18-642 Peer Review of Project 11

This is a GROUP assignment.

• Do not start work until all group members have handed in the project being reviewed.
• Do not e-mail, file share, or otherwise exchange the material being reviewed. Do reviews via screen sharing only.

• This peer review is to identify issues in other student work products. It is NOT a collaborative design discussion. It is NOT a problem solving session. It is NOT a time to make suggestions on HOW to improve other work products. It is a peer review sesision, not a design session. Do NOT discuss deliverables for the NEXT project -- limit peer review materials only to the designated project for this peer review.

Hints/Helpful Links:

• You might find it convenient to have the peer review checklist and peer review results spreadsheet printed or open on another device while doing the review.
• Peer review issue log (Excel) (generally equivalent issue log forms are acceptable). Consider using Google Docs (or another service) to interactively manage the issue log during the review.

Procedure -- Peer Review

Before review session, exchange your best shot at a checklist for each type of artifact being reviewed and agree on which edited or merged checklists to use. You should improve and modify them as makes sense. It is permissible and desirable to use checklists from previous peer reviews as the semester progresses so that your checklist improves over time. Sharing of peer review checklists among students is explicitly permitted.

• Starter Monitor peer review checklist.

Conduct a peer review of these project materials:

• Monitors -- 30 minutes per student project.
  • Concentrate on monitor logic
  • Consider any design diagrams author might have
  • Major code style issues are in scope, but emphasis is on correct logic

Take turns in review roles so everyone is leader once and author once per session. (Non-leader/non-author participant is an additional reviewer.)

• Author acts as scribe, recording any issues found in an Issue Log. It is OK for the author to offer issues due to our small group size
• Leader is not the author, and directs attention to the next piece of the artifact being reviewed
• Follow the general method in the peer review lecture and previous exercises to do small pieces at a time as directed by the leader. For example in a statechart review each state and associated arcs one state at a time rather than looking at the whole statechart at once

RUBRIC:

• As with previous reviews, keeping in mind:
  • Landscape paper format on acrobat
  • File name P##_Group##.pdf
  • Do not reduce font sizes in spreadsheet even indirectly (e.g., via shrinking a screen snapshot)
  • First page lists team members, whether present/absent, group number, project # being reviewed, and TA name for group meeting.
  • One peer review spreadsheet per page.
  • Include copy of checklists used with minimum font size of 16 points.