Empirical evaluation of distributed pair programming

J. Educ. Resour. Comput.

2008

Self Cite

Pair programming, as part of the Agile Development process, has noted benefits in professional software development scenarios. These successes have led to a rise in use of pair programming in educational settings, particularly in Computer Science 1 (CS1). Specifically, McDowell et al. [2006] has shown that students using pair programming in CS1 do better in a CS2 class (with solo programming) than students who don't pair in CS1. This paper seeks to address a similar question, but from a qualitative, student-focused approach. How do students define, experience, and value the pair programming experience? How do they experience and value it compared to solo programming? Does pairing in CS1 impact their confidence in their abilities? We report on semi-structured interviews with 11 subjects from two institutions where pair programming was used in CS1, and solo programming was used in the CS2. Many of the responses met our expectations; students get stuck less and explore more ideas while pairing, and believe that pair programming helped them in CS1. Other responses were more surprising. Students reported that when solo programming they were more confident and understood their programs better. Many students also said that they started work on their assignments earlier when soloing. Students also continue to use other students as resources even when working "solo."

Section: Relation To Prior Worksupporting

confidence: 92%

First-year students' impressions of pair programming in CS1

Simon

J. Educ. Resour. Comput.

2008

Self Cite

“…This study examined student attitudes toward pair programming, using data collected from an experiment on distributed pairing [2,3,4]. The results indicate that students who pair program in their introductory programming courses like pair programming, believe that it helps them learn more, and think that it makes the class more fun.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the 2003-2004 academic year, I conducted a study on distributed pair programming using student volunteers from four introductory programming courses as subjects [2,3,4]. Student volunteers were randomly assigned to two groups.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Student attitudes toward pair programming

Proceedings of the 11th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

2006

Self Cite

Students in four introductory programming classes who participated in a pair programming study had very positive attitudes toward pair programming: they liked it, thought that it was fun, would like to do it again, and believed that they learned more because they paired. Although the students as a whole had positive attitudes, the results were not consistent between instructors; in particular, the students in one of the courses were significantly less positive about pair programming. The implications of instructor-based differences in attitude are discussed.This paper also examines the relationship between student confidence and attitudes toward pair programming. The most confident students liked pairing the most, while the least confident students liked it the least. This finding contradicts results that have been reported elsewhere.

“…One of the main features of VNC4DPP is a second cursor that the navigator can use to gesture without disturbing the state of the driver's work. (For a more detailed description of VNC4DPP, see Hanks [3]). …”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Successful and unsuccessful problem solving approaches of novice programmers

Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

Brandt

2009

Self Cite

Learning to program continues to be challenging for many students. This paper reports on problem-solving approaches undertaken by pair programming students. We examine reasons why some approaches lead to success while others lead to failure. We also identify some aspects of the Java language that appear to lead to student misconceptions. Finally, we provide suggestions for educators interested in helping students learn successful approaches and avoid unsuccessful ones.