Voices of women in a software engineering course: reflections on collaboration
Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC) - Special Issue on Gender-Balancing Computing Education
Investigating pair-programming in a 2nd-year software development and design computer science course
ITiCSE '05 Proceedings of the 10th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education
An instructional scaffolding approach to teaching software design
Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges
Proceedings of the 11th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education
Evaluating performances of pair designing in industry
Journal of Systems and Software
Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges
The Case for Pair Programming in the Computer Science Classroom
ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE)
Industry-inspired guidelines improve students' pair programming communication
Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education
Evaluating industry-inspired pair programming communication guidelines with undergraduate students
Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education
Hi-index | 0.00 |
In a course environment, pairing a student with one partner for the entire semester is beneficial, but may not be optimal. The authors conducted a study in two undergraduate levelcourses to observe the advantages and disadvantages of pair rotation whereby a student pairs with several different students throughout the semester. This paper summarizes teaching staff and student perceptions on the viability of pair rotation. Teachers find pair rotation valuable because the teaching staff can obtain multiple peer evaluations on each student and because dysfunctional pairs are regularly disbanded. However, pair rotation adds to the burden of assigning pairs multiple times per semester. The majority of students in the study perceived pair rotation to be a desirable approach. Additionally, most students considered peer evaluation to be an effective means of providing feedback to teaching staff. However, they did not significantly believe that peer evaluation was an effective means for motivating students.