16
Evaluating Pair Programming with Respect to System Complexity and Programmer Expertise by Erik Arisholm, Hans Gallis, Tore Dybå and Dag I.K. Sjøberg Presented by Tore Løvmo

Presented by Tore Løvmo

  • Upload
    lysa

  • View
    35

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Evaluating Pair Programming with Respect to System Complexity and Programmer Expertise by Erik Arisholm, Hans Gallis, Tore Dybå and Dag I.K. Sjøberg. Presented by Tore Løvmo. 1. Intro 2. Conceptual Model and hypothesis 3. Design of the Experiment 4. Results 5. Threats to validity - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Presented by Tore Løvmo

Evaluating Pair Programming with Respect to System Complexity and Programmer

Expertise

by Erik Arisholm, Hans Gallis, Tore Dybå and Dag I.K. Sjøberg

Presented by Tore Løvmo

Page 2: Presented by Tore Løvmo

• 1. Intro• 2. Conceptual Model and hypothesis• 3. Design of the Experiment• 4. Results• 5. Threats to validity• 6. Discussion• 7. Conclusions

Page 3: Presented by Tore Løvmo

1. Intro

– XP, 12 keys– Driver <-> Navigator– time effective

– Previous experiments:» Complexity» expertise

Page 4: Presented by Tore Løvmo

intro cont.

What is the effect regarding duration, effort and correctness of pair programming for various levels of system complexity and programmer expertise when performing change tasks?

Page 5: Presented by Tore Løvmo

2. Conceptual Model and hypothesis

Page 6: Presented by Tore Løvmo

concept cont.

Page 7: Presented by Tore Løvmo

3. Design of the experiment

fase 1: individuals 2001

fase 2: pairs 2004-2005

pretest task, determined their expertise

Page 8: Presented by Tore Løvmo

design cont.

» Individual training» Individual pretest» Main test - 4 tasks» Last task

Page 9: Presented by Tore Løvmo

design cont.

Page 10: Presented by Tore Løvmo

4. Results

Page 11: Presented by Tore Løvmo

Results cont.

Page 12: Presented by Tore Løvmo

Results cont.

Page 13: Presented by Tore Løvmo

Results cont.

Page 14: Presented by Tore Løvmo

5. Validity

Time difference? 3 years..

Page 15: Presented by Tore Løvmo

6. Discussion

• duration» decr. 39% favor PP» incr. 8% favor ind.

• Effort» 22 % incr. 115 % incr.» favor individual

• Correctness» 48% incr.

Page 16: Presented by Tore Løvmo

7. Conclusion

• System complexity and expertise » DO affect the usage of PP

• Juniors have more benefit