Rating Expertise in Collaborative Software Development

The literature on expertise is wide-ranging, both across many domains and within software development, however when findings from these are contrasted with literature on experience in pair programming, some startling differences become apparent. For example, knowledge seems to be a key feature in obtaining expertise, however there is little mention of core programming knowledge as a measure of expertise in the pair programming literature. This paper discusses these discrepancies, along with findings on the reliability of various types of rating, to provide context for the presentation of data from a survey of commercial pair programmers which aims to help clarify what factors are considered good indicators of pair programming expertise by different groups.

[1]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Skill and Working Memory , 1982 .

[2]  Andrew j. Dick,et al.  Paired Programming & Personality Traits , 2002 .

[3]  M. Chi,et al.  The Nature of Expertise , 1988 .

[4]  Robert L. Holzbach,et al.  Rater bias in performance ratings: Superior, self-, and peer ratings. , 1978 .

[5]  R. Glaser,et al.  Expertise in a complex skill: Diagnosing x-ray pictures. , 1988 .

[6]  Laurie A. Williams,et al.  Pair Programming Illuminated , 2002 .

[7]  Simon P. Davies,et al.  Characterizing the program design activity : neither strictly top-down nor globally opportunistic , 1991 .

[8]  B. Adelson.  When Novices Surpass Experts: The Difficulty of a Task May Increase With Expertise , 1984 .

[9]  Françoise Détienne,et al.  Assessing the cognitive consequences of the object-oriented approach: A survey of empirical research on object-oriented , 1997, Interact. Comput..

[10]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Analogical problem solving , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[11]  Timothy A. Post,et al.  On the solving of ill-structured problems. , 1988 .

[12]  James Rhem.  Problem-based learning: An introduction , 1994 .

[13]  Kevin G. Love.  Comparison of peer assessment methods: Reliability, validity, friendship bias, and user reaction. , 1981 .

[14]  Kate Ehrlich,et al.  Knowledge and processes in the comprehension of computer programs. , 1988 .

[15]  Bob Rehder,et al.  Cognitive activities and levels of abstraction in procedural and object-oriented design , 1995 .

[16]  R. J. Bogumil,et al.  The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action , 1985, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[17]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition , 1998 .

[18]  Jean-Michel Hoc,et al.  Psychology of programming , 1990 .

[19]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[20]  Elliot Soloway,et al.  A model of software design , 1986, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[21]  J. Kruger,et al.  Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[22]  David J. Gilmore,et al.  Expert Programming Knowledge: A Strategic Approach , 1990 .

[23]  Françoise Détienne,et al.  Expert Programming Knowledge: a Schema-Based Approach , 2007, ArXiv.

[24]  Marian Petre.  Mental imagery, visualisation tools and team work , 2002 .

[25]  Laurie A. Williams,et al.  On understanding compatibility of student pair programmers , 2004, SIGCSE '04.

[26]  Bob Rehder,et al.  Cognitive Activities and Levels of Abstraction in Procedural and Object-Oriented Design , 1995, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[27]  Alan F. Blackwell,et al.  Mental imagery in program design and visual programming , 1999, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[28]  P. Johnson-Laird.  Mental models , 1989 .

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

[30]  Sallyann Bryant.  Double Trouble: Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in the Study of eXtreme Programmers , 2004, 2004 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages - Human Centric Computing.