高等教育同行代码审查研究述评

Theresia Devi Indriasari, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Paul Denny
{"title":"高等教育同行代码审查研究述评","authors":"Theresia Devi Indriasari, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Paul Denny","doi":"10.1145/3403935","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":352564,"journal":{"name":"ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE)","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"30","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Review of Peer Code Review in Higher Education\",\"authors\":\"Theresia Devi Indriasari, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Paul Denny\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3403935\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":352564,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE)\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"30\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3403935\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3403935","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 30

摘要

同行评议是学术界维持出版质量的标准过程,但它也广泛应用于其他环境,如教育和工业,以提高工作质量并为内容作者提供可操作的反馈。例如,在软件行业中,程序源代码的同行评审或同行代码评审是检测错误和维护编码标准的关键技术。在编程教育环境中,尽管同行代码审查为代码审查者和代码作者提供了潜在的好处,但个人通常缺乏经验,这带来了许多挑战。其中一些挑战类似于在其他学术学科中同行评审的教育文献中报道的那些,但是评审代码呈现出独特的困难。更好地理解这些挑战,以及在计算机科学课程中成功地教授和实现代码审查的条件,对计算机教育界是有价值的。在这项工作中,我们对高等教育中同行代码审查的文献进行了系统的审查,以检查教师开展同行代码审查活动的动机,这些活动在实践中是如何实施的,以及已报道的主要好处和困难。我们最初确定了187项潜在研究,并分析了51项与我们目标相关的实证研究。我们报告了最常被引用的好处(例如,编程相关技能的发展)和障碍(例如,学生参与度低),并且我们确定了用于促进同行代码审查过程的各种工具。虽然我们认为需要更多的实证工作来验证当前报告的与学习成果相关的结果,但我们也明显需要解决学生动机方面的挑战,我们认为这可能是未来研究的重要途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信