Breaking the communication barrier: guidelines to aid communication within pair programming

References

• Aiken, J. (2004). Technical and human perspectives on pair programming. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 29(5), 1–14. doi:10.1145/1022494.1022512
   Google Scholar
• Beck, K. (2000). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Professional.
   Google Scholar
• Begel, A., & Nagappan, N. (2008). Pair programming: What’s in it for me? In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement, Madrid, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Bevan, J., Werner, L., & McDowell, C. (2002). Guidelines for the use of pair programming in a freshman programming class. In Proceedings of the 15th conference on software engineering education and training. Kentucky: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Braught, G., Eby, L. M., & Wahls, T. (2008). The effects of pair-programming on individual programming skill. In Proceedings of the 3rd technical symposium on computer science education. Portland, OR: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Bryant, S. (2004). Double trouble: Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods in the study of extreme programmers. In IEEE symposium on visual languages and human centric computing. Rome: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Bryant, S., Romero, P., & du Boulay, B. (2006). The collaborative nature of pair programming. In D. Hutchison, T. Kanade, & J. Kittler (Eds.), Extreme programming and agile processes in software engineering, (Vol. 4044, pp. 53–64). Oulu: Springer Berlin/Heidelberg.10.1007/11774129
   Google Scholar
• Chaparro, E. A., Yuksel, A., Romero, P., & Bryant, S. (2005). Factors affecting the perceived effectiveness of pair programming in higher education. In Proceedings of the 17th workshop of the psychology of programming interest group. Brighton: University of Sussex.
   Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271–315.10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, K. S., Deek, F. P., & Im, I. (2009). Pair dynamics in team collaboration. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 844–852. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.09.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chong, J., & Hurlbutt, T. (2007). The social dynamics of pair programming. In Proceedings of the 29th international conference on software engineering, Minneapolis, MN.
   Google Scholar
• Cliburn, D. C. (2003). Experiences with pair programming at a small college. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 19, 20–29.
   Google Scholar
• Cockburn, A., & Williams, L. (2001). The costs and benefits of pair programming. In G. Suxxi & M. Marchesi (Eds.), Extreme programming examined (pp. 223–243). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Constantine, L. L. (1995). Constantine on peopleware. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Yourdon Press.
   Google Scholar
• DeClue, T. H. (2003). Pair programming and pair trading: Effects on learning and motivation in a CS2 course. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 18, 49–56.
   Google Scholar
• Flor, N. V., & Hutchins, E. L. (1991). A Case Study of Team Programming During Perfective Software Maintenance. In Proceedings of the fourth annual workshop on empirical studies of programmers. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Freudenberg, S., Romero, P., & Du Boulay, B. (2007). “Talking the talk”: Is intermediate-level conversation the key to the pair programming success story? Paper presented at the Agile Conference (AGILE), 2007. Washington, DC: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Gallis, H., Arisholm, E., & Dyba, T. (2003). An initial framework for research on pair programming. In International symposium on empirical software engineering, Rome, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Hanks, B. (2006). Student attitudes toward pair programming. In Proceedings of the 11th annual conference on innovation and technology in computer science education. Bologna: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Hanks, B., Fitzgerald, S., McCauley, R., Murphy, L., & Zander, C. (2011). Pair programming in education: A literature review. Computer Science Education, 21, 135–173.10.1080/08993408.2011.579808
   Google Scholar
• Hannay, J. E., Dybå, T., Arisholm, E., & Sjøberg, D. I. (2009). The effectiveness of pair programming: A meta-analysis. Information and Software Technology, 51, 1110–1122.10.1016/j.infsof.2009.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hulkko, H., & Abrahamsson, P. (2005). A multiple case study on the impact of pair programming on product quality. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on software engineering. St. Louis, MO: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. H., & Caristi, J. (2001). Extreme programming the software design course. In M. Marchesi, G. Succi, D. Wells, & L. Williams (Eds.), Extreme programming perspectives. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Katira, N., Williams, L., & Osborne, J. (2005). Towards increasing the compatibility of student pair programers. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on software engineering, St. Louis, MO.
   Google Scholar
• Kavitha, R., & Ahmed, M. I. (2015). Knowledge sharing through pair programming in learning environments: An empirical study. Education and Information Technologies, 20, 319–333. doi:10.1007/s10639-013-9285-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindvall, M., Basili, V. R., Boehm, B. W., Costa, P., Dangle, K., Shull, F., … Zelkowitz, M. V. (2002). Empirical findings in agile methods. In Proceedings of the second XP universe and first agile universe conference on extreme programming and agile methods. London: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• McDowell, C., Hanks, B., & Werner, L. (2003). Experimenting with pair programming in the classroom. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35, 60–64. doi:10.1145/961290.961531
   Google Scholar
• McElduff, F., Cortina-Borja, M., Chan, S.-K., & Wade, A. (2010). When t-tests or Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney tests won’t do. AJP: Advances in Physiology Education, 34, 128–133.10.1152/advan.00017.2010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melnik, G., & Maurer, F. (2002). Perceptions of agile practices: A student survey. In Proceedings of the second XP universe and first agile universe conference on extreme programming and agile methods. London: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Mendes, E., Al-Fakhri, L. B., & Luxton-Reilly, A. (2005). Investigating pair-programming in a 2nd-year software development and design computer science course. In Proceedings of the 10th annual conference on innovation and technology in computer science education. Monte de Caparica: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Montgomery, P., & Bailey, P. H. (2007). Field notes and theoretical memos in grounded theory. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 29, 65–79. doi:10.1177/0193945906292557
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, L., Fitzgerald, S., Hanks, B., & McCauley, R. (2010). Pair debugging: A transactive discourse analysis. In Proceedings of the sixth international workshop on computing education research. Aarhus: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Nagappan, N., Williams, L., Ferzli, M., Wiebe, E., Yang, K., Miller, C., & Balik, S. (2003). Improving the CS1 experience with pair programming. In Proceedings of the 24th technical symposium on computer science education. New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Nawrocki, J., & Wojciechowski, A. (2001). Experimental evaluation of pair programming. In Proceedings of European software control and metrics, London, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Plonka, L., Sharp, H., & van der Linden, J. (2012). Disengagement in pair programming: Does it matter? In Proceedings of the 34th international conference on software engineering. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, L., Guzdial, M., McDowell, C., & Simon, B. (2013). Success in introductory programming Communications of the ACM, 56, 34–36. doi:10.1145/2492007.2492020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryu, E. & Agresti, A. (2008). Modeling and inference for an ordinal effect size measure. Statistics in Medicine, 27, 1703–1717. doi:10.1002/sim.3079
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, D. (2002). Student perceptions of the suitability of extreme and pair programming. In M. Marchesi, G. Succi, D. Wells, & L. Williams (Eds.), Extreme programming perspectives (pp. 168–174). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Professional.
   Google Scholar
• Sfetsos, P., Stamelos, I., Angelis, L., & Deligiannis, I. (2006). Investigating the impact of personality types on communication and collaboration-viability in pair programming – An empirical study. In D. Hutchinson, T. Kanade, & J. Kittler (Eds.), Extreme programming and agile processes in software engineering (Vol. 4044, pp. 43–52). Oulu: Springer Berlin/Heidelberg.10.1007/11774129
   Google Scholar
• Sharp, H., & Robinson, H. (2010). Three ‘C’s of agile practice: Collaboration, co-ordination and communication. In T. Dingsøyr, T. Dybå, & N. B. Moe (Eds.), Agile Software Development (pp. 61–85). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Srikanth, H., Williams, L., Wiebe, E., Miller, C., & Balik, S. (2004). On pair rotation in the computer science course. In Proceedings of the 17th conference on software engineering education and training, Norfolk, VA.
   Google Scholar
• Stapel, K., Knauss, E., Schneider, K., & Becker, M. (2010). Towards understanding communication structure in pair programming. In A. Sillitti, A. Martin, X. Wang, & E. Whitworth (Eds.), Agile processes in software engineering and extreme programming (Vol. 48, pp. 117–131). Trondheim: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, L., Ratcliffe, M., & Robertson, A. (2003). Code warriors and code-a-phobes. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35, 363–367. doi:10.1145/792548.612007
   Google Scholar
• VanDeGrift, T. (2004). Coupling pair programming and writing: Learning about students’ perceptions and processes. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education, Norfolk, VA.
   Google Scholar
• Vanhanen, J., & Lassenius, C. (2005). Effects of pair programming at the development team level: An experiment. In Proceedings of the international symposium on empirical software engineering. Noosa Heads: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J. B., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Werner, L. L., Hanks, B., & McDowell, C. (2004). Pair-programming helps female computer science students. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, 4(1), Article 3.10.1145/1060071
   Google Scholar
• Williams, L. (2008). Introduction to Pair Programming (Version 2) [Lecture notes]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG_U12uqRhE
   Google Scholar
• Williams, L., & Kessler, R. (2000). All I really need to know about pair programming I learned in kindergarten. Communications of the ACM, 43, 108–114. doi:10.1145/332833.332848
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, L., & Kessler, R. (2001). Experiments with Industry’s? Pair-programming? Model in the computer science classroom. Computer Science Education, 11, 7–20. doi:10.1076/csed.11.1.7.3846
   Google Scholar
• Williams, L., & Kessler, R. (2002). Pair programming illuminated. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, L., Kessler, R., Cunningham, W., & Jeffries, R. (2000). Strengthening the case for pair programming. IEEE Software, 17, 19–25. doi:10.1109/52.854064
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, L., McCrickard, D. S., Layman, L., & Hussein, K. (2008). Eleven guidelines for implementing pair programming in the classroom. In Proceedings of the 2008 AGILE conference. Toronto: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, L., Wiebe, E., Yang, K., Ferzli, M., & Miller, C. (2002). In support of pair programming in the introductory computer science course. Computer Science Education, 12, 197–212. doi:10.1076/csed.12.3.197.8618
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, J. D., Hoskin, N., & Nosek, J. T. (1993). The benefits of collaboration for student programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 25, 160–164. doi:10.1145/169073.169383
   Google Scholar
• Zarb, M., Hughes, J., & Richards, J. (2012). Analysing communication trends in pair programming using grounded theory. In Proceedings of the 26th BCS conference on human-computer interaction, Birmingham, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Zarb, M., Hughes, J., & Richards, J. (2013). Industry-inspired guidelines improve students’ pair programming communication. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education, Canterbury, England, UK.
   Google Scholar