Extreme programming explained: embrace change
Extreme programming explained: embrace change
Endo-testing: unit testing with mock objects
Extreme programming examined
Extreme programming explored
Pair Programming Illuminated
Extreme Programming Installed
IEEE Software
Conflict in collaborative software development
SIGMIS CPR '03 Proceedings of the 2003 SIGMIS conference on Computer personnel research: Freedom in Philadelphia--leveraging differences and diversity in the IT workforce
On understanding compatibility of student pair programmers
Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education
Double Trouble: Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in the Study of eXtreme Programmers
VLHCC '04 Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages - Human Centric Computing
Critical Personality Traits in Successful Pair Programming
AGILE '06 Proceedings of the conference on AGILE 2006
The Social Dynamics of Pair Programming
ICSE '07 Proceedings of the 29th international conference on Software Engineering
Evaluating Pair Programming with Respect to System Complexity and Programmer Expertise
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
The effect of experience on the test-driven development process
Empirical Software Engineering
Video analysis of pair programming
Proceedings of the 2008 international workshop on Scrutinizing agile practices or shoot-out at the agile corral
Pair programming and the mysterious role of the navigator
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
XP'06 Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering
The collaborative nature of pair programming
XP'06 Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering
Hi-index | 0.00 |
We conducted a quasi-experiment comparing novice pair programmers to expert pair programmers. The expert pairs wrote tests with a higher instruction, line, and method coverage but were slower than the novices. The pairs within both groups switched keyboard and mouse possession frequently. Furthermore, most pairs did not share the input devices equally but rather had one partner who is more active than the other.