skip to main content
research-article

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

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
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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
[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

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

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
  • cover image ACM Conferences
    SIGCSE '08: Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education
    March 2008
    606 pages
    ISBN:9781595937995
    DOI:10.1145/1352135
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

  1. behavior analysis
  2. computer science education
  3. learning outcome
  4. peer code review (pcr)
  5. software quality assurance (sqa)

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)18
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 12 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media