Integrated Intelligent Research(IIR)
Volume: 01 Issue: 02 December 2012,Pages No.47-51
Analysis of pair Programming Effectiveness in
Academic Environment
S. Sagayaraj1, M. Kavitha2 , M. Poovizhi3
Department of Computer Science, Sacred Heart College, Tirupattur.
1& 3
2
Vailankanni Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Hosur.
Email:sagisara@gmail.com, devi28ks@gmail.com, poomca12@gmail.com
Abstract-Many experiments have been conducted on Pair
Programming (PP) by constructing small-scale programs of a
few hundred lines of code, using correctness, duration, and
effort metrics. In this paper a group of students were selected
on basis of major group as Computer Science and non-major
group as Physics. Measurements were made on the basis of
lines of code, creativity, presentation, time, number of
variables used and efficiency. After gathering data the analyses
were made with the requirements and plotted in graph to check
their grade and statistic level between major and non-major
group. Finally results are given such as major students
possessed successive and non major students possessed
partially successive.
I. INTRODUCTION
Traditionally, learning program is a solitary activity. PP
renovates it into a collaborative learning process. PP is a style
of programming in which two programmers work side-by-side
at one computer, continuously collaborating on the same
design, algorithm, code, or test [1]. The name of the technique,
PP can lead people to incorrectly assume that Software
engineers only pair during code development. PP allows
pairing in all phases of the development process, in pair design,
pair debugging, pair testing, and so on[2]. Programmers could
pair up at any time during development, in particular when
they are working on a complex or unfamiliar problem. PP
allows two students to utilize one computer, permitting a larger
number of students to be present in an individual room for lab
sessions. PP has been extensively studied in academia and has
been shown to have numerous benefits for student learning. An
early study of PP conducted at the University of Utah found
that students who used PP produced solutions of higher quality
than the students who worked individually [1].
Researchers also indicated that pair teams were able to produce
solutions more quickly than individual programmers and that
in the best case; PP teams only required 15% more
programmer hours to produce a solution than individual
programmers.In order to improve the study level to the most
higher status through PP so that students who find difficulty in
learning alone, can gain knowledge and improve their learning
power and also their information about their educational status.
In most of the previous research works, the effectiveness of PP
was evaluated by measuring the characteristics of the products
that were developed by the research participants. However, to
prove that PP is an effective learning methodology, the
improvements in individual’s subject knowledge and
programming skills have to be measured.In section 2 explain
the related work in PP, followed by the detailed presentation of
1
International Journal of Business Intelligent
ISSN: 2278-2400
PP in Section 3. Then, the implementation of solo and PP is
presented in Section 4, followed by a detailed analysis of solo
and PP is provided in section 5. The conclusion and the future
research avenues are discussed in Section 6.
II. RELATED WORKS
In 2002 Dick et al performed an action research on some
professions for testing the ability of PP based on their
communication, comfortable, confidence and compromise. The
result was four personality variables are posited as beneficial
for PP [3].In 2003 Thomas did a survey based on PP with
students self confidence level in this research he concluded that
evidence that students who have considerable self confidence
do not enjoy the experience of PP as much as other students
but same students produced best result when they were placed
in pairs with similar confidence levels[3].In 2004 choi made a
survey research based on PP with professionals and students in
MBTI to prove the effectiveness of PP. The survey asked
professional programmers which predefined factors they
thought most influences PP and revealed that personality,
communication and genders as the perceived most influential
factors. The other predefined factors were programming skill,
cognitive programming style, familiarity, and pair protocol [4].
In 2006 Sftetsos et al performed an experiment with the
students using KTS tool and he observed that better
performance and collaboration viability for pairs with mixed
temperament [5].In 2007 Domino et al executed an experiment
on both Professional and Students to check the Random effect
on PP. At last he came to a conclusion such that PP was not
effective to study the impact of PP on programming
performance and user satisfaction [5, 15].In 2007 Canfora et al
carried out an experiment with an Engineer and Scientist on
some similar skill and experienced that PP is partially effective
on evaluating the performances of pair designing in industry
[6].In 2007 Arisholm et al presented an experiment on "it
depends" – on both the programmer's expertise and the
complexity of the system and tasks to be solved. He concluded
that two heads are better than one, for achieving correctness on
highly complex programming tasks in PP [7]. In 2008 Bipp
worked out with a group of students. He reported that PP is
effective on students and also it is efficient on them [8].In 2010
Hannay and Arisholm preformed Regression path analysis
regression trees with the help of Professionals on Big five
tools. He observed that PP is partial effective with Low support
of hypotheses. Other factors than personality have greater
impact [8].Comparing many research, various experiments that
were carried out by various authors in PP made a conclusion
Integrated Intelligent Research(IIR) International Journal of Business Intelligent
Volume: 01 Issue: 02 December 2012,Pages No.47-51
ISSN: 2278-2400
that PP make the students and professionals working together the major students in computer science with similar aspects.
shows best result in more effective manner. Students were given a program to perform in pair after their
execution results were recorded in different aspects such as
III. PAIR PROGRAMMING lines of code, number of variables used, efficiency, and time
taken.
Students who pair in major group continue to out perform their
non-pairing peers, even when they begin working by 4.2 Pair programming
themselves. Typically, non-major students are less confident in A formal PP experiment was run at laboratory to empirically
their abilities than major students, even when their actual levels assess the educational efficacy of the technique in a major and
of competence are the same [9].This lack of confidence leads non major group of students. Results indicate that students who
non major students to doubt their capabilities, question whether practice PP perform better on programming projects. Student
they belong, and frequently leads them to select other majors. pairs are more self-sufficient which reduces their reliance on
The chief gap in confidence is significantly reduced when the the teaching staff. Qualitatively, paired students demonstrate
students perform PP [10, 11].As noted above, PP increases the higher order thinking skills than students who worked alone.
retention rate in computing-related majors for all students; the These results are supportive of PP as a collaborative learning
gap in retention rates is reduced when students pair [12, technique.
13].Students find PP enjoyable and beneficial to their learning.
V. ANALYSIS
This experiment was carried out with help of only under
graduate students of computer science major and physics PP has numerous benefits ranging from improvements in the
students. Experiment was conducted on C language. Students quality of student work to increased rates in the retention of
selected as two groups from major subject in computer science students majoring in computer science and non- majoring in
and one group in non major subject in computer science computer science.
(physics). First group of students in computer science are
above average students who are efficient in programming 5.1 Solo Performance
language. Second group of students in computer science are Students have been split into two groups such as solo-A and
average students in programming skill. In non major group solo-B; first students were asked to perform given task as solo
students are selected based on programming performance. During solo process their ability where rated in
skill.Unfortunately student PP sessions usually differ at least in different aspects such as lines of code, number of variables,
some aspects from professional PP sessions: The scope of the efficiency and time. Student’s enjoyments, creativity power
task a student setting is predefined by the researcher and and other aspects were also noted.
normally not a real world or very complex task, because the
students have a limited timeframe to solve the problem [14, Table – 1 Group A Solo Data
15]. The advantage of a predefined task is that the researcher
can comprehend and evaluate the solution process of the Sl. Line No of Efficien Tim
students. N s of variabl cy e
o. cod es
IV. IMPLEMENTATION e
1. 12 2 3 8
There are many studies investigating student pair 2 28 2 2 15
programmers, most of the time in a quantitative manner in
order to analyze the benefits. Those studies compare the 3 8 2 2 3
interaction behavior in a professional environment dependent 4 7 2 3 2
on driver and observer roles, subtask and PP experience, but 5 25 8 3 7
there is no comparison between major group students and non
6 14 4 2 4
major group students with in pair programmers.
7 18 4 2 4
IV.1 Solo programming 8 12 2 2 4
The students were provided with laboratory section first solo 9 14 2 2 4
performances were conducted for major group students in
computer science. Students are divided into two groups solo A
Group and solo B Group. In first session solo performance of Table-1 provides the details about students performances grade
solo a group was conducted, they were given a set of program. that have been observed and they have marked with the
Then their performance was recorded in different aspects such measurements such as Lines of code, Number of variables,
as lines of code, number of variables used, efficiency, and time Efficiency and time duration taken by each students to
taken. Later two groups of students are paired together to complete their single task. Table-1 values are plotted in graph
perform similar type of experiment, they were provided with Figure-1. The A- Group students had better knowledge in
identical question that are given during their solo performance. programming skill. X- Axis stands for the aspect of ability test
After completing their experiments the results were recorded Y- Axis stands for the rate of percentage. The plotted graph
based on their listed skills such as lines of code, number of defines the performance of the major students on the following
variables used, efficiency, and time taken. Finally non major aspect such as Lines of code, No of variables, Efficiency,
groups of students (physics) performed equivalent task done by Time. The maximum percentage level of lines of code occurs
2
Integrated Intelligent Research(IIR) International Journal of Business Intelligent
Volume: 01 Issue: 02 December 2012,Pages No.47-51
ISSN: 2278-2400
by the student are 28%, no of variables used are 6%, their 8%, their efficiency levels are up to 4% and finally time they
efficiency levels are up to 5% and finally time they worked worked were 10%. They had good working capacity in solo
were 9%. They had better working capacity in solo performance. Comparing these two result students does not
performance. Students working individually have done their show much difference in their results. The given task was
job in good manner. But they do not have any type of completed in time and their lines of code; number of variables
communication or discussion during their coding period or used and time taken by each and every student does not vary
execution time.Table-2 provides the details about students much. They had good working capacity in solo performance.
performances grade that have been observed and they have Students working individually have done their job in
marked with the measurements such as Lines of code, goodmanner. But they do not have any type of communication
or discussion during their coding period or execution time.
Table – 2Group B Solo Data Also they faced little difficulty during writing code and also in
error rectification.
Sl. No. Lines of No of Efficiency Time
code variable 5.3 Average of Solo – A and Solo – B
1 26 5 3 16 After measuring the students performance in solo basis by
2 25 5 2 6 giving each students with an individual single task their
3 50 10 2 7 average measurements where marked in different table.Table-3
4 10 3 2 5 defines the details about students performances grade that have
5 7 1 3 2 been observed and they have marked with the measurements
6 10 2 3 6 such as Lines of code, Number of variables, Efficiency and
7 9 3 2 10 time duration taken by each students to complete their single
8 26 4 2 15 task. This table values are plotted in graph Figure-3.X- Axis
stands for the aspect of ability test Y- Axis stands for the rate
9 42 8 2 15
of percentage.
Number of variables, Efficiency and time duration taken by
Table-3 Average Data of solo A & B Group
each students to complete their single task. Table-2values are
plotted in graph Figure-2.

Fig – 1Group A Solo Data

Fig -3Average data of group A & B Solo Data

The Figure-3 defines the performance of the major students on

Fig - 2Group B Solo Data
The Figure-2 defines the performance of the major students on
the following aspects such as Lines of code, No of variables,
Efficiency, Time. The maximum percentage level of lines of
code occurs by the student are 30%, no of variables used are
3
the following aspects such as Lines of code, No of variables,
Efficiency, Time. The maximum percentage level of lines of
code occurs by the student are 19%, no of variables used are
4%, their efficiency levels are up to 2% and finally time they
worked were 8%. They had good working capacity in solo
performance. Average was taken between students of solo-A
and solo-B to check their ability of working skills performing
individually. The results attained were positive there wasn’t
much difference in their skills and other aspects of knowledge.
5.4 Paired Performance of Computer Science
Integrated Intelligent Research(IIR)
Students were joined together to perform a single task, here
solo-A students and solo-B students are mingled and they were
made as single paired group. Here major students of A-Group
are little more efficient compared with students of B-Group.
After the task was completed successfully student’s
performance results are noted. The values acquired are
tabulated in Table-4.
International Journal of Business Intelligent
Volume: 01 Issue: 02 December 2012,Pages No.47-51
ISSN: 2278-2400
were measured and marked in Table-6.The Table-6 and Figure-
6provides the detail results about the major and non major
student’s performance in PP.X- Axis stands for the aspect of
ability test Y- Axis stands for the rate of percentage.
Comparing the result of both, major students show better result
rather than non major students, they are lacking back in all
aspects that are observed during their performance.

Table–4Average performances in Computer Science Table – 5 Paired performance of Physics

Lines of No of Efficienc Time Sl. Lines No of Efficienc Time

code variables y No of code variables y
17 3 4 6
1 42 8 3 35
Here they showed better result while compared with solo 2 40 8 2 30
performance in the lines of code, number 3 34 6 3 22
ofvariablesused,timeand efficiency. They enjoyed working 4 34 6 2 15
with companions. As well as X- Axis stands for the aspect of 5 36 7 2 20
ability test Y- Axis stands for the rate of percentageThe
maximum percentage level of lines of code occurs by the
student are 17%, number of variables used are 3%, their
efficiency levels are up to 4% and finally time they worked
were 6%. They had better working capacity in pair
performance compare to solo performance. Whereas
comparing results of paired students with solo-A and solo-B
they show good results.

Fig - 5Paired Performances of Physics

Table – 6Comparison of Major & Non-Major Group data

S Batch Lin No of Efficien Ti

l. es variabl cy me
N of es
o cod
Fig- 4 Paired performance of computer science group e
1 C.S 17 3 4 6
While students are grouped as two to complete a single task
2 Physi 38 7 3 25
they had better experience in doing the task through discussing
cs
with each other. They were measured in different aspects such
as creativity power, involvement, enjoyment, and way of
Results of both major group and non major group students of
presenting the program also main consideration was time
computer science possess different results. Comparing students
duration taken to complete a task given to them.
of both group major group students possess better results.
Students of computer science had great impact on PP, their
5.5 Paired Performance of Physics
efficiency, creativity; learning skills are improved through this
Students were joined together to perform a single task, here
PP, while non major students do not have much impact on PP.
non major students of physics were made as paired group.
Non major students took more time to complete single task in
After grouping them into pair each pair was given single task
pairing rather in solo performance. Non major are lacking in
to complete. After the task was completed successfully
their efficiency and performance around 73% compared to
student’s performance results are noted. The values acquired
major students performance.
are tabulated in Table-5.The Figure-4depicts efficiency of
students when they are paired to perform single task. X- Axis
stands for the aspect of ability test Y- Axis stands for the rate
of percentage

6.6 Comparison- Major and Non-Major Groups

Finally test was conducted both groups to check their
involvement and status in performing program. The results
4
Integrated Intelligent Research(IIR)
Fig- 6Comparisons of Major & Non-Major Group
7. CONCLUSION
Pair programmers produce higher quality code in about half the
time when compared with solo programmers. However, the
researchers observed educational benefits for the student pair
programmers. These benefits included superior results on
graded assignments, increased satisfaction/reduced frustration
from the students, increased confidence from the students on
their Practicals result.PP showed best results in major students
compared to non major students. A tool can be developed in
such a way that tool should be deployed in systems to check
the students effectiveness, efficiency, creativity power and
other aspects on their own and define them in terms and rates.
International Journal of Business Intelligent
Volume: 01 Issue: 02 December 2012,Pages No.47-51
ISSN: 2278-2400
Software Development, Proc. 19th Conf. Software Eng.
Education and Training.
[10] Lui, K.M.;Chan, K.C.C. (2006): PP Productivity: Novice–
Novice Vs. Expert–Expert,International Journal of
Human- Computer Studies, 64, pp. 915–925.
[11] Madeyski, L. (2007):On the effects of PP on thoroughness
and fault-finding effectiveness of unit tests, Proc.
PROFES,ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.
4589. Springer Verlag, pp. 207–221.
[12] Madeyski, L.(2006): The impact of PP and test-driven
development on package dependencies in object-oriented
design– an experiment, Proc. PROFES, ser. Lecture Notes
in Computer Science, vol. 4034, Springer Verlag, pp. 278–
289.
[13] Mu¨ller, M. M. (2006): A Preliminary Study on The
Impact Of A Pair Design Phase On PP And Solo
Programming,Information and Software Technology, 48,
pp. 335–344.
[14] Mu¨ller, M. M. (2007): Do Programmer Pairs Make
Different Mistakes than Solo Programmers, The Journal of
Systems and Software,80, pp. 1460–1471.
[15] Nawrocki, J.; Wojciechowski, J.A. (2001):Experimental
evaluation of PP, Proc. European Software Control and
Metrics Conference, pp. 269–276.

Reference
[1] Baker, R. S., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., and
Wagner, A. Z. 2004. Off-task behavior in the cognitive
tutor classroom: when students "game the system". In
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (Vienna, Austria, April 24 - 29,
2004).CHI '04. ACM, NewYork,NY,383-390.
DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/985692.985741
[2] A. Radermacher, G. Walia, O. Myronovych, S. Abufardeh,
and R. Rummelt, “Investigating the Use of PP at North
Dakota State University: A Family of Empirical Studies”,
Technical Report, The Department of Computer Science,
North Dakota State University, 2010,
http://cs.ndsu.edu/research/reports/
[3] Williams, L. Introduction to PP, version
2.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG_U12uqRhE
[4] Williams, L., Kessler, R., Cunningham, W., and Jeffries,
R. Strengthening the case for PP. IEEE Softw.,17(4):19-
25, 2000.
[5] Williams, L., Kessler, R.R., Cun-ningham, W., and
Jeffries, R., Strengthening The Case for PP, IEEE
Software, 2000. 17(4): pp. 19 - 25.
[6] Hannay, Jo E.; Arisholm, Erik.; Engvik, Harald.; Sjøberg,
Dag I.K.(2010): Effects of Personality on PP, IEEE
TRANSACTIONS On Software Engineering VOL. 36,
NO. 1, JAN/FEB, pp 61-80.
[7] Heiberg, S.; Puus, U.; Salumaa, P.; Seeba, A. (2003):PP
effect on developers productivity, Proc. XP 2003, ser.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2675, Springer
Verlag, pp. 215–224.
[8] Katira, N.; Williams, L.; Wiebe, E.; Miller, C.; Balik, S.;
Gehringer, E.(2004): On Understanding Compatibility of
Student Pair Programmers, Proc. 35th Technical Symp.
Computer Science Education, pp. 7-11.
[9] Layman, L. (2006): Changing Students’ Perceptions: An
Analysis of the Supplementary Benefits of Collaborative
5