DOCSLIB.ORG

Enhancing Learnability of Pair Programming Practice When Introducing Novices

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Enhancing Learnability of Pair Programming Practice When Introducing Novices MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA FAKULTA INFORMATIKY Enhancing Learnability of Pair Programming Practice when Introducing Novices DIPLOMOVÁ PRÁCE Pavel Januš Brno, jaro 2014 Declaration I declare that this paper is my original authorial work, which I have worked out by my own. All sources, references and literature used or excerpted during elaboration of this work are properly cited and listed in complete reference to the due source. Advisor: Bruno Rossi, PhD. i Acknowledgement I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Bruno Rossi for leading me through the creation of my diploma thesis. I am grateful to him for stimulating discus- sions about the content of the thesis and supporting developing of my own ideas. I also want to appreciate his provided time, knowledge, valuable information and his patience and willingness. I express special thanks to my parents for their understanding, and my girlfriend for her support. ii Abstract The current thesis focuses on understanding the mechanisms that lead novice develop- ers to better learn the Pair Programming (PP) practice, one of the pillars of Agile Metho- dologies. The main aim is to provide theoretical-grounded suggestions that could help to improve the process by which novices are introduced to PP and start mastering it. To contextualize PP, we review the emergence of Agile development methodology com- pared to more heavy-weight methodologies and we evaluate the importance of PP as one of the key practices of Extreme Programing (XP). We then delve into empirical stu- dies that investigate the efficacy of PP in software development and into the identifica- tion of the state of the art in terms of the introduction of PP to novices. In this context, we identify problematic issues that emerge during the learning process of the PP prac- tice and that could hinder its adoption. In the analytical part of the thesis, we identify the mechanisms that could be better ap- plied to enhance learnability of PP. We chose an educational model, Bloom's Taxonomy (BT) of learning domains, to frame the discussion about the actions that can be applied for the improvement of PP learnability. Such framework and recommendations can be applied in future works to when introducing new developers to Agile Methodologies. Keywords Pair Programming, Agile Methodologies, Extreme Programming, Bloom’s Taxonomy, introducing to novices, empirical studies. iii Content 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Motivation............................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Objectives ................................................................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Problem Statement ............................................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Main Thesis Contribution ................................................................................................................. 3 1.5 Thesis Structure ................................................................................................................................... 4 1.6 Research Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 5 2 Traditional Software Development ...................................................................................................... 7 2.1 History ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 Software Crisis .............................................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Life-cycle Models ................................................................................................................................. 9 2.2.1 Code Fix Model .............................................................................................................................. 9 2.2.2 Waterfall Model ............................................................................................................................ 9 2.2.3 Spiral Model ................................................................................................................................ 10 2.3 Object Oriented Approach ............................................................................................................. 11 2.3.1 RUP Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 12 3 Agile Software Development ................................................................................................................ 14 3.1 Characteristics ................................................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Agile Manifesto .................................................................................................................................. 15 3.3 Traditional and Agile Comparison ............................................................................................. 16 3.4 Summary of Agile Methodologies ............................................................................................... 18 3.4.1 SCRUM ........................................................................................................................................... 19 3.4.2 Feature-driven Development ............................................................................................... 20 3.4.3 Lean Development .................................................................................................................... 20 3.4.4 Test-driven Development ...................................................................................................... 21 3.4.5 Extreme Programming ........................................................................................................... 21 4 Pair Programming .................................................................................................................................... 26 4.1 Introduction and Practices ............................................................................................................ 26 4.4.1 Pair Jelling .................................................................................................................................... 28 4.4.2 Pair Pressure .............................................................................................................................. 29 4.2 The Myths ............................................................................................................................................ 30 iv 4.3 Empirical Studies .............................................................................................................................. 32 4.3.1 Benefits ......................................................................................................................................... 33 4.3.2 Weakness/Problems ............................................................................................................... 37 4.3.3 Partner Finding .......................................................................................................................... 40 5 Learnability of Pair Programming ..................................................................................................... 44 5.1 Current Problems ............................................................................................................................. 44 5.2 Current State ....................................................................................................................................... 46 6. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Domains ....................................................................................... 50 6.1 Bloom’s Taxonomy in Software Engineering ......................................................................... 51 6.2 Course Improvement....................................................................................................................... 53 6.3 Knowledge Level of Novices and Experts ................................................................................ 53 6.4 Knowledge Assessment .................................................................................................................. 54 6.5 Assignment Assessment and Testing ........................................................................................ 58 7 Proposed Solutions .................................................................................................................................. 60 7.1 Applying Bloom’s Taxonomy ....................................................................................................... 60 7.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 63 8 Conclusion and Future Works ............................................................................................................. 67 Literature references .................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Xp Project Management
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2007 XP PROJECT MANAGEMENT Craig William Macholz The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Macholz, Craig William, "XP PROJECT MANAGEMENT" (2007). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 1201. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/1201 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. XP PROJECT MANAGEMENT By Craig William Macholz BS in Business Administration, The University of Montana, Missoula, MT, 1997 Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Computer Science The University of Montana Missoula, MT Autumn 2007 Approved by: Dr. David A. Strobel, Dean Graduate School Dr. Joel Henry Computer Science Dr. Yolanda Reimer Computer Science Dr. Shawn Clouse Business Administration i Macholz, Craig, M.S., December 2007 Computer Science Extreme Programming Project Management Chairperson: Dr. Joel Henry Extreme programming project management examines software development theory, the extreme programming process, and the essentials of standard project management as applied to software projects. The goal of this thesis is to integrate standard software project management practices, where possible, into the extreme programming process. Thus creating a management framework for extreme programming project management that gives the extreme programming managers the management activities and tools to utilize the extreme programming process within a wider range of commercial computing organizations, relationships, and development projects.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Methodologies Debate: Part 1
    ACCESS TO THE EXPERTS The Journal of Information Technology Management December 2001 Vol. 14, No. 12 The Great Methodologies Debate: Part 1 Resolved “Today, a new debate rages: agile software Traditional methodologists development versus rigorous software are a bunch of process- development.” dependent stick-in-the-muds who’d rather produce flawless Jim Highsmith, Guest Editor documentation than a working system that meets business needs. Opening Statement Jim Highsmith 2 Rebuttal Lightweight, er, “agile” Agile Can Scale: Inventing and Reinventing methodologists are a bunch of SCRUM in Five Companies glorified hackers who are going to be in for a heck of a surprise Jeff Sutherland 5 when they try to scale up their “toys” into enterprise-level software. Agile Versus Traditional: Make Love, Not War! Robert L. Glass 12 Business Intelligence Methodologies: Agile with Rigor? Larissa T. Moss 19 Agility with the RUP Philippe Kruchten 27 Extreme Requirements Engineering Larry Wagner 34 Exclusion, Assumptions, and Misinterpretation: Foes of Collaboration Lou Russell 39 Opening Statement by Jim Highsmith In the early 1980s, I participated in rigorous software development. others be able to understand the one round of methodology debate. Agile approaches (Extreme similarities and differences and be Structured analysis and design Programming, Crystal Methods, able to apply the right mix to their champions such as Tom DeMarco, Lean Development, Feature-Driven own organization. Both the SEI and Ed Yourdon, and Tim Lister were Development, Adaptive Software Rational have made wonderful on one side of the debate, while Development, SCRUM, and contributions to software develop- data-driven design aficionados like Dynamic Systems Development ment, but it is important to Ken Orr, Jean-Dominique Warnier, Methodology) populate one camp.
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Factor Analysis of Pair Programming Based on PSP
    I S S N 2 2 7 7 - 3 0 6 1 V o l u m e 1 5 N u m b e r 0 4 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTERS & TECHNOLOGY Multi-factor analysis of pair programming based on PSP methodology Nabiollah Bayatmoghadam1 (M.S), Ashkan Sami (Ph.D.)2 1Department of Computer Science, Engineering, Shiraz University Email: [email protected] 2Department of Computer Science, Engineering, Shiraz University ABSTRACT In regard with designing software, users play key role. In order to design software, it is necessary to observe standard principles of designation, using templates and using modern methods. Over the decades, using development methods, XP and one of the XP methodologies of paired programming used to design software. These methods have been designed for purpose of enhancing quality of product and rapidresponse to need of market and customer and overcoming weaknesses of traditional methods based on long-term programming and waterfall method. Therefore, every programmer and developer can pass a series of processes for constructing computer software. The processes can be changed daily and efficient processes maynot be effective and useful; although they can be considered as process. The main objective of the present study is multi-factor analysis of pair programming based on PSP methodology. Practical and analytical methodand two PSP methods have been applied for investigations. Key words: software engineering, XP, pair programming, PSP methodology, multi-factor analysis INTRODUCTION In designing software, users play key role. In order to design software, it is necessary to observe standard principles of designation and using templates and using modern technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • A Social Collaborative Distributed Software Development Environment,” Has Been Reviewed in Final Form
    A Social Collaborative Distributed Software Development Environment A Dissertation Presented in Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy with a Major in Computer Science in the College of Graduate Studies University of Idaho By Hani Ahmad Bani-Salameh August 16, 2011 Major Professor: Dr. Clinton Jeffery Copyright © 2010-2011 Hani Bani-Salameh. All rights reserved. ii Authorization to Submit Dissertation This dissertation of Hani Ahmad Bani-Salameh, submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy with a major in Computer Science and entitled “A Social Collaborative Distributed Software Development Environment,” has been reviewed in final form. Permission, as indicated by the signatures and dates given below, is now granted to submit final copies to the College of Graduate Studies for approval. Major Professor: Date: Dr. Clinton Jeffery Committee member: Date: Dr. Jim Alves-Foss Committee member: Date: Dr. Robert Rinker Committee member: Date: Dr. Barry Willis Department Administrator: Date: Dr. Gregory W. Donohoe Discipline’s College Dean: Date Dr. Larry A. Stauffer Final Approval and Acceptance by the College of Graduate Studies: Date: Dr. Jie Chen iii Abstract Software engineering is usually a team effort. Distributed software development needs real-time collaboration tools that help replicate the benefits of face-to-face meetings and support interaction among team members. Unfortunately, most of the tools that exist have limited capabilities, such as source code editing, and developers face collaboration and communication challenges in working with each other. Over the past decade software researchers have invented various development tools that integrate collaborative features. Unfortunately, most software developers still lack the right means and level of communication to coordinate their work and perform their tasks effectively, particularly in distributed settings.
    [Show full text]
  • The Importance of Team Skills for Software Development
    The Importance of Team Skills for Software Development by Carolyn Tanya Wick B.Sc., SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY, 1995 A thesis submitted in partial fulfdment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science IN THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard: THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Vancouver, Canada December 1998 Copyright © 1998, Carolyn Tanya Wick In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purpose may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis in whole or in part for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. THESIS TITLE: THE IMPORTANCE OF TEAM SKILLS FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 2366 MAIN MALL VANCOUVER, BC, CANADA V6T 1Z4 Abstract Software does not just happen - it must be engineered systematically through the collaboration of individuals with necessary software development skills and appropriate tools. Similarly, effective software teams do not just happen - they too are built over time through the collaboration of individuals with appropriate team skills, tools and resources. This thesis outlines the need for superior software teams, reviews the literature on team performance and argues that a practical way to begin improving the effectiveness of software teams is in training software engineers in the skills necessary for effective teamwork.
    [Show full text]
  • This Article Appeared in a Journal Published by Elsevier. the Attached Copy Is Furnished to the Author for Internal Non-Commerci
    This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright Author's personal copy Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Information and Software Technology 50 (2008) 1114–1126 www.elsevier.com/locate/infsof Exploring the underlying aspects of pair programming: The impact of personality Kyungsub S. Choi a,*, Fadi P. Deek b,IlImc a Faculty of Computer Information Systems, School of Business, Manhattan College, Riverdale, NY 10471-4098, USA b Faculty of Information Systems, College of Computing Sciences, New Jersey Institute of Technology, 323 M.L. King Boulevard, University Heights, Newark, NJ 07102-1982, USA c Faculty of Information Systems Department, School of Business, Yonsei University, 134 Shinchon-Dong, Seodaemoon-Ku, Seoul 120-749, Republic of Korea Received 2 July 2007; received in revised form 30 October 2007; accepted 2 November 2007 Available online 19 November 2007 Abstract With the recent advent of agile software process methods, a number of seldom used and unorthodox practices have come to the fore- front in the field of computer programming.
    [Show full text]
  • P Pair Programming and Gender
    1 Pair Programming and Gender P Linda L. Werner University of California, USA Brian Hanks Fort Lewis College, USA Charlie McDowell University of California, USA INTRODUCTION methods by stating that cooperative learning in- volves students taking responsibility for subtasks, Studies of pair programming both in industry and whereas collaborative learning requires that the academic settings have found improvements in pro- group works together on all aspects of the task gram quality, test scores, confidence, enjoyment, (Underwood & Underwood, 1999). The consensus and retention in computer-related majors. In this from numerous field and laboratory investigations is article we define pair programming, summarize the that academic achievement such as performance on results of pair programming research, and show why a test is enhanced when an individual learns informa- we believe pair programming will help women and tion with others as opposed to individually (O’Donnell men succeed in IT majors. & Dansereu, 1992; Slavin, 1996; Totten, Sills, & Digby, & Russ, 1991). Cooperative activities have been taught and prac- BACKGROUND ticed for other software system development tasks such as design and software engineering but not for Traditional undergraduate introductory programming programming (Basili, Green, Laitenburger, Lanubile, courses generally require that students work indi- Shull, Sorumgard, et al., 1996; Fagan, 1986, Sauer, vidually on their programming assignments. In these Jeffrey, Land, & Yetton, 2000; Schlimmer, Fletcher, courses, working with another student on program- & Hermens, 1994). Often cooperative methods are ming homework constitutes cheating and is not used in upper division computer science (CS) courses tolerated. The only resources available to help stu- such as compiler design and software engineering in dents with problems are the course instructor, the which group projects are encouraged or required.
    [Show full text]
  • Pair Programming: More Learning and Less Anxiety in a First Programming Course Susan F
    Pair Programming: More Learning and Less Anxiety in a First Programming Course Susan F. Freeman, Ph.D. *, Beverly K. Jaeger, Ph.D.*, Jennifer C. Broughamª *Northeastern University, ªMonash University Pair Programming is a recent development in education designed to enhance the student’s learning experience through teamwork. Specifically, it involves the students undertaking and completing some aspect of their programming work as a team of two. In engineering it is generally utilized for computer coding projects, such that partners work conjointly on the same design, algorithm, code, or assignment. For this study, this approach was used in a first programming course entitled “Engineering Problem Solving with Computation” by adapting the XP: eXtreme Programming method that is used in industry. The objective of this course is to teach first-year engineering students logic and problem solving skills through algorithmic programming. The programming language in the course of interest was C++. Pair programming was a voluntary element of the course and the students, under certain conditions, could opt in or out of it. The primary objective in offering this option was to reduce students' frustration when programming for the first time, as this often causes them to abandon attempts to understand the nuances of programming logic and syntax, and thereby the intended educational value of the course is lost. Pair-programming methodology requires that participants assume specified roles in a partnership. The course is administered and this option is selected with this understanding. Through various assessment tools, it was found that pair programming inspired confidence in the students, specifically in their ability to achieve the task at hand.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Engineering
    Chapter 15 Software Engineering So far we have talked in terms of one programmer designing an already speci- fied system. Software development in real life is seldom like this. Software is typically developed by programmers for customers who do not know precisely what they want. Programmers must understand the customer’s needs and then define exactly what the software should do before they can do any actual design. Software development is also typically done by teams of programmers, ranging from a small group of two to four people to a large team involving hundreds of people. Testing and deployment of software is also a major effort, often done by yet another group. Moreover, most of the effort put into a soft- ware system, especially a successful one, is spent fixing bugs and adding new features once the system has been “completed,” rather than on the system’s initial development. The study of software development, from a crude need on the part of a cus- tomer, through design and coding of a software system, and on through the ever-continuing process of fixing and improving the software, is called soft- ware engineering. This field has as its goal making software development sim- pler and the resultant software better. This chapter provides a brief overview of software engineering, describing the terminology and basic ideas developed by researchers and practitioners over the past thirty years. We first consider the problems that led to the field in the first place, proceed to describe the var- ious phases of software development, and finally discuss the ways in which these parts can be put together.
    [Show full text]
  • The Collaborative Software Process
    THE COLLABORATIVE SOFTWARE PROCESS by Laurie Ann Williams A dissertation submitted to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Computer Science The University of Utah August 2000 Copyright © Laurie Ann Williams 2000 All Rights Reserved THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH GRADUATE SCHOOL SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE APPROVAL of a dissertation submitted by Laurie Ann Williams This thesis had been read by each member of the following supervisory committee and by majority vote has been found to be satisfactory. __________________ ______________________________________________ Chair: Robert R. Kessler __________________ ______________________________________________ Martin L. Griss __________________ ______________________________________________ Christopher R. Johnson __________________ ______________________________________________ J. Fernando Naveda __________________ ______________________________________________ Joseph L. Zachary THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH GRADUATE SCHOOL FINAL READING APPROVAL To the Graduate Council of the University of Utah: I have read the dissertation of Laurie Ann Williams in its final form and have found that (1) its format, citations, and bibliographic style are consistent and acceptable; (2) its il- lustrative materials including figures, tables, and charts are in place; and (3) the final manuscript is satisfactory to the supervisory committee and is ready for submission to The Graduate School. _________________________ ________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Software Development Processes Lecture
    Design of Software Systems (Ontwerp van SoftwareSystemen) ! 6 Development Processes Roel Wuyts OSS 2014-2015 Software Process • Set of activities that leads to the production of a software product – lots of processes exist – share some fundamental activities Wuyts Roel © imec restricted 2007 2 Development Phases Testing Validate the solution against the requirements Analysis Model and specify the requirements (“what”) Maintenance Repair defects and adapt the solution to new requirements Implementation Construct a solution in software Requirements Establish customer’s needs Collection Design Model and specify a solution (“how”) Wuyts Roel 3 © imec restricted 2007 Software Development Process • A software development methodology is • a set of partially ordered steps • to build, deploy, maintain, … software • Examples: • Waterfall • Spiral • XP (eXtreme Programming) • UP (Unified Process) – RUP (Rational Unified Process) – Agile UP Wuyts Roel © imec restricted 2007 4 Lightweight vs. Heavyweight Processes Heavyweight Customizable Agile (Lightweight) e.g., Waterfall model, Framework e.g., eXtreme V-Process e.g., Rational Programming (XP), Unified SCRUM Process (RUP) Document driven Focus on Elaborate workflow definitions • indiv./interactions rather than process/tools Many different roles • working SW rather than documentation Many checkpoints • customer collaboration rather than contract High management overhead • responding to change rather than the plan Highly bureaucratic Wuyts Roel © imec restricted 2007 Lightweight vs. Heavyweight Processes
    [Show full text]
  • Mob Vs Pair: Comparing the Two Programming Practices – a Case Study
    Bachelor Degree Project Mob vs Pair: Comparing the two programming practices – a case study Author: Lucian Dragos Supervisor: Jonas Lundberg Semester: VT 2021 Subject: Computer Science Abstract Programming practices are used to improve various attributes of the coding process. Pair and Mob Programming are two practices that involve multiple developers collaboratively working on the same tasks and share multiple advantages and disadvantages. The aim of this project is to identify common advantages and disadvantages of the two practices as well as some attributes that differentiate the two and help in the process of deciding which programming practice should be used for a task. The first method used to answer the research questions was a literature review that should find and list the pros and cons of Mob and Pair Programming. A second method used were interviews with industry practitioners, whose perspectives and experiences will validate the previous results, add new attributes to the practices and identify differences and factors that encourage the use of one or the other practice. The findings of the project consist of positive and negative aspects of using any of the two programming practices and a set of attributes that should be considered when deciding whether to adopt Mob or Pair Programming for the task at hand. Keywords: Programming Practices, Group Programming, Collaborative Programming, Pair Programming, Mob Programming 1 Contents 1 Introduction ______________________________________________________ 3 1.1 Background ___________________________________________________
    [Show full text]