. Curr. Pharm. Teach. Learn. 4, 2 (2012), 113--121.
[61]
Jorge G. Ruiz, Chris Candler, and Thomas A. Teasdale. 2007. Peer reviewing e-learning: Opportunities, challenges, and solutions. Acad. Med. 82, 5 (2007), 503--507.
[62]
Ryan Rybarczyk and Lingma Acheson. 2019. Interactive peer-led code reviews in CS2 curricula. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’19). ACM, New York, NY, 659--665.
[63]
Joanna Smith, Joe Tessler, Elliot Kramer, and Calvin Lin. 2012. Using peer review to teach software testing. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’12). ACM, New York, NY, 93--98.
[64]
Harald Sondergaard. 2009. Learning from and with peers: The different roles of student peer reviewing. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’09). ACM, New York, NY, 31--35.
[65]
Harald Søndergaard and Raoul A. Mulder. 2012. Collaborative learning through formative peer review: Pedagogy, programs and potential. Comput. Sci. Educ. 22, 4 (2012), 343--367.
[66]
S. Sripada, Y. R. Reddy, and A. Sureka. 2015. In support of peer code review and inspection in an undergraduate software engineering course. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 28th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training. 3--6.
[67]
S. K. Sripada and Y. R. Reddy. 2015. Code comprehension activities in undergraduate software engineering course—A case study. In Proceedings of the 2015 24th Australasian Software Engineering Conference. 68--77.
[68]
T. Stalhane, C. Kutay, H. Al-Kilidar, and R. Jeffery. 2004. Teaching the process of code review. In Proceedings of the 2004 Australian Software Engineering Conference. 271--278.
[69]
Q. Sun, J. Wu, W. Rong, and W. Liu. 2019. Formative assessment of programming language learning based on peer code review: Implementation and experience report. Tsingh. Sci. Technol. 24, 4 (August 2019), 423--434.
[70]
Keith Topping. 1998. Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Rev. Educ. Res. 68, 3 (1998), 249--276.
[71]
Deborah A. Trytten. 2005. A design for team peer code review. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’05). ACM, New York, NY, 455--459.
[72]
Scott Turner, Manuel A. Pérez-Quiñones, Stephen Edwards, and Joseph Chase. 2011. Student attitudes and motivation for peer review in CS2. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’11). ACM, New York, NY, 347--352.
[73]
Scott Alexander Turner, Manuel A. Pérez-Quiñones, and Stephen H. Edwards. 2018. Peer review in CS2: Conceptual learning and high-level thinking. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 18, 3, Article 13 (September 2018), 37 pages.
[74]
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, 97--101.
[75]
St. Mary’s University. 2018. Glossary of Terms. Retrieved May 14, 2019 from https://catalog.stmarytx.edu/undergraduate/academic-policies-procedures/glossary-terms/.
[76]
Y. Wang, W. Ai, Y. Liang, and Y. Liu. 2015. Toward motivating participants to assess peers’ work more fairly: Taking programing language learning as an example. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 52, 2 (2015), 180--198.
[77]
Y. Wang, H. Li, Y. Feng, Y. Jiang, and Y. Liu. 2012. Assessment of programming language learning based on peer code review model: Implementation and experience report. Comput. Educ. 59, 2 (2012), 412--422.
[78]
Y. Wang, Y. Liang, L. Liu, and Y. Liu. 2016. A multi-peer assessment platform for programming language learning: Considering group non-consensus and personal radicalness. Interact. Learn. Environ. 24, 8 (2016), 2011--2031.
[79]
Yanqing Wang, Xing Su, Yan Hu, and Qing Wang. 2007. How to evaluate students’ learning outcome: A peer code review model in undergraduate programming class. In Proceedings of International Conference of Computer Science and Engineering (ICCSE’07). 1292--1295.
[80]
Yanqing Wang, Haoran Wang, Christian Schunn, and Emily Baehr. 2016. Choosing a better moment to assign reviewers in peer assessment: The earlier the better, or the later the better? In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM Workshops’16). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1633/ws1-paper11.pdf.
[81]
Yanqing Wang, L. I. Yijun, Michael Collins, and Peijie Liu. 2008. Process improvement of peer code review and behavior analysis of its participants. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’08). ACM, New York, NY, 107--111.
[82]
Y.-Q. Wang, Z.-Y. Qi, L.-J. Zhang, and M.-J. Song. 2011. Research and practice on education of SQA at source code level. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 27, 1 part 1 (2011), 70--76.
[83]
Claes Wohlin. 2014. Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE’14). ACM, New York, NY.
[84]
W. Yanqing, L. Hang, S. Yanan, J. Yu, and Y. Jie. 2011. Learning outcomes of programming language courses based on peer code review model. In Proceedings of the 2011 6th International Conference on Computer Science Education (ICCSE’11). 751--754.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Large Language Model-Supported Software Testing with the CS Matrix TaxonomyJournal of Computing Sciences in Colleges10.5555/3715602.371561240:1(49-58)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Enhancing Peer Review with AI-Powered Suggestion Generation Assistance: Investigating the Design DynamicsProceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces10.1145/3640543.3645169(88-102)Online publication date: 18-Mar-2024
  • (2024)Computing Education in the Era of Generative AICommunications of the ACM10.1145/362472067:2(56-67)Online publication date: 25-Jan-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. A Review of Peer Code Review in Higher Education

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education
    ACM Transactions on Computing Education  Volume 20, Issue 3
    September 2020
    200 pages
    EISSN:1946-6226
    DOI:10.1145/3406963
    Issue’s Table of Contents
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 09 September 2020
    Accepted: 01 June 2020
    Revised: 01 May 2020
    Received: 01 January 2020
    Published in TOCE Volume 20, Issue 3

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Peer review
    2. code review
    3. higher education
    4. peer code review
    5. programming course
    6. systematic literature review
    7. systematic review

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed

    Funding Sources

    • Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP)

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)336
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)41
    Reflects downloads up to 23 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Large Language Model-Supported Software Testing with the CS Matrix TaxonomyJournal of Computing Sciences in Colleges10.5555/3715602.371561240:1(49-58)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2024
    • (2024)Enhancing Peer Review with AI-Powered Suggestion Generation Assistance: Investigating the Design DynamicsProceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces10.1145/3640543.3645169(88-102)Online publication date: 18-Mar-2024
    • (2024)Computing Education in the Era of Generative AICommunications of the ACM10.1145/362472067:2(56-67)Online publication date: 25-Jan-2024
    • (2024)Barriers for Students During Code Change ComprehensionProceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering10.1145/3597503.3639227(1-13)Online publication date: 20-May-2024
    • (2024)A Systematic Literature Review on Recent Peer Code Review Implementation in Education2024 International Conference on TVET Excellence & Development (ICTeD)10.1109/ICTeD62334.2024.10844661(13-19)Online publication date: 16-Dec-2024
    • (2024)The future of grading programming assignments in education: The role of ChatGPT in automating the assessment and feedback processThinking Skills and Creativity10.1016/j.tsc.2024.10152252(101522)Online publication date: Jun-2024
    • (2024)A Serious Game Approach to Introduce the Code Review PracticeJournal of Software: Evolution and Process10.1002/smr.2750Online publication date: 22-Dec-2024
    • (2023)Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (GPT) Models as a Code Review Feedback Tool in Computer Science ProgramsJournal of Computing Sciences in Colleges10.5555/3636517.363652239:1(38-47)Online publication date: 6-Dec-2023
    • (2023)Impacting the Submission Timing of Student Work Using GamificationProceedings of the 16th Annual ACM India Compute Conference10.1145/3627217.3627218(7-12)Online publication date: 9-Dec-2023
    • (2023)Does Peer Code Review Change My Mind on My Submission?Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3587102.3588802(498-504)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2023
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Login options

    Full Access

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media