Laurie Murphy
Sue Fitzgerald
Renée McCauley
ABSTRACT
Previous research on the interaction between pairs suggests there is a positive relationship between transactive discussion and effective problem solving. Debugging is particularly problematic for novice programmers. Some previous studies suggest this difficulty may be lessened by working in pairs. Using transactive analysis, we examined interactions between five pairs of university-level introductory programming students as they debugged Java programs. Transcriptions of their verbal interactions were coded into transactive statement categories which revealed that the nature of participants' discourse varied. Extensions, feedback requests, critiques and completions were the most frequently observed types of transactions. Other transaction types were rarely detected in this context. The amount of discussion for the pairs varied as did the number of transactive statements. Results suggest that pairs who talked more and used completion transactions more often attempted more problems, but those who critiqued more frequently successfully debugged more problems. The teaching implications of this work and recommendations for future research are discussed.
- Berkowitz, M. W. and Gibbs, J. C. 1983. Measuring the development of features of moral discussion. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 29, 399--410. Referenced in Teasley {17}.Google Scholar
- Braught, G., Eby, L.M., and Wahls, T. 2008. The effects of pair-programming on individual programming skill. In Proceedings of the 39th Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Portland, OR, USA, March 12-15, 2008). SIGCSE '08. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 200--204. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Braught, G., MacCormick, J., and Wahls, T. 2010. The benefits of pairing by ability. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA, March 10-13, 2010). SIGCSE '10. ACM, New York, NY, 249--253. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Carver, J.C., Henderson, L., He, L., Hodges, J., and Reese, D. 2007. Increased retention of early computer science and software engineering students using pair programming. In Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (Dublin, Ireland, July 3-5, 2007). CSEET '07. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 115--122. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chaparro, E.A., Yuksel, A., Romero, P., and Bryant, S. 2005. Factors affecting the perceived effectiveness of pair programming in higher education. In Proceedings of the 17th Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group (University of Sussex, Brighton, UK, June 26-July 1, 2005), 5--18.Google Scholar
- DeClue, T.H. 2003. Pair programming and pair trading: Effects on learning and motivation in a CS2 course. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 18(5), 49--56. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fitzgerald, S., Lewandowski, G., McCauley, R., Murphy, L., Simon, B., Thomas, L., and Zander, C. 2008. Debugging: Finding, fixing and flailing, a multi-institutional study of novice debuggers. Computer Science Education 18(2), 93--116.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hale, J.E., Sharpe, S. and Hale, D.P. 1999. An evaluation of the cognitive processes of programmers engaged in software debugging. Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice 11, 73--91. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hanks, B. 2007. Problems encountered by novice pair programmers. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computing Education Research (Atlanta, Georgia, USA, September 15-16, 2007). ICER '07. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 159--164. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hanks, B. and Brandt, M. 2009. Successful and unsuccessful problem solving approaches of novice programmers. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Chattanooga, TN, USA, March 4-7, 2009), 24--28. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hanks, B., McDowell, C., Draper, D., and Krnjajic, M. 2004. Program quality with pair programming in CS1. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Leeds, UK, June 28-30, 2004). ITiCSE '04. ACM Press, New York, NY, 176--180. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hughes, J. and Parkes, S. 2003. Trends in the use of verbal protocol analysis in software engineering research. Behaviour & Information Technology 22(2), 127--140.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Katz, I. and Anderson, J. 1987. Debugging: An analysis of bug location strategies. Human-Computer Interaction 3(4), 351--399. Google ScholarDigital Library
- McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H. E., and Fernald, J. 2006. Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Communications of the ACM 49(8), 90--95. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mendes, E., Al--Fakhri, L.B., and Luxton-Reilly, A. 2005. Investigating pair-programming in a 2nd-year software development and design computer science course. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Caparica, Portugal, June 27-29, 2005). ITiCSE '05. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 296---300. Google ScholarDigital Library
- McCauley, R., Fitzgerald, S., Lewandowski, G., Murphy, L., Simon, B., Thomas, L. and Zander, C. 2008. Debugging: A Review of the Literature from an Educational Perspective, Computer Science Education: Special Issue on Debugging 18(2), 67--92.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Teasley, S. D. 1997. Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In Resnick, L. B., Saljo, R., Pontecorvo, C., and Burge, B. (Eds.) Discourse, Tools, and Reasoning. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, 361--384.Google Scholar
- Thomas, L., Ratcliffe, M., and Robertson, A. 2003. Code warriors and code-a-phobes: A study in attitude and pair programming. In Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Reno, Nevada, USA, February 19-23, 2003). SIGCSE '03. ACM, New York, NY, 363--367. Google ScholarDigital Library
- VanDeGrift, T. 2004. Coupling pair programming and writing: learning about students' perceptions and processes. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Norfolk, Virginia, USA, March 3-7, 2004). SIGCSE '04. ACM, New York, NY, 2--6. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Vessey, I. 1985. Expertise in debugging computer programs: A process analysis. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 23, 459--494.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Werner, L., and Denner, J. 2009. Pair Programming in Middle School: What Does It Look Like?. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(1), 29--49.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Werner, L. L., Hanks, B., and McDowell, C. 2004. Pair-programming helps female computer science students. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC) 4(1). Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Pair debugging: a transactive discourse analysis
Recommendations
Debugging: the good, the bad, and the quirky -- a qualitative analysis of novices' strategies
SIGCSE 08A qualitative analysis of debugging strategies of novice Java programmers is presented. The study involved 21 CS2 students from seven universities in the U.S. and U.K. Subjects "warmed up" by coding a solution to a typical introductory problem. This was ...
First-year students' impressions of pair programming in CS1
Pair programming, as part of the Agile Development process, has noted benefits in professional software development scenarios. These successes have led to a rise in use of pair programming in educational settings, particularly in Computer Science 1 (CS1)...
First year students' impressions of pair programming in CS1
ICER '07: Proceedings of the third international workshop on Computing education researchPair programming, as part of the Agile Development process, has noted benefits in professional software development scenarios. These successes have led to a rise in use of pair programming in educational settings, particularly in CS1. Specifically [6] ...
Comments