Towards Personalization of Peer Review in Learning Programming

  • Joseph SundayEmail author
  • Ghislain Maurice Norbert Isabwe
  • Muhammad Usman Ali
  • Renee Patrizia Schulz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10108)


Peer review is one of the effective processes for sharing knowledge and improving overall learning performance. This became more popular by the use of ICT. However, it is challenging to implement peer review in learning programming languages due to the complexity of the subject matter. A group of peer reviewers may have different overall performance but similar weaknesses on a given aspect of the programming tasks. Hence, they may not be able to help each other to address individual needs. In this paper, we present a personalized approach to peer review with consideration to criteria based assessment and individual performance on specific programming tasks. This is achieved using a novel peer-matching algorithm to create reviewer groups. The algorithm assigns peer-reviewers in such a way that each student gets reviews from at least three peers with different levels of competence (low, medium and high). Peer matching is tailored to individual student needs with respect to specific aspects of learning programming. This work implemented a web based peer review system, and carried out user-based evaluations with computer science students. There are indications that personalized peer matching, based on relevant assessment criteria, can improve individual learning achievement in programming courses.


Peer review Personalized collaborative learning Programming 


  1. 1.
    Lombardi, M.M.: Authentic learning for the 21st century: an overview. Educ. Learn. Initiat. 1(2007), 1–12 (2007)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Satu, A., Kari, S.: Student self-assessment in a programming course using bloom’s revised taxonomy. In: Proceedings of the 15th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE, Bilkent, Ankara, Turkey (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rochelle, F.R., Traci, T.: Student performance on and attitudes toward peer assessments on advanced pharmacy practice experience assignments. Curr. Pharm. Teach. Learn. 4(2), 113–121 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Charlotte, M., Christopher, V., Daniel, B.: Turning apathy into activeness in oral communication classes: regular self- and peer-assessment in a TBLT programme. System 40(3), 407–420 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mark, L., Phil, W.: Can students assess students effectively? Some insights into peer-assessment. Learn. Teach. Unit 2(1) (2003). ISSN 1477-1241Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Keith, T.: Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Am. Educ. Res. Assoc. JSTOR 68(3), 247–276 (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zundert, M.V., Sluijsmans, D., Merriënboer, J.V.: Effective peer assessment processes: research findings and future directions. Learn. Instr. 20(4), 270–279 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang, Y., Li, H., Sun, Y., Jiang, Y., Yu, J.: Learning outcomes of programming language courses based on peer code review model. In: The 6th International Conference on Computer Science and Education (ICCSE 2011), Virgo, Singapore (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jason, C.: IBM DeveloperWorks: 11 proven practices for more effective, efficient peer code review, 25 January 2011. (Accessed 10 Feb 2016)
  10. 10.
    ISO 9241-210: Ergonomics of human-system interaction. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland (2010).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Sunday
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ghislain Maurice Norbert Isabwe
    • 1
  • Muhammad Usman Ali
    • 1
  • Renee Patrizia Schulz
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AgderGrimstadNorway

Personalised recommendations