Online vs. face-to-face pedagogical code reviews: An empirical comparison

SIGCSE'11 - Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 117-122

  Hundhausen, Christopher ^a   Agarwal, Pawan ^a   Trevisan, Michael ^b  

^a WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Washington State University   (United States)

Author keywords

Code inspection; CS1; Pedagogical code review; Peer review; Studio based learning and instruction

Indexed keywords

CODE INSPECTIONS; CODE REVIEW; COMPUTING COURSE; COMPUTING EDUCATION; CRITICAL REVIEW; CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS; CS1; EMPIRICAL COMPARISON; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS; ONLINE ENVIRONMENTS; PEDAGOGICAL CODE REVIEW; PEER LEARNING; PEER REVIEW; SELF EFFICACY; SOFTWARE INDUSTRY; STUDENT ATTITUDES;

CODES (SYMBOLS); EDUCATION COMPUTING; ENGINEERING EDUCATION; INSPECTION; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; STUDENTS; STUDIOS;

TEACHING;

EID: 79954444025     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1953163.1953201     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. A History of the Studio-based Learning Model. http://www.edi.msstate.edu/ studio.htm.
2. Anewalt, K. 2005. Using peer review as a vehicle for communication skill development and active learning. J. Computing Sciences in Colleges. 21, 2 (2005), 148-155.
3. Docherty, M. et al. 2001. An innovative design and studio-based CS degree. Proc.32nd SIGCSE Tech. Symposium. ACM, New York, 233-237. (Pubitemid 32499193)
4. Faro, S. and Swan, K. 2006. An investigation of the efficacy of the studio model at the high school level. J. Educational Computing Research. 35, 1 (2006), 45-59.
5. Gehringer, E. 2001. Electronic peer review and peer grading in computer science courses. Proc. 32nd SIGCSE Tech Symposium. ACM Press, New York. 139-143. (Pubitemid 32499174)
6. Gilb, T. and Graham, D. 1993. Software Inspection. Addison-Wesley.
7. Hundhausen, C. et al. 2009. Integrating pedagogical code reviews into a CS 1 course: an empirical study. Proc. 40th SIGCSE Tech Symposium. ACM, New York 291-295.
8. Hundhausen, C. et al. 2008. Exploring studio-based instructional models for computing education. Proc. 39th SIGCSE Tech. Symp. ACM Press, New York, 392-396.
9. Hundhausen, C. et al. 2010. Does studio-based instruction work in CS 1? an empirical comparison with a traditional approach. Proc. 41st SIGCSE Tech. Symposium. mputer ACM, New York, 500-504.
10. Hundhausen, C. et al. 2010. The design of an online environment to support pedagogical code reviews. Proc. 41st SIGCSE Tech. Sympos. ACM, New York, 182-186.
11. McKinney, J. et al. The college classroom as a community: Impact on student attitudes and learning. College Teaching. 54, 281-284.
12. Means, B. et al. 2009. Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.
13. Pintrich, D. et al. 1991. A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Technical Report #NCRIPTAL-91-B-004. Nat. Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
14. Reily, K. et al. 2009. Two peers are better than one: aggregating peer reviews for computing assignments is surprisingly accurate. Proc. 2009 ACM GROUP (Sanibel Island, Florida, USA, 2009), 115-124.
15. Reimer, Y. and Douglas, S. 2003. Teaching HCI design with the studio approach. Computer Science Education. 13, 3 (2003), 191-205.
16. Suthers, D. and Xu, J. 2002. Kukakuka: an online environment for artifact-centered discourse. Proc. Eleventh World Wide Web Conference. WWW2002. 472-480.
17. Trivedi, A. et al. 2003. Automatic assignment management and peer evaluation. J. Computing Sciences in Colleges. 18, 4 (2003), 30-37.
18. Trytten, D. 2005. A design for team peer code review. Proc. 36th SIGCSE Tech. Symp. ACM Press. New York, 455-459. (Pubitemid 40821295)
19. Wiegers, K. 1995. Improving quality with software inspections. Software Development. 3, 4 (1995), 55-64.