Video analysis of pair programming

ABSTRACT

This article presents the results of a video analysis of nine pair programming sessions of undergraduate students. The analysis focuses on the keyboard and mouse control of the programming partners. It shows that most pairs do not share the keyboard and mouse equally but rather have one partner who is more active than the other. Keyboard and mouse control changes frequently, casting doubt on the existence of the driver and navigator role as commonly defined in literature on extreme programming.

References

1. K. Beck. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, USA, 1st edition, 2000.
2. S. Bryant. Double Trouble: Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in the Study of eXtreme Programmers. In Visual Languages and Human Centric Computing, 2004 IEEE Symposium on, pages 55--61, Sept. 2004.
3. S. Bryant, P. Romero, and B. du Boulay. Pair Programming and the Mysterious Role of the Navigator. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. In Press.
4. S. Bryant, P. Romero, and B. du Boulay. The Collaborative Nature of Pair Programming. In Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering, volume 4044/2006 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 53--64. Springer, 2006.
5. Camtasia Studio. http://de.techsmith.com/camtasia.asp.
6. J. Chao and G. Atli. Critical personality traits in successful pair programming. In Proceedings of Agile 2006 Conference, pages 5 pp., 2006.
7. J. Chong and T. Hurlbutt. The Social Dynamics of Pair Programming. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, 2007.
8. M. A. Domino, R. W. Collins, A. R. Hevner, and C. F. Cohen. Conflict in collaborative software development. In SIGMIS CPR '03: Proceedings of the 2003 SIGMIS conference on Computer personnel research, pages 44--51, New York, NY, USA, 2003. ACM.
9. T. Dybå, E. Arisholm, D. I. Sjøberg, J. E. Hannay, and F. Shull. Are Two Heads Better than One? On the Effectiveness of Pair Programming. IEEE Software, 24(6):12--15, Nov./Dec. 2007.
10. Eclipse. http://www.eclipse.org/.
11. R. E. Jeffries, A. Anderson, and C. Hendrickson. Extreme Programming Installed. Addison-Wesley, 2001.
12. N. Katira, L. Williams, E. Wiebe, C. Miller, S. Balik, and E. Gehringer. On understanding compatibility of student pair programmers. SIGCSE Bull., 36(1):7--11, 2004.
13. T. Mackinnon, S. Freeman, and P. Craig. Extreme programming examined, chapter Endo-testing: unit testing with mock objects, pages 287--301. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA, 2001.
14. M. M. Müller, J. Link, R. Sand, and G. Malpohl. Extreme Programming in Curriculum: Experiences from Academia and Industry. In Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering, volume 3092/2004 of LNCS, pages 294--302. Springer, June 2004.
15. J. S. Rubinstein, D. E. Meyer, and J. E. Evans. Executive Control of Cognitve Processes in Task Switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27(4):763--797, 2001.
16. P. Sfetsos, I. Stamelos, L. Angelis, and I. Deligiannis. Investigating the Impact of Personality Types on Communication and Collaboration - Viability in Pair Programming - An Empirical Study. In Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering, volume 4044/2006 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 43--52. Springer, 2006.
17. D. Thomas and A. Hunt. Mock Objects. IEEE Software, 19(3):22--24, May/June 2002.
18. W. C. Wake. Extreme Programming Explored. Addison-Wesley, 1st edition, 2002.
19. L. Williams and R. Kessler. Pair Programming Illuminated. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA, 2002.

Index Terms

• Software and its engineering

  • Software creation and management

    • Software verification and validation

      • Process validation