Advertisement

An Empirical Study on Pair Performance and Perception in Distributed Pair Programming

Conference paper
  • 639 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 917)

Abstract

This paper reports students’ perceptions and experiences attending an object-oriented programming course in which they developed software using the Distributed Pair Programming (DPP) technique. Pair programming (PP) is typically performed on one computer, involving two programmers working collaboratively on the same code or algorithm. DPP on the other hand is performed remotely allowing programmers to collaborate from separate locations. PP started in the software industry as a powerful way to train programmers and to improve software quality. Research has shown that PP (and DPP) is also a successful approach to teach programming in academic programming courses. The main focus of PP and DPP research was PP’s effectiveness with respect to student performance and code quality, the investigation of best team formation strategies and studies of students’ attitudes. There are still limited studies concerning relationships between performance, attitudes and other critical factors. We have selected some of the most common factors which can be found in the literature: academic performance, programming experience, student confidence, “feel-good” factor, partner compatibility and implementation time. The main goal of this study was to investigate correlations between these attributes, while DPP was used as the main programming technique.

Keywords

Pair programming Distributed pair programming 

References

  1. 1.
    Williams, L., Kessler, R.R., Cunningham, W., Jeffries, R.: Strengthening the case for pair programming. IEEE Softw. 17(4), 19–25 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Williams, L., McCrickard, D. S., Layman, L., Hussein, K.: Eleven guidelines for implementing pair programming in the classroom. In Proceedings of the Agile 2008 (AGILE ’08), pp. 445–452 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Faja, S.: Pair programming as a team based learning activity: a review of research. Issues Inf. Syst. XII(2), 207–216 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Salleh, N., Mendes, E., Grundy, J.: Empirical studies of pair programming for CS/SE teaching in higher education: a systematic literature review. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 37(4), 509–525 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Braught, G., MacCormick, J., Wahls, T.: The benefits of pairing by ability. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, pp. 249–253 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Williams, L., Layman, L., Osborne, J., Katira, N.: Examining the compatibility of student pair programmers. In Agile Conference, 2006. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Muller, M.M., Padberg, F.: An empirical study about the feelgood factor in pair programming. In 10th International Symposium on Software Metrics, 2004 (Proceedings), pp. 151–158. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thomas, L., Ratcliffe, M., Robertson, A.: Code warriors and code-a-phobes: a study in attitude and pair programming. In: ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, vol. 35(1), pp. 363–367. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanks, B.: Student attitudes toward pair programming. In: ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, vol. 38(3), pp. 113–117. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Toll, T., Lee, R., Ahlswede, T.: Evaluating the usefulness of pair programming in a classroom setting. In 6th IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information Science, 2007. ICIS 2007, pp. 302–308. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tsompanoudi, D., Satratzemi, M., Xinogalos, S.: Distributed pair programming using collaboration scripts: an educational system and initial results. Inf. Educ. 14(2), 291–314 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied InformaticsUniversity of MacedoniaThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Alexander TEI of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations