Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of Pilot, Navigator, and Solo Programming Roles on Motivation: An Experimental Study

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
New Perspectives in Software Engineering (CIMPS 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems ((LNNS,volume 576))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

[Objective] We face a period in time where alternative ways of motivating software personnel must be explored. This study aimed for a detailed description and interpretation of the topic of pair programming roles and motivation. [Method] Using a mixed-methods approach, the present study examined a proposed nomological network of personality traits, programming roles, and motivation. Three experimental sessions produced (N = 654) motivation inventories in two software engineering university classrooms which were quantitatively investigated using student’s t-test, χ2 test, and hierarchical cluster analysis. Consequently, the author conducted semi-structured interviews with twelve experiment participants and utilized the thematic analysis method in an essentialist’s way. [Results] Eight produced themes captured that pair programming carries both positive and negative motivational consequences, depending on personality variables. The statistical analysis confirmed that the suitability of a given role for a programmer can be determined by his personality: (i) pilot – openness, (ii) navigator – extraversion and agreeableness, (iii) solo – neuroticism and introversion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arisholm, E., Gallis, H., Dyba, T., Sjøberg, D.I.: Evaluating pair programming with respect to system complexity and programmer expertise. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 33(2), 65–86 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bezdek, J.C., Pal, N.R.: Cluster validation with generalized Dunn’s indices. In: Proceedings 1995 Second New Zealand International Two-Stream Conference on Artificial Neural Networks and Expert Systems, pp. 190–193. IEEE (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bird, C.M.: How I stopped dreading and learned to love transcription. Qual. Inq. 11(2), 226–248 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Boyatzis, R.E.: Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Sage (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Successful Qualitative Research: a Practical Guide for Beginners. Sage (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3(2), 77–101 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Corr, P.J., Matthews, G. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology. Cambridge University Press (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Couger, J.D., Zawacki, R.A.: Motivating and Managing Computer Personnel. Wiley (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  9. DeMarco, T., Lister, T.: Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams. Addison-Wesley (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  10. DeYoung, C.G.: Cybernetic big five theory. J. Res. Pers. 56, 33–58 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L.: Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. Guilford Publications (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Feldt, R.L., Angelis, R.T., Samuelsson, M.: Links between the personalities, views and attitudes of software engineers. Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(6), 611–624 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Forsyth, D.R.: Group Dynamics. Cengage Learning (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Goldberg, L.R.: The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Am. Psychol. 48(1), 26 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Graziotin, D., Lenberg, P., Feldt, R., Wagner, S.: Psychometrics in behavioral software engineering: a methodological introduction with guidelines. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. (TOSEM) 31(1), 1–36 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Guest, G., Bunce, A., Johnson, L.: How many interviews are enough? an experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Meth. 18(1), 59–82 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hannay, J.E., Arisholm, E., Engvik, H., Sjøberg, D.I.: Effects of personality on pair programming. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 36(1), 61–80 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hannay, J.E., Dybå, T., Arisholm, E., Sjøberg, D.I.: The effectiveness of pair programming: a meta-analysis. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51(7), 1110–1122 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. John, O.P., Donahue, E.M., Kentle, R.L.: Big five inventory. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Katira, N., Williams, L., Wiebe, E., Miller, C., Balik, S., Gehringer, E.: On understanding compatibility of student pair programmers. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pp. 7–11 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Latham, G.P.: Work Motivation: History, Theory, Research, and Practice. Sage (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lenberg, P., Feldt, R., Wallgren, L.R.: Behavioral software engineering: a definition and systematic literature review. J. Syst. Softw. 107, 15–37 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mertens, D.M.: Transformative mixed methods research. Qual. Inq. 16(6), 469–474 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Nettle, D.: The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. Am. Psychol. 61(6), 622 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Patton, M.Q.: Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. SAGE Publications, inc, (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Penke, L., Denissen, J.J.A., Miller, G.F.: The evolutionary genetics of personality. Europ. J. Pers. Publish. Euro. Assoc. Pers. Psychol. 21(5), 549–587 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Plonka, L., Sharp, H., van der Linden, J., Dittrich, Y.: Knowledge transfer in pair programming: an in-depth analysis. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 73, 66–78 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ralph, P., et al.: Pandemic programming. Empir. Softw. Eng. 25(6), 4927–4961 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-020-09875-y

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Rammstedt, B., Kemper, C.J., Klein, M.C., Beierlein, C., Kovaleva, A.: A short scale for assessing the big five dimensions of personality: 10 item big five inventory (BFI-10). Meth. Data Anal. 7(2), 17 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Riemann, R., Kandler, C.: Construct validation using multitrait-multimethod-twin data: the case of a general factor of personality. Eur. J. Pers. 24(3), 258–277 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Self-Determination Theory. 2022. Intrinsic Motivation Inventory. http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/. Accessed 12 2022

  32. Vaismoradi, M., Jones, J., Turunen, H., Snelgrove, S.: Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Vanhanen, J., Lassenius, C.: Effects of pair programming at the development team level: an experiment. In: 2005 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, 2005, p. 10. IEEE (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  34. White, R.W.: Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence. Psychol. Rev. 66(5), 297 (1959)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Williams, L., Kessler, R.R.: Addison-Wesley Professional, R. Kessler. Pair programming illuminated (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Williams, L., Layman, L., Osborne, J., Katira, N.: Examining the compatibility of student pair programmers. In: AGILE 2006 (AGILE’06), p. 10. IEEE (2006)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by an internal grant funding scheme (F4/34/2021) administered by the Prague University of Economics and Business.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Prague University of Economics and Business, W. Churchill Sq. 1938/4, 130 67, Prague, Czech Republic

    Marcel Valový

Authors
  1. Marcel Valový
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcel Valový .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centro de Investigación en Matemáticas, A.C., Unidad Zacatecas, Zacatecas, Mexico

    Jezreel Mejia

  2. Centro de Investigación en Matemáticas, A.C., Unidad Zacatecas, Zacatecas, Zacatecas, Zacatecas, Mexico

    Mirna Muñoz

  3. ISEG, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

    Álvaro Rocha

  4. Universidad Hipócrates, Acapulco de Juárez, Guerrero, Mexico

    Víctor Hernández-Nava

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Valový, M. (2023). Effects of Pilot, Navigator, and Solo Programming Roles on Motivation: An Experimental Study. In: Mejia, J., Muñoz, M., Rocha, Á., Hernández-Nava, V. (eds) New Perspectives in Software Engineering. CIMPS 2022. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 576. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20322-0_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation