In support of student pair-programming

ABSTRACT

Industry, particularly those following the eXtreme Programming (XP) methodology [2], has popularized the use of pair-programming. The pair-programming model has also been found to be beneficial for student programmers. Initial quantitative and qualitative results, which will be discussed in this paper, demonstrate that the use of pair-programming in the computer science classroom enhances student learning and satisfaction and reduces the frustration common among students. Additionally, the use of pair-programming relieves the burden on the educators because students no longer view the teaching staff as their sole form of technical information. We explore the nature of pair-programming, then examine the ways such a practice may enhance teaching and learning in computer science education.

REFERENCES

• 1: G. Salomon, Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
• 2: Kent Beck, Extreme programming explained: embrace change, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1999
• 3: John T. Nosek, The case for collaborative programming, Communications of the ACM, v.41 n.3, p.105-108, March 1998 [doi>10.1145/272287.272333]
• 4: Laurie Williams , Bob Kessler, The Effects of "Pair-Pressure" and "Pair-Learning" on Software Engineering Education, Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training, p.59, March 06-08, 2000
• 5: Laurie Williams , Robert R. Kessler , Ward Cunningham , Ron Jeffries, Strengthening the Case for Pair Programming, IEEE Software, v.17 n.4, p.19-25, July 2000 [doi>10.1109/52.854064]
• 6: L. Williams & R. Kessler, "Experimenting with Industry's "Pair-programming" Model in the Computer Science Classroom," Journal of Computer Science Education, vol. December 2000, 2000.
• 7: A. Cockburn & L. Williams, "The Costs and Benefits of Pair Programming," presented at eXtreme Programming and Flexible Processes in Software Engineering -- XP2000, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy, 2000.
• 8: Laurie Ann Williams , Robert R. Kessler, The collaborative software process(sm), 2000
• 9: Watts S. Humphrey, A Discipline for Software Engineering, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1995
• 10: L. Williams & H. Erdogmus, "An Economic Analysis of Collaborative Programming," submitted to Metrics 2000, London, England, 2001.
• 11: A. Bandura, Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman, 1997.
• 12: R. Wood & A. Bandura, "Social Cognitive Theory of Organizational Mangement Special Issue: Theory development Forum.," Academy of Management Review, vol. 14, pp. 361-384, 1989.
• 13: J. R. Hayes & J. G. Nash, "On the Nature of Planning in Writing," in The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications. Mhway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996, pp. 29-55.
• 14: M. E. Fagan, "Advances in software inspections to reduce errors in program development," IBM Systems Journal, vol. 15, pp. 182-211, 1976.
• 15: Philip M. Johnson, Reengineering inspection, Communications of the ACM, v.41 n.2, p.49-52, Feb. 1998 [doi>10.1145/269012.269020]
• 16: Watts S. Humphrey, Introduction to the personal software process, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1997
• 17: P. Pirolli & M. Reeker, "Learning Strategies and Transfer in the Domain of Programming," Cognition and instruction, vol. 12, 1994.
• 18: B. Berardi-Colletta, L. S. Buyer, R. L. Dominowski, and E. R. Rellinger, "Metaeognition and Problem Solving: A Process-Oriented Approach," Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol. 21, pp. 205-221, 1995.
• 19: M. Chi, N. de Leeuw, M. Chiu, & C. Lavancher, "Eliciting Self-Explanations Improves Understanding," Cognitive Science, vol. 18, pp. 439- 477, 1994.
• 20: Richard L. Upchurch , Judith E. Sims-Knight, In Support of Student Process Improvement, Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, p.0114, February 22-25, 1998
• 21: R. L. Upchurch & J. E. Sims-Knight, "Integrating Software Process in Computer Science Curriculum," Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, November 5-8, 1997.
• 22: N. V. Flor & E. L. Hutehins, "Analyzing Distributed Cognition in Software Teams: A Case Study of Team Programming During Perfective Software Maintenance," presented at Empirical Studies of Programmers: Fourth Workshop, 1991.
• 23: A. Whimbey & J. Lochhead, Problem Solving and Comprehension. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press, 1980.
• 24: J. R. Anderson, F. Conrad, & A. Corbett, "Skill Acqisition and the Lisp Tutor," Cognitive Science, vol. 13, pp. 467-505, 1989.
• 25: P. Pirolli, "Effects of Examples and Their Explanation in a Lesson on Recursion: A Production System Analysis," Cognition and Instruction, vol. 8, pp. 207-259, 1991.
• 26: J. E. Sims-Knight & R. L. Upchurch, "The Acquisition of Expertise in Software Engineering Education.," Proceedings of Frontiers in Education, November 4-7, 1998, Tempe, AZ.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.1 PROGRAMMING TECHNIQUES

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES

  K. Computing Milieux
  K.3 COMPUTERS AND EDUCATION
      K.3.2 Computer and Information Science Education
          Subjects: Curriculum

General Terms:
Design, Human Factors, Management, Measurement, Performance, Theory