Improving student learning outcomes with pair programming

ICER'12 - Proceedings of the 9th Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 87-92

  Radermacher, Alex ^a   Walia, Gursimran ^a   Rummelt, Richard ^a  

^a North Dakota State University   (United States)

Author keywords

Compatibility; Mental model consistency; Pair programming

Indexed keywords

COMPATIBILITY; COMPUTER SCIENCE PROGRAMS; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; INTRODUCTORY PROGRAMMING COURSE; MENTAL MODEL; PAIR-PROGRAMMING; RETENTION RATE; STUDENT LEARNING; STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES; STUDENT PERFORMANCE;

COMPUTER SCIENCE; EDUCATION COMPUTING; RESEARCH;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84867375704     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2361276.2361294     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. K. Beck. Extereme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 2000.
2. L. Bender, G. Walia, K. Kambhampaty, K. E. Nygard, and T. E. Nygard. Social sensitivity and classroom team projects: an empirical investigation. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE '12, pages 403-408, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM.
3. R. Bornat, S. Dehnadi, and Simon. Mental models, consistency and programming aptitude. In Proceedings of the tenth conference on Australasian computing education - Volume 78, ACE '08, pages 53-61, Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 2008. Australian Computer Society, Inc.
4. G. Braught, J. MacCormick, and T. Wahls. The benefits of pairing by ability. In SIGCSE '10: Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 249-253, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.
5. J. A. Cannon-Bowers, E. Salas, and S. Converse. Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In J. J. Castellan, editor, Current issues in individual and group decision making, pages 221-246+. Erlbaum, 1993.
6. J. C. Carver, L. Henderson, L. He, J. Hodges, and D. Reese. Increased retention of early computer science and software engineering students using pair programming. In IEEE-CS Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T '07), pages 115-122. IEEE Computer Society, 2007. (Pubitemid 47516523)
7. E. A. Chaparro, A. Yuksel, P. Romero, and S. Bryant. Factors affecting the perceived effectiveness of pair programming in higher education. In Psychology of Programming Interest Group 17th Workshop, pages 5-18, 2005.
8. S. Dehnadi. Testing programming aptitude. In Proceedings of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group 18th Annual Workshop, pages 22-37, 2006.
9. S. Dehnadi and R. Bornat. The camel has two humps. http://www.cs.mdx.ac. uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/2006.
10. T. Götschi, I. Sanders, and V. Galpin. Mental models of recursion. SIGCSE Bull., 35(1):346-350, Jan. 2003.
11. P. Johnson-Laird. Mental Models. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1983.
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, Mar. 2004. (Pubitemid 43773186)
13. L. Ma, J. Ferguson, M. Roper, and M. Wood. Investigating the viability of mental models held by novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, SIGCSE '07, pages 499-503, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM. (Pubitemid 47483182)
14. J. E. Mathieu, T. S. Heffner, G. F. Goodwin, E. Salas, and J. A. Cannon-Bowers. The inuence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83:273-283, 2000.
15. C. McDowell, L. Werner, H. Bullock, and J. Fernald. The effects of pair-programming on performance in an introductory programming course. SIGCSE Bull., 34(1):38-42, 2002. (Pubitemid 34991345)
16. A. Radermacher and G. Walia. Investigating student-instructor interactions when using pair programming: An empirical study. In IEEE-CS Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T '11), CSEET '11, pages 41-50. IEEE Computer Society, 2011.
17. N. Salleh, E. Mendes, and J. Grundy. The effects of openness to experience on pair programming in a higher education context. In IEEE-CS Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T '11), pages 149-158, may 2011.
18. T. L. Scholtz and I. Sanders. Mental models of recursion: investigating students' understanding of recursion. In Proceedings of the fifteenth annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, ITiCSE '10, pages 103-107, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.
19. P. Sfetsos, I. Stamelos, L. Angelis, and I. Deligiannis. An experimental investigation of personality types impact on pair effectiveness in pair programming. Empirical Softw. Engg., 14(2):187-226, Apr. 2009.
20. L. Thomas, M. Ratcliffe, and A. Robertson. Code warriors and code-a-phobes: a study in attitude and pair programming. SIGCSE Bull., 35(1):363-367, Jan. 2003.
21. L. Williams, R. R. Kessler, W. Cunningham, and R. Jeffries. Strengthening the case for pair programming. IEEE Softw., 17(4):19-25, 2000.
22. L. Williams, L. Layman, J. Osborne, and N. Katira. Examining the compatibility of student pair programmers. In AGILE '06: Proceedings of the conference on AGILE 2006, pages 411-420. IEEE Computer Society, 2006. (Pubitemid 46679634)
23. L. Williams, E. Wiebe, K. Yang, M. Ferzli, and C. Miller. In support of pair programming in the introductory computer science course. In ACM Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA 2002, pages 197-212, 2002.