research-article

Process improvement of peer code review and behavior analysis of its participants

Authors:

Michael Collins,

Peijie LIUAuthors Info & Claims

ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Volume 40, Issue 1

Pages 107 - 111

https://doi.org/10.1145/1352322.1352171

Published: 12 March 2008 Publication History

Abstract

The software industry is urging on universities and colleges to cultivate software engineers who can write high quality programs. Peer code review (PCR) is accepted as an ideal way to maximize the learning outcome of students in writing quality code. Using this learning process, students improve their skills while scientific and efficient management removes the extra burden from instructors such as checking programs written by every student. In this paper, the previous PCR process was improved and the definitions of the relevant roles and documents were refined as well. After implementing this process in two academic years, some problems were found. By means of summarizing the email submissions by the students and also interviewing a few students, the behavior of all participants was preliminarily analyzed. With regards to the further quality assurance and high efficiency, a web-based management information system with a built-in blind review mechanism was discussed for solving the problems with process control, and also a game theory model was proposed for addressing the ethical issues in the whole PCR process.

References

[1]

Alessandra Devito Da Cunha and David Greathead. 2007. Does Personality Matter? An Analysis of Code-review Ability. Communications of the ACM. Volume 50, Number 5 (2007), Pages 109--112. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1230819.1241672

Digital Library

[2]

Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., and Mylonas, A. 2002. "Developing Procedures for Implementing Peer Assessment in Large Classes Using and Action Research Process", Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 427--441, 2002

[3]

Belli, F., Crisan, R. 1996. Towards automation of checklist-based code-reviews. Proceedings of Seventh International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering. 30 Oct.-2 Nov. 1996 Page(s):24--33.

Digital Library

[4]

Bhalerao, A. and Ward, A. 2001. Towards electronically assisted peer assessment: a case study. Association for Learning Technology Journal (ALT-J), 9(1), 26--37, 2001

[5]

Trytten. 2005. A Design for Team Peer Code Review. Proceedings of the 36th SigCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Feb2005. v.37 n.1.

Digital Library

[6]

F.Gehringer,D.D.Chin,M.A.PerezQuinones, et al. 2005. Panel:Using Peer Review in Teaching Computing. Proceedings of the 36th SigCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Feb2005. v.37n.1.

Digital Library

[7]

Silva, D. Moriera. 2003. WebCoM: a Tool to Use Peer Review Techniques to Improve Student Interaction. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing. March 2003.

Digital Library

[8]

Emmanuel Geay, Eran Yahav, and Stephen Fink. Continuous Code-Quality Assurance with SAFE. PEPM '06 January 9-10, Charleston, South Carolina, USA. 2006, pp145--149

Digital Library

[9]

Fallows, S. and Chandramohan, B., Multiple Approaches to Assessment: Reflections on use of tutor, peer and self assessment, Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 229--246, 2001 Association for Learning Technology Journal(ALT-J), 9(1), 26--37, 2001

[10]

Hidetake Uwano, Masahide Nakamura, Akito Monden and Ken-ichi Matsumoto. Analyzing Individual Performance of Source Code Review Using Reviewers' Eye Movement. Proceedings of Eye Tracking Research & Applications Symposium 2006(ETRA'2006), San Diego, California, 27-29 March 2006, pp133--140.

Digital Library

[11]

Sitthiworachart, M. Joy.2004.On-line Feedback and Assessment: Effective Peer Assement for Learning Computer Programming. Proceedings of the 9th Annual SigCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. June 2004.

Digital Library

[12]

Jun-Suk Oh, Ho-Jin Choi. A Reflective Practice of Automated and Manual Code Reviews for a Studio Project. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information Science(ICIS'05). 2005, pp37--42.

Digital Library

[13]

Murugesan S. & Deshpande Y., 2001, Web Engineering: A new Discipline for Development of web-based systems. In: Web Engineering - Managing Diversity and Complexity of Web Application Development, Springer-Verlag.

[14]

Nagoya, F., Shaoying Liu, and Yuting Chen. A tool and case study for specification-based program review. Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference, 2005. COMPSAC'2005. Vol 1, 26-28 July 2005 pp375--380

Digital Library

[15]

PrajitK.Dutta. Strategy and Game Theory. Printing House of Shanghai Finance and Economics University, 2005: 95--108

[16]

Sluijsmans, D., Dochy, F., Moerkerke, G., "Creating a Learning Environment by Using Self-Peer-and Co- Assessment", Learning Environments Research, 1, 293--319, 1999

[17]

WANG Yan-qing, et al. How to Evaluate Students' Learning Outcome: A Peer Code Review Model in Undergraduate Computer Programming Class. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Science and Education. Wuhan, China. July 25-27, 2007, pp1292--1295.

[18]

WANG Yan-qing, et al. Quantitative Research on How Much Students Comply with Coding Standard in Their Programming Practices. Proceedings of the 3rd China Europe International Symposium on Software Industry Oriented Education, Dublin, Ireland. Jan 2007, pp116--119.

[19]

Watts S. Humphrey. Introduction to the Personal Software Process. Addison-Wesley, Pearson Education, Inc. 2002:159--163

Digital Library

Cited By

Wang YChen HHuang C(2022)Applying Two-rounds Collaborative Peer Review to Assess Students' Programming Assignments2022 IEEE International Conference on e-Business Engineering (ICEBE)10.1109/ICEBE55470.2022.00050(246-251)Online publication date: Oct-2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEBE55470.2022.00050
Chong CThongtanunam PTantithamthavorn C(2021)Assessing the Students’ Understanding and their Mistakes in Code Review Checklists -An Experience Report of 1,791 Code Review Checklist Questions from 394 Students-2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training (ICSE-SEET)10.1109/ICSE-SEET52601.2021.00011(20-29)Online publication date: May-2021
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE-SEET52601.2021.00011
Indriasari TLuxton-Reilly ADenny P(2020)A Review of Peer Code Review in Higher EducationACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/340393520:3(1-25)Online publication date: 28-Sep-2020
https://doi.org/10.1145/3403935
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Process improvement of peer code review and behavior analysis of its participants
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Management of computing and information systems
      1. System management
        Quality assurance
2. Software and its engineering
  1. Software creation and management
    1. Software verification and validation
      1. Process validation
        Walkthroughs

Recommendations

Process improvement of peer code review and behavior analysis of its participants
SIGCSE '08: Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education

The software industry is urging on universities and colleges to cultivate software engineers who can write high quality programs. Peer code review (PCR) is accepted as an ideal way to maximize the learning outcome of students in writing quality code. ...
Quality Assurance of Peer Code Review Process: A Web-Based MIS
CSSE '08: Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering - Volume 02

The software industry and most multinational IT companies are starving for software engineers who can write high quality codes. Universities and colleges, being the most important educational institutions, should of course shoulder the burden to ...
The effect of direct instruction and web quest on learning outcome in computer science education

Answers to the questions of which instructional methods are suitable for school and should be applied in teaching individual subjects and also how instructional methods support the act of learning represent challenges to general education and education ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM SIGCSE Bulletin

ACM SIGCSE Bulletin Volume 40, Issue 1

SIGCSE 08

March 2008

549 pages

ISSN:0097-8418

DOI:10.1145/1352322

Issue’s Table of Contents

SIGCSE '08: Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education
March 2008
606 pages
ISBN:9781595937995
DOI:10.1145/1352135
General Chairs:
J. D. Dougherty
Haverford College
,
Susan Rodger
Duke University
,
Program Chairs:
Sue Fitzgerald
Metropolitan State University
,
Mark Guzdial
Georgia Institute of Technology

Copyright © 2008 ACM.

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: 12 March 2008

Published in SIGCSE Volume 40, Issue 1

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

35
Total Citations
View Citations
1,293
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)18
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 03 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Wang YChen HHuang C(2022)Applying Two-rounds Collaborative Peer Review to Assess Students' Programming Assignments2022 IEEE International Conference on e-Business Engineering (ICEBE)10.1109/ICEBE55470.2022.00050(246-251)Online publication date: Oct-2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEBE55470.2022.00050
Chong CThongtanunam PTantithamthavorn C(2021)Assessing the Students’ Understanding and their Mistakes in Code Review Checklists -An Experience Report of 1,791 Code Review Checklist Questions from 394 Students-2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training (ICSE-SEET)10.1109/ICSE-SEET52601.2021.00011(20-29)Online publication date: May-2021
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE-SEET52601.2021.00011
Indriasari TLuxton-Reilly ADenny P(2020)A Review of Peer Code Review in Higher EducationACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/340393520:3(1-25)Online publication date: 28-Sep-2020
https://doi.org/10.1145/3403935
Lu YMao XWang TYin GLi Z(2020)Improving students’ programming quality with the continuous inspection process: a social coding perspectiveFrontiers of Computer Science10.1007/s11704-019-9023-214:5Online publication date: 20-Jan-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-019-9023-2
Kubincová ZHomola M(2017)Code Review in Computer Science Courses: Take OneAdvances in Web-Based Learning – ICWL 201710.1007/978-3-319-66733-1_14(125-135)Online publication date: 19-Aug-2017
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66733-1_14
Wang YAi WLiang YLiu Y(2015)Toward Motivating Participants to Assess Peers’ Work More FairlyJournal of Educational Computing Research10.1177/073563311557130352:2(180-198)Online publication date: 6-May-2015
https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115571303
Jenkins GAdemoye O(2015)Can Individual code reviews improve solo programming on an introductory course?Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences10.11120/ital.2012.1101007111:1(71-79)Online publication date: 15-Dec-2015
https://doi.org/10.11120/ital.2012.11010071
Wang YLiang YLiu LLiu Y(2015)A multi-peer assessment platform for programming language learning: considering group non-consensus and personal radicalnessInteractive Learning Environments10.1080/10494820.2015.107374824:8(2011-2031)Online publication date: 11-Sep-2015
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1073748
Beller MBacchelli AZaidman AJuergens EDevanbu PKim SPinzger M(2014)Modern code reviews in open-source projects: which problems do they fix?Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories10.1145/2597073.2597082(202-211)Online publication date: 31-May-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2597073.2597082
Wang YLi HFeng YJiang YLiu Y(2012)Assessment of programming language learning based on peer code review modelComputers & Education10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.00759:2(412-422)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.007
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents