Collaborative learning through formative peer review: Pedagogy, programs and potential

Computer Science Education

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 343-367

  Søndergaard, Harald ^a   Mulder, Raoul A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

collaborative learning; peer review tools; peer reviewing; student peer assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84869421609     PISSN: 08993408     EISSN: 17445175     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08993408.2012.728041     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Anewalt, K. 2005. Using peer review as a vehicle for communication skill development and active learning. Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, 21(2): 148-155.
2. Boud, D., Cohen, R. and Sampson, J. 2001. Peer learning in higher education, London: Kogan Page.
3. Boud, D. and Falchikov, N. 2007. Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term, Oxon: Routledge.
4. Brown, S. and Glasner, A. 1999. Assessment matters in higher education: Choosing and using diverse approaches, Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education.
5. Burkhardt, H. 2006. "From design research to large-scale impact: Engineering research in education [chapter 10]". In Educational design research, Edited by: van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, &, S. and Nieveen, N. London: Routledge.
6. Cho, K., Chung, T.R., King, W.R. and Schunn, C. 2008. Peer-based computer-supported knowledge refinement: An empirical investigation. Commmunications of the ACM, 51: 83-88.
7. Cho, K. and Schunn, C.D. 2007. Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers and Education, 48: 409-426.
8. Cho, K., Schunn, C.D. and Wilson, R.W. 2006. Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98: 891-901.
9. Collis, B. and Moonen, J. 2005. "Contribution-oriented pedagogy". In Encyclopedia of distance learning, 415-422. Harrisburg, PA: Information Science Reference.
10. Collis, B. and Moonen, J. 2006. "The contributing student: Learners as co-developers of learning resources for reuse in web environments". In Engaged learning with emerging technologies, Edited by: Hung, D. and Khine, M.S. 49-67. Dordrecht: Springer.
11. Crespo, R.M., Pardo, A. and Kloos, C. An adaptive strategy for peer review. Proceedings of the 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE2004). pp.FF3F-7-F3F-13. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
12. Cross, K.P. 1998. Why learning communities? Why now?. About Campus, 3(3): 4-11.
13. Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A. and Hamer, J. Student use of the PeerWise system. Proceedings of the 13th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. pp.73-77. New York, NY: ACM.
14. de Raadt, M., Toleman, M. and Watson, R. Electronic peer review: A large cohort teaching themselves?. Proceedings of ASCILITE 2005. Edited by: H., Goss. pp.159-168. Retrieved September 25, 2012, from www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/17_de Raadt.pdf
15. Falchikov, N. 2005. Improving assessment through student involvement, New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
16. Falchikov, N. 2007. "The place of peers in learning and assessment". In Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term, Edited by: Boud, D. and Falchikov, N. 128-143. Oxon: Routledge.
17. Falchikov, N. and Goldfinch, J. 2000. Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70: 287-322.
18. Garousi, V. 2010. Applying peer reviews in software engineering education: An experiment and lessons learned. IEEE Transactions on Education, 53: 182-193.
19. Gehringer, E.F. Electronic peer review and peer grading in computer-science courses. Proceedings of the 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. pp.139-143. Proceedings published as SIGCSE Bulletin 33(1)
20. Gibbs, G. 1999. "Using assessment strategically to change the way students learn". In Assessment matters in higher education: Choosing and using diverse approaches, Edited by: Brown, S. and Glasner, A. 41-53. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education, and Open University Press.
21. Gouli, E., Gogoulou, A. and Grigoriadou, M. 2008. Supporting self-, peer-, and collaborative-assessment in e-learning: The case of the PEer and Collaborative ASSessment Environment (PECASSE). Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(4): 615-647.
22. Gruba, P. and Søndergaard, H. 2001. A constructivist approach to communication skills instruction in computer science. Computer Science Education, 11: 203-219.
23. Hämäläinen, H., Hyyrynen, V., Ikonen, J. and Porras, J. 2011. Applying peer-review for programming assignments. International Journal for Information Technologies and Security, 1: 3-17.
24. Hamer, J., Cutts, Q., Jackova, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., McCartney, R., Purchase, H. and Sheard, J. 2008. Contributing Student Learning. SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(4): 194-212.
25. Hamer, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Purchase, H.C. and Sheard, J. 2011. Tools for "contributing student learning". Inroads, 2: 78-91.
26. Hamer, J., Ma, K.T.K. and Kwong, H.H.F. A method of automatic grade calibration in peer assessment. Proceedings of the Seventh Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE2004). Edited by: Young, A. and Tolhurst, D. pp.67-72. volume 42 of Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technologyhttp://crpit.com/Vol42.html
27. Hübscher-Younger, T. and Narayanan, N.H. Constructive and collaborative learning of algorithms. Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. pp.6-10. New York, NY: ACM.
28. Hundhausen, C., Agrawal, A., Fairbrother, D. and Trevisan, M. Integrating pedagogical code reviews into a CS1 course. Proceedings of the 40th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. pp.117-122. New York, NY: ACM.
29. Hundhausen, C., Agarwal, P. and Trevisan, M. Online vs face-to-face pedagogical code reviews: An empirical comparison. Proceedings of the 42nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. pp.117-122. New York, NY: ACM.
30. iParadigms. 2011. Turnitin instructor user manual, PeerMark, Oakland, CA: iParadigms. Chapter 3
31. Kollar, I. and Fischer, F. 2010. Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20: 344-348. Commentary to Learning and Instruction's special issue on peer assessment
32. Liu, N. and Carless, D. 2006. Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11: 279-290.
33. Luxton-Reilly, A. 2009. A systematic review of tools that support peer assessment. Computer Science Education, 19: 209-232.
34. Machanick, P. Peer assessment for action learning of data structures and algorithms. Proceedings of the Seventh Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE2004). Edited by: Young, A. and Tolhurst, D. pp.73-82. volume 42 of Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technologyhttp://crpit.com/Vol42.html
35. Mulder, R. and Pearce, J. PRAZE: Innovating teaching through peer review. Proceedings of ASCILITE 2007. Edited by: Atkinson, R.J., McBeath, C., Soong, S.K.A. and Cheers, C. pp.727-736. Retrieved September 25, 2012, from www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/mulder.pdf
36. Navalta, J.W. and Lyons, T.S. 2010. Student peer review decisions on submitted manuscripts are as stringent as faculty peer reviewers. Advances in Physiology Education, 34: 170-173.
37. Olson, D.R. 2004. The triumph of hope over experience in the search for "what works": A response to Slavin. Educational Researcher, 33(1): 24-26.
38. Patchan, M.M., Charney, D. and Schunn, C.D. 2009. A validation study of students' end comments: Comparing comments by students, a writing instructor, and a content instructor. Journal of Writing Research, 1: 124-152.
39. Pearce, J., Mulder, R. and Baik, C. 2009. Involving students in peer review, Melbourne, Australia: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne. Retrieved September 25, 2012, from www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/resources_teach/teaching_in_practice/docs/Student_Peer_Review.pdf
40. Purchase, H.C. 2000. Learning about interface design through peer assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25: 341-352.
41. Race, P., Brown, S. and Smith, B. 2005. 500 tips on assessment, (2nd ed), Oxon: RoutledgeFalmer.
42. Reeves, T. 2006. Design research from a technology perspective, Edited by: van den Akker. London: Routledge. (Chapter 5)
43. Reily, K., Finnerty, P. and Terveen, L. Two peers are better than one: Aggregating peer reviews for computing assignments is surprisingly accurate. Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work. pp.115-124. NewYork, NY: ACM.
44. Russell, A.A. Calibrated Peer Review-a writing and critical thinking instructional tool. Proceedings of the AAAS Conference on Invention and Impact: Building Excellence in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education. pp.67-71. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
45. Russell, A.A., Chapman, O.L. and Wegner, P.A. 1998. Molecular science: Network-deliverable curricula. Journal of Chemical Education, 75: 578-579.
46. Settle, A., Wilcox, C. and Settle, C. Engaging game design students using peer evaluation. Proceedings of ACM SIGITE'11. pp.73-78. New York, NY: ACM.
47. Sfard, A. 1998. On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27: 4-13.
48. Shute, V.J. 2008. Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1): 153-189.
49. Silva, E. and Moreira, D. 2003. WebCoM: A tool to use peer review to improve student interaction. ACM Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, 3(1) Article 3
50. Sitthiworachart, J. and Joy, M. Web-based peer assessment in learning computer programming. Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 03). pp.180-184. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
51. Sitthiworachart, J. and Joy, M. Effective peer assessment for learning computer programming. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. pp.122-126. New York, NY: ACM.
52. Sluijsmans, D., Dochy, F. and Moerkerke, G. 1999. Creating a learning environment by using self-, peer- and co-assessment. Learning Environments Research, 1: 293-319.
53. Søndergaard, H. Learning from and with peers: The different roles of student peer reviewing. Proceedings of the 14th Annual SIGCSE/SIGCUE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. pp.31-35. New York, NY: ACM.
54. Strijbos, J.-W. and Sluijsmans, D. 2010. Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological, functional, and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction, 20: 265-269. Introduction to Learning and Instruction's special issue on peer assessment
55. Topping, K. 1998. Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68: 249-276.
56. Topping, K. 2010. Methodological quandaries in studying process and outcomes in peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20: 339-343. Commentary to Learning and Instruction's special issue on peer assessment
57. Trahasch, S. From peer assessment towards collaborative learning. Proceedings of the 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE2004). pp.F3F-16-F3F-20. Washington DC: IEEE Computer Society.
58. Trytten, D.A. A design for team peer code review. Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. pp.455-459. Proceedings published as SIGCSE Bulletin 37(1)
59. Turner, S.A., Quintana-Castillo, R., Pérez-Quiñones, M.A. and Edwards, S.H. 2008. Misunderstandings about object-oriented design: Experiences using code reviews. SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1): 97-101.
60. van den Akker, J., Branch, R., Gustafson, K., Nieveen, N. and Plomp, T. 1999. Design approaches and tools in education and training, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
61. van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S. and Nieveen, N. 2006. Educational design research, London: Routledge.
62. Van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D. and van Merriënboer, J. 2010. Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20: 270-279.
63. Wiegers, K.E. 2002. Peer reviews in software: A practical guide, Boston: Addison-Wesley.
64. Zeller, A. Making students read and review code. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual SIGCSE/SIGCUE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. pp.89-92. New York, NY: ACM.