Problem Statement

A fundamental part of professional software development (Li, 2006), Peer Code Review (PCR) involves developers evaluating each other's code based on style guides and best practices. These reviews often focus on aspects such as naming conventions, function scope, spacing, and documentation, and typically lead to a back-and-forth dialogue aimed at improving code quality. PCR is widely adopted in the industry as a key quality assurance practice, and educational research suggests it can also support student learning by encouraging reflection, collaboration, and analytical thinking (Powell & Kalina, 2009; Race, 2001).

Despite these pedagogical benefits, a common challenge in Computer Science (CS) education is that students are often unmotivated to provide high-quality peer feedback. This lack of motivation can stem from time constraints, unclear incentives, or uncertainty about the value of the review process (Indriasari, Luxton-Reilly, & Denny, 2021).

Many students experience PCR as a task done out of obligation rather than personal interest. They may view it as a hoop to jump through rather than an opportunity for learning, especially when peer feedback activities are tied to marks or framed primarily as accountability tools (Falchikov, 2013). When students lack meaningful choice or understanding of the activity's purpose, they tend to engage at a surface level, writing generic or rushed comments that do little to support learning (Pintrich, 2003; Ramsden, 2003). In college contexts such as CEGEP, this is further complicated by systemic pressures like the R-score, which ranks students relative to their peers and amplifies external motivators (Dagres, 2017).

Students may also hesitate to provide detailed or critical feedback because they feel unqualified to evaluate a peer's work (Falchikov, 2013). This is especially true in technical domains like programming, where skill gaps between students can be significant and perceived expertise carries social weight (Perez-Quinones & Turner, 2009). Lacking confidence in their own abilities, some students resort to vague praise or neutral observations rather than offering concrete suggestions for improvement. The theory of self-efficacy underscores the importance of perceived competence in determining effort and persistence in learning tasks (Bandura, 2012). Without support to develop feedback literacy, students may miss opportunities to learn from the review process themselves (Indriasari, Luxton-Reilly, & Denny, 2020; Petersen & Zingaro, 2018).

Finally, PCR can feel disconnected and impersonal, especially when carried out anonymously or asynchronously. Without visible social cues or shared norms, students may worry that their feedback could be misinterpreted or cause tension with classmates (Falchikov, 2013). This fear can lead to overly cautious comments or avoidance altogether, weakening the collaborative potential of the activity (Powell & Kalina, 2009). When students do not feel a sense of community or shared responsibility, the peer review process risks becoming transactional and isolated (Indriasari, Denny, Lottridge, & Luxton-Reilly, 2023). Building peer trust and social presence is therefore essential to creating a classroom environment where feedback is both valued and effective.

While logistical and interpersonal challenges can also impact the effectiveness of PCR (Falchikov, 2013; Indriasari, Denny, Lottridge, & Luxton-Reilly, 2023), the motivational barriers described above remain particularly challenging in traditional peer review settings. Therefore, what has been unveiled is a need to explore alternative instructional strategies that can better support these psychological needs and improve efficacy within the feedback process in CS education.