We apologize for a recent technical issue with our email system, which temporarily affected account activations. Accounts have now been activated. Authors may proceed with paper submissions. PhDFocusTM
CFP last date
20 December 2024
Call for Paper
January Edition
IJCA solicits high quality original research papers for the upcoming January edition of the journal. The last date of research paper submission is 20 December 2024

Submit your paper
Know more
The week's pick
Responsive image
Improved Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm with Self-Adaptive Shuffling for Fuzzy Logic PD+G Controller Optimization in Robotic Manipulators

Duc Hoang Nguyen
Random Articles
Reseach Article

Student’s Opinion on Adopting Pair Programming as a Teaching and Learning Tool

by Radhakrishnan. P, Kanmani. S
journal cover thumbnail

International Journal of Computer Applications
Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Volume 60 - Number 4
Year of Publication: 2012
Authors: Radhakrishnan. P, Kanmani. S
10.5120/9679-4106

Radhakrishnan. P, Kanmani. S . Student’s Opinion on Adopting Pair Programming as a Teaching and Learning Tool. International Journal of Computer Applications. 60, 4 ( December 2012), 9-15. DOI=10.5120/9679-4106

@article{ 10.5120/9679-4106,
author = { Radhakrishnan. P, Kanmani. S },
title = { Student’s Opinion on Adopting Pair Programming as a Teaching and Learning Tool },
journal = { International Journal of Computer Applications },
issue_date = { December 2012 },
volume = { 60 },
number = { 4 },
month = { December },
year = { 2012 },
issn = { 0975-8887 },
pages = { 9-15 },
numpages = {9},
url = { https://ijcaonline.org/archives/volume60/number4/9679-4106/ },
doi = { 10.5120/9679-4106 },
publisher = {Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA},
address = {New York, USA}
}
%0 Journal Article
%1 2024-02-06T21:05:43.805039+05:30
%A Radhakrishnan. P
%A Kanmani. S
%T Student’s Opinion on Adopting Pair Programming as a Teaching and Learning Tool
%J International Journal of Computer Applications
%@ 0975-8887
%V 60
%N 4
%P 9-15
%D 2012
%I Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Abstract

Research in the realm of Pair Programming in computer science students has begun to explore the methods for accomplishing the benefits. However, valid measurements of the opinion on adopting a pair programming in the practical sessions are required to be drawn, before concluding. An Attitude Survey Test (AST) was conducted before implementing Pair Programming as a teaching and learning tool among computer science students in Pondicherry Engineering College. The purpose of this investigation is to examine the student's opinion on four vital issues viz. i) General Perception about pair programming; ii) Personality conflicts among pair; iii) Relevant examination system and iv) Female student's attitude. We have engaged 154 B. Tech and MCA students as participants from Pondicherry Engineering College, for the AST, each answered a set of questions relating to Pair Programming. By accurately assessing the students' opinions, our AST results indicated the adequate convergent validity of scores obtained, that there is a room for implementing pair programming as a teaching and learning tool in laboratory course works.

References
  1. Arisholm, E. , Gallis, H. , Dybå, T. , and Sj?berg, D. I. K. 2007. Evaluating Pair Programming with Respect to System Complexity and Programmer Expertise. IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering. 33, 2, 65-85.
  2. Beck, K. Extreme programming explained: embrace change. 2000. Addison Wesley.
  3. Beth, S. , and Brai, H. 2008. First Year Students Impression of Pair Programming, ICER'07. ACM. pp. 73-85.
  4. Brain, H. Problems Encountered by Novice Pair Programmers. 2008. ACM Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, vol. 7, No. 4, Article 2, pp. 2:1 – 2:13.
  5. Charlie McDowell. , Linda Werner. , Heather E. Bullock, and Julian Fernald. 2003. The Impact of Pair Programming on Students Performance, Perception and Persistence. 25th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'03), IEEE Computer Society. pp. 602-607.
  6. Declue, H. T. 2003. Pair Programming and Pair Trading Effects on Learning and Motivation in a CS2 Course. Journal of Computing for Small Colleges. 18 (5). pp. 49-56.
  7. Emilia Mendez, Lubna AL-Fakhri, and Andrew Luxton –Reilly. 2006. A Replicated Experiment of Pair-Programming in a 2nd –year Software Development and Design Computer Science Course. ITiCSE'06, Bologna, Italy. ACM. pp. 108-117.
  8. Freudenberg, S. , Romero, P. , and du Boulay, B. 2007. Talking the talk': Is intermediate – level conversation the key to the pair programming success story?. Proceedings of the AGILE 2007, IEEE Computer Society Washington, DC, USA. pp. 84-91.
  9. Gert, V. V. , Tommi, T. , Ber de, B. and Douwe, P. 2011. Quantitative release planning in extreme programming', Journal of Information and Software Technology, Vol. 53, Issue 11, November 2011. pp. 1227–1235
  10. Grant Braught. , L. Marlin Eby. , and Tim Wahls. 2008. The Effects of Pair Programming on Individual Programming Skill. SIGCSE' 08, Portland, Oregon, USA,ACM. pp. 200 – 204.
  11. Grant Braught. , John McCormick. and Tim Wahls. 2010. The Benefits of Pairing by Ability. SIGCSE'10, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA,ACM. pp.
  12. Grant Braught. and Tim Wahls. 2011. The Case for Pair Programming in the Computer Science Classroom. TOE00041 ACM Transaction on Computing Education, vol. 11, No. 1, Article 2, pp 2:1 – 2:21.
  13. Gunalan, R. , Shereshevsky, M. and Ammar, H. H. 2005. Pseudo Dynamic Metrics, Computer Systems and Applications. 3rd ACS/IEEE International Conference on Digital Object Identifier: 10. 1109/AICCSA. 2005. 1387106.
  14. Hanna, H. and Pekka, A. 2005. A Multiple case study on the Impact of Pair Programming on Product Quality. ICSE'05. St. Louis , Missouri, USA,ACM. pp. 495-504.
  15. Ilenia Fronza. , Alberto Sillitti. and Giancarlo Succi. 2009. An Interpretation of the Results of the Analysis of Pair Programming during Novices Integration in Team. Third International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, IEEE. pp. 225-235.
  16. Jo E. Hannay. , Erik Arisholm. , Harald Envik. , Dag and I. K SjØberg. 2010. Effects of Personality on Pair Programming. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 61-80.
  17. Jeffrey, C. C. , Lisa, H. , Lulu, H. , Julia, H. and Donna, R. 2007. Increased Retention of Early Computer Science and Software Engineering Students using Pair Programming. 20th Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training (CSEET'0) 7, IEEE Computer Society. pp. 115-122.
  18. Joshua Sennett and Mark Sherrif. 2010. Compatibility of Partnered students in Computer Science Education. ACM SIGCSE'10 Milwaukee, Wiscosin, USA, pp. 244-248.
  19. Kuppuswami, S. and Vivekanandan, K. 2004. The Effects of Pair Programming on Learning Efficiency in Short Programming Assignments. Informatics in Education, vol. 3, pp. 251-266.
  20. Lui, K. M. and Chang, K. C. C. 2003. When does a Pair Outperform Two individuals?. Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Extreme programming and agile processes in software engineering. Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg pp. 225-233.
  21. Lui, K. M. and Chang, K. C. C. 2008. Software process fusion by combining pair and solo programming. Institute of Engineering and Technology Software. Vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 9-390.
  22. Laurie Murphy. , Sue Fitzgerald. , Brain Hanks. and Renee McCauley. 2010. Pair Debugging: A Transitive Discourse Analysis. ACM ICER'10, Arhus, Denmark. pp. 51-58.
  23. Lee, R. W. and Tara, T. S. 2009. A National Study of Community College Retention Rates Segmented by Institutional Degree of Urbanization. Academic Leadership: the online journal. Vol. 7, Issue 1. http://www. Academi- cleadership. org/
  24. Militon, F. 2005. Correctness: A Very Important Quality Factor in Programming. Studia Univ. babes¸–Bolyai, Informatica, Volume L, Number 1. pp. 11-20.
  25. Nagappan, N. , Williams, L. , Wiebe, E. , Miller. C. , Balik, S. , FerZil, M. and Petlik, M. 2003. Pair Learning: With an eye Toward Future Success. Extreme Programming and Agile Methods - XP/Agile Universe 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 2753. pp. 185-198.
  26. Norman Jacobson and Suzanne K. Schaefer. 2008. Pair Programming in CS1: Overcoming Objection to its Adoption. Inroads – SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 40. Number 2. pp 93-96.
  27. N. Salleh, E. Mendes, J. Grundy, and G. S. J. Burch. 2010 The effects of neuroticism on pair programming: An empirical study in the higher education context. Proceedings of the 4th ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2010).
  28. N. Salleh, E. Mendes, J. Grundy, and G. S. J. Burch. 2010 An empirical study of the effects of conscientiousness in pair programming using the five-factor personality model. Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2010), Vol. 1. pp. 577-586.
  29. N. Salleh, E. Mendes, and J. Grundy. 2011. Empirical studies of pair programming for CS/SE teaching in higher education: A systematic literature review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. Vol. No. 4. pp. 509-525.
  30. N. Salleh, E. Mendes, and J. Grundy. 2011. The Effects of Openness to Experience on Pair Programming in a Higher Education Context. IEEE CSEE&T 2011. Waikiki, Honolulu, HI,USA. pp. 149-158.
  31. Nuramiah, R. , and Shukor, S. M. F. 2008. The Effects of Pair Programming in Programming Language Support. ITSim 2008. International Symposium on Information Technology. Vol. 1 pp. 1- 4.
  32. Raymond Sison. 2009. Investigating the Effect of Pair Programming and Software Size on Software Quality and Programmer Productivity. 16th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, IEEE, pp. 187-193
  33. Tanja Bipp. , Andreas Lepper. And Doris Schmedding. 2008. Pair programming in software development teams- An empirical study of its benefits. Information and Software Technology, 50, Elsevier, pp. 231-240.
  34. Theodore Van Toll III. , Roger Lee. , and Thomas Ahswede. 2007. Evaluating the Usefulness of Pair Programming in a classroom setting. 6th IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information Science (ICIS 2007), IEEE Computer Society. pp. 302 – 308.
  35. ThorbjØn Walle. and Jo E. Hannay. 2009. Personality and the Nature of Collaboration in Pair Programming. Third International Symposium on Software Engineering and Measurement, IEEE. pp. 203-213.
  36. Tore Dyba. and Torgeir Dingsoyr. 2008. Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Journal of Information. and Software Technologu. , Elsevier, vol. 50, pp. 833-859.
  37. Vincent a. Cicirello. 2009. On Self-Selected Pairing in CS1: Who pairs with Whom. Consortium for Computing Sciences in Colleges. JCSC 24. pp. 43-49.
  38. Wallace Chigona. and Michael Pollock. 2008. Pair Programming for Information System Students New to Programming: Students Experiences and Teacher's Challenges. PICMET 2008 Proceedings, Cape Town, South Africa, pp. 1587-1594.
  39. Williams, L. , Kessleer. , Cunningham, R. R. and Jeffries, R. R. 2000. Strengthening the Case of Pair Programming, IEEE Software, Vol 17, No 4, pp 19-25.
  40. Williams, L. , Upchurch, R. 2001. In support of pair programming. Proceedings of the 32 nd SIGCSE Technical symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE Bulletin. 33(10). PP. 327-331.
  41. Williams, L. , McCrikard, D. S. , Layman, L. and Hussein, K. 2008. Eleven Guidelines for Implementing Pair Programming in Classroom. Agile 2008 Conference , IEEE. pp. 445-452.
Index Terms

Computer Science
Information Sciences

Keywords

Extreme Programming (XP) Pair Programming Attitude Survey Test Teaching and Learning

Powered by PhDFocusTM