The impact of pair programming on student performance, perception and persistence

McDowell, Charlie; Werner, Linda; Bullock, Heather E.; Fernald, Julian

doi:10.1109/icse.2003.1201243

Cited by 156 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

116

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Rewarding compliance to a commercial agile method might provide an undesirable incentive for developers to adopt a "square peg in a round hole approach," forcing these methods into situations to which they are not suited. An analysis of the literature bears this out, with the vast majority of existing agile method research focusing not on small co-located teams, as was originally intended, but rather on nonstandard implementations, i.e., large teams (Lindvall et al 2004, Kahkonen 2004, Bowers et al 2002, Cao et al 2004, Crispin and House 2003, start-ups (Auer and Miller 2002), distributed development environments , Stotts et al 2003, greenfield sites (Rasmusson 2003), educational environments (Fenwick 2003, Johnson and Caristi 2003, McDowell et al 2003, Melnik and Mauer 2003, Wainer 2003, open source development , outsourcing (Kussmaul et al 2004), and systems maintenance (Poole and Huisman 2001).…”

Section: Implications For Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Agility from First Principles: Reconstructing the Concept of Agility in Information Systems Development

Conboy

2009

Information Systems Research

585

431

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Awareness and use of agile methods has grown rapidly among the information systems development (ISD) community in recent years. Like most previous methods, the development and promotion of these methods have been almost entirely driven by practitioners and consultants, with little participation from the research community during the early stages of evolution. While these methods are now the focus of more and more research efforts, most studies are still based on XP, Scrum, and other industry-driven foundations, with little or no conceptual studies of ISD agility in existence. As a result, this study proposes that there are a number of significant conceptual shortcomings with agile methods and the associated literature in its current state, including a lack of clarity, theoretical glue, parsimony, limited applicability, and naivety regarding the evolution of the concept of agility in fields outside systems development. Furthermore, this has significant implications for practitioners, rendering agile method comparison and many other activities very difficult, especially in instances such as distributed development and large teams that are not conducive to many of the commercial agile methods. This study develops a definition and formative taxonomy of agility in an ISD context, based on a structured literature review of agility across a number of disciplines, including manufacturing and management where the concept originated, matured, and has been applied and tested thoroughly over time. The application of the texonomy in practice is then demonstrated through a series of thought trials conducted in a large multinational organization. The intention is that the definition and taxonomy can then be used as a starting point to study ISD method agility regardless of whether the method is XP or Scrum, agile or traditional, complete or fragmented, out-of-the-box or in-house, used as is or tailored to suit the project context.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Agility from First Principles: Reconstructing the Concept of Agility in Information Systems Development

Conboy

2009

Information Systems Research

585

431

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…His results suggest that reviews produce the same code quality to a slightly lower cost than pair programming. The use of pair programming on introductory programming classes has been studied with hundreds of students at North Carolina State University [16,17,18] and University of California Santa Cruz [19,20]. The results show some improvements in quality and some increase in the total effort.…”

Section: Other Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Thereafter the differences between the PP and SP teams are minimal. Actually, PP1 spent less effort than either of the SP teams for their last use cases (17)(18)(19)(20). Of course, when spending lots of effort on the first use cases, the PP teams may have learned something that helped them with the later ones.…”

Section: Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of pair programming at the development team level: an experiment

Vanhanen¹,

Lassenius²

2005 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, 2005.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many efforts have been made to tailor agile methods to suit a variety of contexts such as large teams (Bowers et al 2002;Cao et al 2004;Crispin and House 2003;Kahkonen 2004;Lindvall et al 2004), start-ups (Auer and Miller 2002), distributed development environments Stotts et al 2003), greenfield sites (Rasmusson 2003), educational environments (Johnson and Caristi 2003;McDowell et al 2003;Melnik and Mauer 2003;Wainer 2003), open source development , outsourcing arrangements (Kussmaul et al 2004), and systems maintenance (Poole and Huisman 2001). However, there is little empirical evidence focusing specifically on the extent to which such tailoring is done in a disciplined and educated manner, and it is not known if teams evaluate all practices before deciding whether to adopt each or not.…”

Section: Disciplined and Educated Tailoring Of Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%