Theresia Devi Indriasari
Paul Denny
Andrew Luxton-Reilly
Danielle Lottridge
ABSTRACT
Peer code review is not a standard activity within university programming courses. Educators are interested in implementing peer code review because it benefits students by developing their programming skills. One important challenge to address is how to motivate students to engage with the activity. In this study, we explore gamification as an approach for motivating students to manage their review submission time through the use of game elements and mechanics. We conducted a randomised controlled study and explored the review submission time from the log data and survey data. We found that the combination of game elements (i.e., battery, points, leaderboard) influenced students in the gamification group to better manage their review submission time by spreading the review submissions over the review period. These findings can assist academics and educators in understanding how selected game mechanics can assist in motivating students to distribute their review work more evenly over the course time period.
- Bariş Ardiç, İrem Yurdakul, and Eray Tüzün. 2020. Creation of a Serious Game for Teaching Code Review: An Experience Report. In 2020 IEEE 32nd Conf. on SE Ed. and Training (CSEE&T). 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSEET49119.2020.9206173Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2006), 77–101. Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oaGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- 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 Ex. Abs. on Human Factors in Comp. Sys. (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CHI EA ’11). ACM, NY, USA, 2425–2428. https://doi.org/10.1145/1979742.1979575Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lu Ding, Erkan Er, and Michael Orey. 2018. An exploratory study of student engagement in gamified online discussions. Computers & Education 120 (2018), 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.007Google ScholarCross Ref
- William G. Emeny, Marissa K. Hartwig, and Doug Rohrer. 2021. Spaced mathematics practice improves test scores and reduces overconfidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology 35, 4 (2021), 1082–1089. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3814Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nickolas J.G. Falkner and Katrina E. Falkner. 2012. A Fast Measure for Identifying At-Risk Students in Computer Science. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (Auckland, New Zealand) (ICER ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2361276.2361288Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lasse Hakulinen, Tapio Auvinen, and Ari Korhonen. 2015. The Effect of Achievement Badges on Students’ Behavior: An Empirical Study in a University-Level Computer Science Course. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (Online) 10, 1 (2015), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v10i1.4221Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.893418Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marissa K. Hartwig and Eric D. Malain. 2022. Do students space their course study? Those who do earn higher grades.Learning and Instruction 77 (2022), 101538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101538Google ScholarCross Ref
- Biyun Huang and Khe Foon Hew. 2018. Implementing a theory-driven gamification model in higher education flipped courses: Effects on out-of-class activity completion and quality of artifacts. Computers & Education 125 (2018), 254–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.018Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Proc. of the 41st Tech. Symp.(SIGCSE ’10). ACM, NY, USA, 500–504. https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734432Google ScholarDigital Library
- Theresia Devi Indriasari, Paul Denny, Danielle Lottridge, and Andrew Luxton-Reilly. 2022. Gamification improves the quality of student peer code review. Computer Science Education 0, 0 (2022), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2022.2124094Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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 25, 6 (01 Nov 2020), 5205–5234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10228-xGoogle ScholarDigital Library
- Theresia Devi Indriasari, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Paul Denny. 2020. A Review of Peer Code Review in Higher Education. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 3, Article 22 (sep 2020), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3403935Google ScholarDigital Library
- Theresia Devi Indriasari, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Paul Denny. 2021. Improving Student Peer Code Review Using Gamification. In Australasian Computing Education Conference (Virtual, SA, Australia) (ACE ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 80–87. https://doi.org/10.1145/3441636.3442308Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael S. Irwin and Stephen H. Edwards. 2019. Can Mobile Gaming Psychology Be Used to Improve Time Management on Programming Assignments?. In Proc. of the ACM Conf. on Global Comp. Ed. (Chengdu,Sichuan, China) (CompEd ’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 208–214. https://doi.org/10.1145/3300115.3309517Google ScholarDigital Library
- Joey J Lee and Jessica Hammer. 2011. Gamification in education: What, how, why bother?Academic exchange quarterly 15, 2 (2011), 146.Google Scholar
- Jenni Majuri, Jonna Koivisto, and Juho Hamari. 2018. Gamification of education and learning: A review of empirical literature. In Proceedings of the 2nd international GamiFIN conference, GamiFIN 2018. CEUR-WS.Google Scholar
- Nicolas Michinov, Sophie Brunot, Olivier Le Bohec, Jacques Juhel, and Marine Delaval. 2011. Procrastination, participation, and performance in online learning environments. Computers & Education 56, 1 (2011), 243–252. Serious Games.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gabriela Morales-Martinez, Paul Latreille, and Paul Denny. 2020. Nationality and Gender Biases in Multicultural Online Learning Environments: The Effects of Anonymity. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376283Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Rong, J. Li, M. Xie, and T. Zheng. 2012. The Effect of Checklist in Code Review for Inexperienced Students: An Empirical Study. In 2012 IEEE 25th Conf. on Soft. Eng. Ed. and Training. 120–124. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSEET.2012.22Google ScholarDigital Library
- Arlene A Russell. 2004. Calibrated peer review-a writing and critical-thinking instructional tool. Teaching Tips: Innovations in UG Science Instruction 54 (2004).Google Scholar
- Jirarat Sitthiworachart and Mike Joy. 2004. Effective Peer Assessment for Learning Computer Programming. In Proc. of the 9th Annual SIGCSE Conf. on Innovation and Technology in CS Education (Leeds, United Kingdom) (ITiCSE ’04). ACM, NY, USA, 122–126. https://doi.org/10.1145/1007996.1008030Google ScholarDigital Library
- Martijn Stegeman, Erik Barendsen, and Sjaak Smetsers. 2014. Towards an Empirically Validated Model for Assessment of Code Quality. In Proceedings of the 14th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli, Finland) (Koli Calling ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1145/2674683.2674702Google ScholarDigital Library
- Martijn Stegeman, Erik Barendsen, and Sjaak Smetsers. 2016. Designing a Rubric for Feedback on Code Quality in Programming Courses. In Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli, Finland) (Koli Calling ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 160–164. https://doi.org/10.1145/2999541.2999555Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thyago Tenório, Ig Ibert Bittencourt, Seiji Isotani, Alan Pedro, and Patrícia Ospina. 2016. A gamified peer assessment model for on-line learning environments in a competitive context. Computers in Human Behavior 64 (2016), 247 – 263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.049Google ScholarDigital Library
- Iman YeckehZaare, Chloe Aronoff, and Gail Grot. 2022. Retrieval-Based Teaching Incentivizes Spacing and Improves Grades in Computer Science Education. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - Volume 1 (Providence, RI, USA) (SIGCSE 2022). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 892–898. https://doi.org/10.1145/3478431.3499408Google ScholarDigital Library
- Iman YeckehZaare, Elijah Fox, Gail Grot, Sean Chen, Claire Walkosak, Kevin Kwon, Annelise Hofmann, Jessica Steir, Olivia McGeough, and Nealie Silverstein. 2021. Incentivized Spacing and Gender in Computer Science Education. In Proc. of the 17th ACM Conf. on Int. Comp. Ed. Res. (Virtual Event, USA) (ICER 2021). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3446871.3469760Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Impacting the Submission Timing of Student Work Using Gamification
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