During a research study conducted over four semesters, students enrolled in an introductory programming class at a commuter campus used the pair-programming approach for both in-class labs and out-of-class programming assignments. This study was a comprehensive assessment of pair-programming using multiple measures of both quantitative and qualitative feedback about students' experiences with pair-programming. The results show that overwhelmingly, students reported positive reactions to working with a partner using the pair-programming paradigm. As expected at a commuter campus, the most common challenge students reported was difficulty of coordinating schedules. This article provides the results of the study and offers suggestions for managing pair-programming on a commuter campus.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BahetiP. (2002). Assessing distributed pair programming, Companion of the 17th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications, 50–51.
2.
CliburnD. (2003). Experiences with pair programming at a small college. Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, 19(1), 20–29.
3.
DeClueT. (2003). Pair programming and pair trading: Effects on learning and motivation in a CS2 course. Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, 18(5), 49–56.
4.
DominoM.CollinsR.HevnerA.CohenC. (2003). Conflict in collaborative software development. Proceedings of the 2003 SIGMIS conference on Computer personnel research. Freedom in Philadelphia—Leveraging differences and diversity in the IT workforce, 44–51.
5.
GehringerE. (2003). A pair-programming experiment in a non-programming course, Campanion of the 18th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications, 187–190.
6.
HanksB. (2005). Student performance in CS1 with distributed pair programming. Proceedings of the 10th Annual SIGCSE Conference on innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 316–320.
7.
HanksB.McDowellC.DraperD.KrujajicM. (2004). Program quality with pair programming in CSI. Proceedings of the 9th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (ITiCSE 2004), 176–180.
8.
HedinG.BendixL.MagnussonB. (2003). Introducing software engineering by means of Extreme Programming. ICSE 2003: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, 586–593.
9.
HulkkoH.AbrahamssonP. (2005). A multiple case study on the impact of pair programming on product quality. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, 495–504.
10.
KatiraN.WilliamsL.WiebeE.MillerC.BalikS.GehringerE. (2004). On understanding compatibility of student pair programmers. Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 7–11.
11.
LawA.CharronR. (2005). Effects of agile practices on social factors. Proceedings of the 2005 Workshop on Human and Social Factors of Software Engineering, 1–5.
12.
LeJeuneN. (2006). Teaching software engineering practices with Extreme Programming. Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, 21(3), 107–117.
13.
MahmoudQ.DobosiewiczW.SwayneD. (2004). Redesigning introductory computer programming with HTML, JavaScript, and Java, Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 120–124.
14.
McDowellC.HanksB.WernerL. (2003). Experimenting with pair programming in the classroom. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 60–64.
15.
McDowellC.WernerL.BullockH.FernaldJ. (2002). The effects of pair-programming on performance in an introductory programming course. Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 38–42.
16.
McDowellC.WernerL.BullockH.FernaldJ., (2003). The impact of pair programming on student performance, perception and persistence. ICSE 2003: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, 602–607.
17.
MelnikG.MaurerF. (2005). A cross-program investigation of students' perceptions of agile methods. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, 481–488.
18.
MendesE.Al-FakhriL. B.Luxton-ReillyA. (2005). Investigating pair-programming in a 2nd-year software development and design computer science course. Proceedings of the 10th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 296–300.
19.
NagappanN.WilliamsL.FerzliM.WiebeE.YangK.MillerC.BalikS. (2003). Improving the CS1 experience with pair programming. Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 359–362.
20.
PrestonD. (2005). Pair programming as a model of collaborative learning: A review of the research. Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, 20(4), 39–45.
21.
SharpH.RobinsonH. (2005). Some social factors of software engineering: The maverick, community and technical practices. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 30(4), 1–6.
22.
SmithS.StoecklinS. (2001). What we can learn from extreme programming. Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, 17(2), 144–151.
23.
ThomasL.RatcliffeM.RobertsonA. (2003). Code warriors and code-a-phobes: A study in attitude and pair programming. Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 363–367.
24.
VanDeGriftT. (2004). Coupling pair programming and writing: Learning about students' perceptions and processes. Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 2–6.
25.
WaiteW.JacksonM.LeonardiP. (2004). Student culture vs group work in computer science. SIGCSE '04: Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 12–16.
26.
WilliamsL.KesslerR. (2000). All I really need to know about pair programming I learned in kindergarten. Communications of the ACM, 43(5), 108–114.
27.
WilliamsL.UpchurchR. L. (2001). In support of student pair-programming. Proceedings of the thirty-second SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer Science Education, 327–331.
