Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
97 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
53 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
5 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Exploring Communication Dynamics: Eye-tracking Analysis in Pair Programming of Computer Science Education (2403.19560v3)

Published 28 Mar 2024 in cs.HC

Abstract: Pair programming is widely recognized as an effective educational tool in computer science that promotes collaborative learning and mirrors real-world work dynamics. However, communication breakdowns within pairs significantly challenge this learning process. In this study, we use eye-tracking data recorded during pair programming sessions to study communication dynamics between various pair programming roles across different student, expert, and mixed group cohorts containing 19 participants. By combining eye-tracking data analysis with focus group interviews and questionnaires, we provide insights into communication's multifaceted nature in pair programming. Our findings highlight distinct eye-tracking patterns indicating changes in communication skills across group compositions, with participants prioritizing code exploration over communication, especially during challenging tasks. Further, students showed a preference for pairing with experts, emphasizing the importance of understanding group formation in pair programming scenarios. These insights emphasize the importance of understanding group dynamics and enhancing communication skills through pair programming for successful outcomes in computer science education.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (56)
  1. Ahmad Al-Jarrah and Enrico Pontelli. 2016. On the effectiveness of a collaborative virtual pair-programming environment. In Learning and Collaboration Technologies: Third International Conference, LCT 2016, Held as Part of HCI International 2016, July 17-22, 2016, Proceedings 3. Springer, Springer, Toronto, ON, Canada, 583–595.
  2. Predicting cognitive load in an emergency simulation based on behavioral and physiological measures. In 2019 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction. ACM, Suzhou, China, 154–163.
  3. Exploring pair programming in distributed object-oriented team projects. In Educator’s Workshop, OOPSLA. Citeseer, 4–8.
  4. Roxanne Bailey and Elsa Mentz. 2017. The value of pair programming in the IT classroom. The Independent Journal of Teaching and Learning 12, 1 (2017), 90–103.
  5. Roman Bednarik and Markku Tukiainen. 2004. Visual attention tracking during program debugging. In Proceedings of the third Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction. ACM, Tampere, Finland, 331–334.
  6. Andrew Begel and Nachiappan Nagappan. 2008. Pair programming: what’s in it for me?. In Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement. ACM, Kaiserslautern, Germany, 120–128.
  7. Assessment of driver attention during a safety critical situation in VR to generate VR-based training. In ACM Symposium on Applied Perception 2019. ACM, Barcelona, Spain, 1–5.
  8. Alan Bryman. 2004. Triangulation and measurement. Retrieved from Department of Social Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire: www. referenceworld. com/sage/socialscience/triangulation. pdf (2004).
  9. Exploring the Effects of Scanpath Feature Engineering for Supervised Image Classification Models. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, ETRA (2023), 1–18.
  10. Increased retention of early computer science and software engineering students using pair programming. In 20th Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training (CSEET’07). IEEE, IEEE, Dublin, Ireland, 115–122.
  11. Scanpath comparison in medical image reading skills of dental students: distinguishing stages of expertise development. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications. ACM, Warsaw, Poland, 1–9.
  12. Edgar Acosta Chaparro et al. 2005. Factors Affecting the Perceived Effectiveness of Pair Programming in Higher Education. In PPIG.
  13. Stephen Choi. 2021. “Better Communication Leads to a Higher Output?” An Analysis of Pair Communication on Pair Programming Productivity. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 64, 4 (2021), 338–353.
  14. The costs and benefits of pair programming. Extreme programming examined 8 (2000), 223–247.
  15. Lee J Cronbach. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika 16, 3 (1951), 297–334.
  16. Steven Cullipher and Hannah Sevian. 2015. Atoms versus bonds: How students look at spectra. Journal of Chemical Education 92, 12 (2015), 1996–2005.
  17. Sarah D’Angelo and Andrew Begel. 2017. Improving communication between pair programmers using shared gaze awareness. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Denver, CO, USA, 6245–6290.
  18. Uwe Flick. 2007. Designing Qualitative Research. SAGE, London, England.
  19. Short cuts to safety: risk and’rules of thumb’in accounts of food choice. Health, risk & society 5, 1 (2003), 33–52.
  20. Do you see what I see? The effect of gaze tracking on task space remote collaboration. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 22, 11 (2016), 2413–2422.
  21. Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures. Oxford University Press.
  22. Collaborative gaze footprints: Correlates of interaction quality. (2011).
  23. Marcel Adam Just and Patricia A. Carpenter. 1976. Eye Fixations and Cognitive Processes. Cognitive Psychology 8, 4 (1976), 441–480.
  24. Irvin R Katz and John R Anderson. 1987. Debugging: An analysis of bug-location strategies. Human-Computer Interaction 3, 4 (1987), 351–399.
  25. Tae Kyun Kim. 2015. T test as a parametric statistic. Korean journal of anesthesiology 68, 6 (2015), 540.
  26. Richard A Krueger. 1998. Moderating focus groups. Sage.
  27. William H Kruskal and W Allen Wallis. 1952. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American statistical Association 47, 260 (1952), 583–621.
  28. Shizue Kurimori and Toshio Kakizaki. 1995. Evaluation of work stress using psychological and physiological measures of mental activity in a paced calculating task. Industrial health 33, 1 (1995), 7–22.
  29. Raymond Lister. 2011. Concrete and other neo-Piagetian forms of reasoning in the novice programmer. In Conferences in research and practice in information technology series. Austrailian Computer Society, Inc., Perth, Austrailia.
  30. Kim Man Lui and Keith CC Chan. 2006. Pair programming productivity: Novice–novice vs. expert–expert. International Journal of Human-computer studies 64, 9 (2006), 915–925.
  31. The effects of pair-programming on performance in an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education. ACM, Kentucky, USA, 38–42.
  32. Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Commun. ACM 49, 8 (2006), 90–95.
  33. Pair debugging: a transactive discourse analysis. In Proceedings of the Sixth international workshop on Computing education research. ACM, Aarhus, Denmark, 51–58.
  34. Improving the CS1 experience with pair programming. ACM Sigcse Bulletin 35, 1 (2003), 359–362.
  35. Jum C Nunnally and I Bernstein. 1978. Psychometric theory. New York: MacGraw-Hill. _ d. Intentar embellecer nuestras ciudades y también las (1978).
  36. Dual Eye Tracking as a Tool to Assess Collaboration.. In AIED Workshops.
  37. A method to study visual attention aspects of collaboration: eye-tracking pair programmers simultaneously. In Proceedings of the 2008 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications. ACM, Savannah, Georgia, 39–42.
  38. Disengagement in pair programming: Does it matter?. In 2012 34th international conference on software engineering (ICSE). IEEE, IEEE Xplore, Zurich, Switzerland, 496–506.
  39. Knowledge transfer in pair programming: An in-depth analysis. International journal of human-computer studies 73 (2015), 66–78.
  40. Alex Poole and Linden J Ball. 2006. Eye tracking in HCI and usability research. In Encyclopedia of human computer interaction. IGI global, 211–219.
  41. Fatemeh Rabiee. 2004. Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 63, 4 (2004), 655–660.
  42. Covert eye-tracking: an innovative method to investigate compliance with instructions. Psychological Research 85, 8 (2021), 3084–3093.
  43. Andreas Rimolsrønning and Ola Plassen. 2022. Eye Tracking Studio–Designing and Evaluating a Feedback System Utilizing Eye-Tracking to Improve Remote Collaboration Between Pair Programmers. Master’s thesis. NTNU.
  44. Dean Sanders. 2002. Student perceptions of the suitability of extreme and pair programming. In Extreme programming perspectives. 168–174.
  45. Bertrand Schneider and Roy Pea. 2017. Real-time mutual gaze perception enhances collaborative learning and collaboration quality. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook: Volume 40 (2017), 99–125.
  46. Brian H. Spitzberg and Thomas W. Adams III. 2007. CSRS, the Conversational Skills Rating Scale: An Instructional Assessment of Interpersonal Competence. In Proceedings of the National Communication Association.
  47. Randy Stein and Susan E Brennan. 2004. Another person’s eye gaze as a cue in solving programming problems. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Multimodal interfaces. ACM, State College, PA, USA, 9–15.
  48. Giancarlo Succi and Michele Marchesi (Eds.). 2001. Extreme Programming Examined. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
  49. Lennox Thomas et al. 1995. Comparison of focus group and individual interview methodology in examining patient satisfaction with nursing care. Social Sciences in Health 1, 4 (1995), 206–220.
  50. Code warriors and code-a-phobes: a study in attitude and pair programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 35, 1 (2003), 363–367.
  51. Maureen Villamor and Ma Mercedes Rodrigo. 2018. Predicting successful collaboration in a pair programming eye tracking experiment. In Adjunct Publication of the 26th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization. ACM, Singapore, 263–268.
  52. Laurie Williams and Robert R Kessler. 2003. Pair programming illuminated. Addison-Wesley Professional.
  53. Strengthening the case for pair programming. IEEE software 17, 4 (2000), 19–25.
  54. In support of pair programming in the introductory computer science course. Computer Science Education 12, 3 (2002), 197–212.
  55. Laurie A Williams and Robert R Kessler. 2000. All I really need to know about pair programming I learned in kindergarten. Commun. ACM 43, 5 (2000), 108–114.
  56. Identifying student use of ball-and-stick images versus electrostatic potential map images via eye tracking. Journal of Chemical Education 90, 2 (2013), 159–164.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Wunmin Jang (1 paper)
  2. Hong Gao (80 papers)
  3. Tilman Michaeli (4 papers)
  4. Enkelejda Kasneci (97 papers)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now
X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets