1 / 16

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. 1. Intro 2. Conceptual Model and hypothesis 3. Design of the Experiment 4. Results 5. Threats to validity

lysa
Download Presentation

Presented by Tore Løvmo

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

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

  3. 1. Intro • XP, 12 keys • Driver <-> Navigator • time effective • Previous experiments: • Complexity • expertise

  4. 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?

  5. 2. Conceptual Model and hypothesis

  6. concept cont.

  7. 3. Design of the experiment fase 1: individuals 2001 fase 2: pairs 2004-2005 pretest task, determined their expertise

  8. design cont. • Individual training • Individual pretest • Main test - 4 tasks • Last task

  9. design cont.

  10. 4. Results

  11. Results cont.

  12. Results cont.

  13. Results cont.

  14. 5. Validity Time difference? 3 years..

  15. 6. Discussion • duration • decr. 39% favor PP • incr. 8% favor ind. • Effort • 22 % incr. 115 % incr. • favor individual • Correctness • 48% incr.

  16. 7. Conclusion • System complexity and expertise • DO affect the usage of PP • Juniors have more benefit

More Related