research-article

The student view on online peer reviews

Authors:

Christine Bauer,

Michael Derntl,

Peter Paul Beran,

Sonja KabicherAuthors Info & Claims

ITiCSE '09: Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education

Pages 26 - 30

https://doi.org/10.1145/1562877.1562892

Published: 06 July 2009 Publication History

Abstract

Peer review is used as an effective quality assurance measure in many contexts, including science, business, programming or education. In education, several studies confirmed the positive effects of peer reviewing on student learning. Based on recent research concerning the role of media in the peer review process this study investigates how students perceive the process, content and effects of peer reviews. We also analyze students' opinions on different modes of peer reviewing activities, e.g. online vs. face-to-face reviewing. In the context of a computer science course on scientific writing, these research questions were addressed by administering an online questionnaire (n=38) and analysis using quantitative and qualitative methods. Results indicate that students value the peer review activity, take peer reviews seriously and provide comprehensive and constructive reviews. Findings also show that students prefer written online reviews with the possibility of oral follow-up questions to reviewers.

References

[1]

Bailey, C. D., Hermanson, D. R., Louwers, T. J. (2007). An Examination of the Peer Review Process in Accounting. Proc. CAAA 2006 Annual Conference.

[2]

Bauer, C., Figl, K. (2006). Differences of Online and Face-to-Face Peer Reviews Regarding Type and Quality. Proc. CELDA 2006 (Barcelona, Spain), 423--428.

[3]

Bauer, C., Figl, K., Derntl, M., Beran, P. P., Kabicher, S. (2009). Der Einsatz von Online-Peer-Reviews als kollaborative Lernform. Proc. 9th International Conference on Business Informatics 2009 (WI 2009) (Vienna, Austria), 421--430.

[4]

Brown, T. 2004. Peer Review and the Acceptance of New Scientific Ideas: Discussion Paper from a Working Party on Equipping the Public with an Understanding of Peer Review (No. 0-9547974-0-X): London, UK.

[5]

Carlson, P. A., Berry, F. C. (2003). Calibrated Peer Review(TM) and Assessing Learning Outcomes. Proc. 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE03) (Boulder, CO), F3E/1--6.

[6]

Chinn, D. (2005). Peer Assessment in the Algorithms Course. Proc. 10th annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE'05) (Caparica, Portugal), 69--73.

Digital Library

[7]

Coit, C. (2004). Peer Review in an Online College Writing Course. Proc. 4th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT'04) (Joensuu, Finland), 902--903.

Digital Library

[8]

Derntl, M. (2006). A Generic View on Online Peer-Evaluation. Proc. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia,&Telecommunications ED-MEDIA 2006 (Orlando, FL), 1809--1816.

[9]

Dochy, F. J. R. C., Segers, M., Sluijsmans, D. M. A. 1999. The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education 24, 331--350.

[10]

Figl, K., Bauer, C., Mangler, J., Motschnig-Pitrik, R. (2006). Online versus Face-to-Face Peer Team Reviews. Proc. 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE06) (San Diego, CA), T1H/ 7--T1H/12.

[11]

Galin, D. 2004. Software Quality Assurance: From Theory to Implementation. Pearson Education, Harlow, UK.

Digital Library

[12]

Gehringer, E. F. (2000). Strategies and Mechanisms for Electronic Peer Review. Proc. 30th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (Kansas City, MO), F1B/2--F1B/7.

Digital Library

[13]

Hansen, J. G. 2005. Cooperative Learning Methods and the Teaching of English Writing: Peer Response. STETS Language&Communication Review 4, 9--14.

[14]

Huang, S.--Y. (1998). A Comparison Between Chinese EFL Students' Peer Response Sessions Held on Networked Computers and Those Held in a Face-to-Face Setting. Proc. 6th International NELLE-Conference (Bielefeld, Germany).

[15]

Lin, C.-S., Chang, K.-E., Lee, C.-L., Sung, Y.-T. (2002). Improving Experiment Project Evaluation through Web-based Self- and Peer Assessment. Proc. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2002 (SITE 2002) (Nashville, TN), 2432--2434.

[16]

Liu, J., Sadler, R. W. 2003. The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2, 193--227.

[17]

Mayring, P. 1983/2003. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse (Qualitative Content Analysis). Beltz, Weinheim, Germany.

[18]

Sitthiworachart, J., Joy, M. (2003). Web-based Peer Assessment in Learning Computer Programming. Proc. 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT'03) (Athens, Greece), 180--184.

[19]

Sullivan, N., Pratt, E. 1996. A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System 29, 491--501.

[20]

Trahasch, S. (2004). From Peer Assessment Towards Collaborative Learning. Proc. 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (Savannah, GA), F3F/16--F13F/20.

[21]

Tuzi, F. 2004. The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Compositions 21, 217--235.

[22]

Ware, M., Monkman, M. (2007). Peer Review in Scholarly Journals: Perspective of the Scholarly Community -- an International Study: Publishing Research Consortium.

[23]

Wiegers, K. E. 2002. Peer Reviews in Software: A Practical Guide. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.

Digital Library

Cited By

Luckner NPurgathofer P(2021)Insights from Peer Reviewing in Large University CoursesProceedings of the 10th Computer Science Education Research Conference10.1145/3507923.3507955(86-93)Online publication date: 22-Nov-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3507923.3507955
Toll DWingkvist ADavoli RGoldweber MRößling GPolycarpou I(2017)How Tool Support and Peer Scoring Improved Our Students' Attitudes Toward Peer ReviewsProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education10.1145/3059009.3059059(311-316)Online publication date: 28-Jun-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3059009.3059059
Dolezal DMotschnig RPucher R(2017)Peer Review as a Tool for Person-Centered Learning: Computer Science Education at Secondary School LevelTeaching and Learning in a Digital World10.1007/978-3-319-73210-7_56(468-478)Online publication date: 27-Dec-2017
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73210-7_56
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

The student view on online peer reviews
1. Applied computing
  1. Education
    1. Collaborative learning

Recommendations

Student attitudes and motivation for peer review in CS2
SIGCSE '11: Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education

Computer science students need experience with essential concepts and professional activities. Peer review is one way to meet these goals. In this work, we examine the students' attitudes towards and engagement in the peer review process, in early, ...
The student view on online peer reviews
ITiCSE '09

Peer review is used as an effective quality assurance measure in many contexts, including science, business, programming or education. In education, several studies confirmed the positive effects of peer reviewing on student learning. Based on recent ...
Peer Grading Without Protest: The SPARK Approach to Summative Peer Assessment
SIGCSE 2022: Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - Volume 1

As Computer Science Professors, we strive to construct courses that maximally support and contribute to student learning through carefully crafted in-class and out-of-class activities. There is evidence that homework enhances student learning, and that ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

ITiCSE '09: Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education

July 2009

428 pages

ISBN:9781605583815

DOI:10.1145/1562877

General Chair:
Patrick Brézillon
UPMC, France
,
Program Chairs:
Ingrid Russell
University of Hartford, USA
,
Jean-Marc Labat
UPMC, France

ACM SIGCSE Bulletin Volume 41, Issue 3
ITiCSE '09
September 2009
403 pages
ISSN:0097-8418
DOI:10.1145/1595496
Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2009 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]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 06 July 2009

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

ITiCSE '09

Sponsor:

ITiCSE '09: Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

July 6 - 9, 2009

Paris, France

Acceptance Rates

ITiCSE '09 Paper Acceptance Rate 66 of 205 submissions, 32%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 552 of 1,613 submissions, 34%

Upcoming Conference

ITiCSE '25

Sponsor:
sigcse

Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

June 27 - July 2, 2025

Nijmegen , Netherlands

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

14
Total Citations
View Citations
698
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)18
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 09 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Luckner NPurgathofer P(2021)Insights from Peer Reviewing in Large University CoursesProceedings of the 10th Computer Science Education Research Conference10.1145/3507923.3507955(86-93)Online publication date: 22-Nov-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3507923.3507955
Toll DWingkvist ADavoli RGoldweber MRößling GPolycarpou I(2017)How Tool Support and Peer Scoring Improved Our Students' Attitudes Toward Peer ReviewsProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education10.1145/3059009.3059059(311-316)Online publication date: 28-Jun-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3059009.3059059
Dolezal DMotschnig RPucher R(2017)Peer Review as a Tool for Person-Centered Learning: Computer Science Education at Secondary School LevelTeaching and Learning in a Digital World10.1007/978-3-319-73210-7_56(468-478)Online publication date: 27-Dec-2017
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73210-7_56
Hai-Jew S(2012)Designing Asynchronous Message Board Assignments for Deep Learning DiscourseMeta-Communication for Reflective Online Conversations10.4018/978-1-61350-071-2.ch009(149-170)Online publication date: 2012
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61350-071-2.ch009
Cilliers C(2012)Student perception of academic writing skills activities in a traditional programming courseComputers & Education10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.00158:4(1028-1041)Online publication date: 1-May-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.001
Miró Julià JCortina TWalker EKing LMusicant D(2011)An engineering approach to teaching writing.Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education10.1145/1953163.1953315(535-540)Online publication date: 9-Mar-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1953163.1953315
Yu S(2024)Peer Assessment in Writing Instruction10.1017/9781009429979Online publication date: 26-Jan-2024
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009429979
Gaspar Cámara AFernández Sánchez MSánchez Herrera S(2023)Percepción del alumnado universitario sobre la evaluación por pares en tareas de escrituraRevista Complutense de Educación10.5209/rced.7959934:3(541-554)Online publication date: 5-Jul-2023
https://doi.org/10.5209/rced.79599
Ghosh AVerma A(2021)Thematic analysis of reflective peer feedback in programming-heavy engineering courses2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)10.1109/FIE49875.2021.9637374(1-9)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/FIE49875.2021.9637374
Burke Moneypenny DEvans MKraha A(2018)Student Perceptions of and Attitudes toward Peer ReviewAmerican Journal of Distance Education10.1080/08923647.2018.150942532:4(236-247)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2018.1509425
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 Table of Conten