The Impact of Educational Background on Design Knowledge Sharing During Pair Programming: An Empirical Study

The management of knowledge in software processes is becoming a challenging concern for researchers and practitioners. Explicit knowledge can be formalized in many kinds of documents and rules, and consequently transferred in a number of manners. On the contrary, tacit knowledge cannot be formalized, because it is mainly retained in personal cognitive models and consists of individual capabilities of dealing with problems. The design of software systems requires a consistent deployment of tacit knowledge, and pair programming has shown great promises for helping to share knowledge between programmers. It is a common experience that programmers come not only from computer science and engineering curricula, but also from other education degrees, such as mathematics, natural sciences, and social sciences. In this case they attend proper specialist post graduation courses. We have executed an experiment in order to verify the relationship between educational background of pair’s components and knowledge sharing throughout working in pairs while designing software systems.

[1]  Aniello Cimitile,et al.  Working in pairs as a means for design knowledge building: an empirical study , 2004, Proceedings. 12th IEEE International Workshop on Program Comprehension, 2004..

[2]  Kent L. Beck,et al.  Extreme programming explained - embrace change , 1990 .

[3]  Aniello Cimitile,et al.  Lessons learned about distributed pair programming: what are the knowledge needs to address? , 2003, WET ICE 2003. Proceedings. Twelfth IEEE International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, 2003..

[4]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction , 2000 .

[5]  Chun Wei Choo,et al.  The knowing organization , 2005 .

[6]  Gary Klein,et al.  Wanted:project teams with a blend of is professional orientations , 2002, CACM.

[7]  Shari Lawrence Pfleeger,et al.  Preliminary Guidelines for Empirical Research in Software Engineering , 2002, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[8]  Jeffrey C. Carver,et al.  Using Empirical Studies during Software Courses , 2003, ESERNET.

[9]  Laurie A. Williams,et al.  Strengthening the Case for Pair Programming , 2000, IEEE Softw..

[10]  I. Nonaka.  A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation , 1994 .

[11]  F. Blackler.  Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation , 1995 .

[12]  Laurie A. Williams,et al.  In support of student pair-programming , 2001, SIGCSE '01.

[13]  VanDeGriftTammy.  Coupling pair programming and writing , 2004 .

[14]  Forrest Shull,et al.  Building Knowledge through Families of Experiments , 1999, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[15]  Tammy VanDeGrift.  Coupling pair programming and writing: learning about students' perceptions and processes , 2004 .

[16]  Charles E. McDowell,et al.  The effects of pair-programming on performance in an introductory programming course , 2002, SIGCSE '02.

[17]  F. Blackler.  KNOWLEDGE AND THE THEORY OF ORGANIZATIONS: ORGANIZATIONS AS ACTIVITY SYSTEMS AND THE REFRAMING OF MANAGEMENT* , 1993 .

[18]  Reidar Conradi,et al.  Empirical Methods and Studies in Software Engineering , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[19]  John T. Nosek,et al.  The case for collaborative programming , 1998, CACM.

[20]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  Using Students as Subjects—A Comparative Study of Students and Professionals in Lead-Time Impact Assessment , 2000, Empirical Software Engineering.