skip to main content
10.1145/3626252.3630870acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

How Pre-class Programming Experience Influences Students' Contribution to Their Team Project: A Statistical Study

Published: 07 March 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Group or team projects are an essential component of the software engineering curriculum. Earlier studies have explored how prior programming experience influences students' team project performance and overall class performance in software engineering. However, few studies address the impact of prior programming experience on students' contributions to team projects. Previous work has varied in its definitions of prior programming experience or skill, leading to inconsistent findings. In this study, we collected pre-class GitHub contribution metrics from 237 students (forming 79 teams of three) across two academic years to measure their prior programming experience and skills. We also mined students' project repositories' git logs to collect individual student contributions. A central question revolved around whether students with more substantial prior programming experience were indeed more active contributors to their project teams. Interestingly, our data indicated a positive correlation between prior programming experience and contributions to team projects. We further delved into team dynamics. Specifically, we questioned if teams made up of members with comparable skill levels exhibited a more even distribution of contributions. Contrary to expectations, our findings revealed no association between these two variables. Moreover, we investigated the team configurations that might encourage the rise of "free riders"-students who contributed only minimally. This paper seeks to augment the body of research on computing education and assist educators in understanding how prior programming experience impacts students' contributions in team projects.

References

[1]
Erik Arisholm, Hans Gallis, Tore Dyba, and Dag I.K. Sjoberg. 2007. Evaluating Pair Programming with Respect to System Complexity and Programmer Expertise. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 33, 2 (feb 2007), 65--86. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2007.17
[2]
Susan Bergin and Ronan Reilly. 2005. Programming: Factors That Influence Success. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (St. Louis, Missouri, USA) (SIGCSE '05). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 411--415. https://doi.org/10.1145/1047344.1047480
[3]
J. Bevan, L. Werner, and C. McDowell. 2002. Guidelines for the Use of Pair Programming in a Freshman Programming Class. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEET '02). IEEE Computer Society, USA, 100.
[4]
Nicholas A. Bowman, Lindsay Jarratt, K.C. Culver, and Alberto Maria Segre. 2019. How Prior Programming Experience Affects Students' Pair Programming Experiences and Outcomes. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Aberdeen, Scotland Uk) (ITiCSE '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 170--175. https://doi.org/10.1145/3304221.3319781
[5]
Lan Cao and Peng Xu. 2005. Activity Patterns of Pair Programming. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 88a--88a. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2005.66
[6]
Mehmet Celepkolu and Kristy Elizabeth Boyer. 2018. Thematic Analysis of Students' Reflections on Pair Programming in CS1. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Baltimore, Maryland, USA) (SIGCSE '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 771--776. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159516
[7]
Edgar Acosta Chaparro, Aybala Yuksel, Pablo Romero, and Sallyann Bryant. 2005. Factors Affecting the Perceived Effectiveness of Pair Programming in Higher Education. In PPIG. 2.
[8]
Wallace Chigona and Michael Pollock. 2008. Pair programming for information systems students new to programming: Students' experiences and teachers' challenges. In PICMET'08--2008 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering & Technology. IEEE, 1587--1594.
[9]
Daniel C. Cliburn. 2003. Experiences with Pair Programming at a Small College. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 19, 1 (oct 2003), 20--29.
[10]
Jialin Cui, Ruochi Li, Kaida Lou, Chengyuan Liu, Yunkai Xiao, Qinjin Jia, Edward Gehringer, and Runqiu Zhang. 2022. Can Pre-Class Github Contributions Predict Success by Student Teams?. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) (ICSE-SEET '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 40--49. https://doi.org/10.1145/3510456.3514144
[11]
Jialin Cui, Runqiu Zhang, Ruochi Li, Yang Song, Fangtong Zhou, and Edward Gehringer. 2023. Correlating Students' Class Performance Based on GitHub Metrics: A Statistical Study. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 (Turku, Finland) (ITiCSE 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 526--532. https://doi.org/10.1145/3587102.3588799
[12]
Jialin Cui, Fangtong Zhou, Runqiu Zhang, Ruochi Li, Chengyuan Liu, and Edward Gehringer. 2023. Predicting Students' Software Engineering Class Performance with Machine Learning and Pre-class GitHub Metrics (Frontiers in Education 2023).
[13]
Madeline Endres,WestleyWeimer, and Amir Kamil. 2021. An Analysis of Iterative and Recursive Problem Performance. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Virtual Event, USA) (SIGCSE '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 321--327. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3408877.3432391
[14]
Lidia Feklistova, Marina Lepp, and Piret Luik. 2021. Learners' Performance in a MOOC on Programming. Education Sciences 11, 9 (2021), 521.
[15]
GitHub. 2022. The top programming languages. Retrieved August 10, 2023 from https://octoverse.github.com/2022/top-programming-languages
[16]
Dianne Hagan and Selby Markham. 2000. Does It Help to Have Some Programming Experience before Beginning a Computing Degree Program? SIGCSE Bull. 32, 3 (jul 2000), 25--28. https://doi.org/10.1145/353519.343063
[17]
Brian Hanks. 2006. Student Attitudes toward Pair Programming. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Bologna, Italy) (ITICSE '06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 113--117. https://doi.org/10.1145/1140124.1140156
[18]
Lucas Layman. 2006. Changing Students' Perceptions: An Analysis of the Supplementary Benefits of Collaborative Software Development. In Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training (CSEET '06). IEEE Computer Society, USA, 159--166. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSEET.2006.10
[19]
Roger Lee, Tom Ahlswede, et al. 2007. Evaluating the usefulness of pair programming in a classroom setting. In 6th IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information Science (ICIS 2007). IEEE, 302--308.
[20]
Kim Man Lui and Keith C. C. Chan. 2006. Pair Programming Productivity: Novice- Novice vs. Expert-Expert. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 64, 9 (sep 2006), 915--925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.04.010
[21]
Grigori Melnik and Frank Maurer. 2005. A Cross-Program Investigation of Students' Perceptions of Agile Methods. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering (St. Louis, MO, USA) (ICSE '05). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 481--488. https://doi.org/10. 1145/1062455.1062543
[22]
Yoshihiko Oya and Kimiko Uchida. 2013. Practical Consideration of Pair Problem Solving in Computer Literacy Education. IAFOR Journal of Education 1, 1 (2013), 103--120.
[23]
Matt Stephens and Doug Rosenberg. 2003. Extreme Programming Refactored: The Case Against XP. Apress, USA.
[24]
Lynda Thomas, Mark Ratcliffe, and Ann Robertson. 2003. Code Warriors and Code-a-Phobes: A Study in Attitude and Pair Programming. In Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Reno, Navada, USA) (SIGCSE '03). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 363--367. https://doi.org/10.1145/611892.612007
[25]
Christopher Watson, Frederick W.B. Li, and Jamie L. Godwin. 2014. No Tests Required: Comparing Traditional and Dynamic Predictors of Programming Success. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (SIGCSE '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 469--474. https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538930
[26]
Susan Wiedenbeck, Deborah LaBelle, and Vennila N. R. Kain. 2004. Factors affecting course outcomes in introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, PPIG 2004, Carlow, Ireland, April 5--7, 2004. Psychology of Programming Interest Group, Carlow, Ireland, 11. https://ppig.org/papers/2004-ppig-16th-wiedenbeck/
[27]
Chris Wilcox and Albert Lionelle. 2018. Quantifying the Benefits of Prior Programming Experience in an Introductory Computer Science Course. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Baltimore, Maryland, USA) (SIGCSE '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 80--85. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159480
[28]
Laurie Williams, Lucas Layman, Jason Osborne, and Neha Katira. 2006. Examining the Compatibility of Student Pair Programmers (AGILE '06). IEEE Computer Society, USA, 411--420. https://doi.org/10.1109/AGILE.2006.25

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Utilizing the Constrained K-Means Algorithm and Pre-Class GitHub Contribution Statistics for Forming Student TeamsProceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3649217.3653634(569-575)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2024
  • (2024)A Comparative Analysis of GitHub Contributions Before and After An OSS Based Software Engineering ClassProceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3649217.3653535(576-582)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2024
  • (2024)How Much Effort Do You Need to Expend on a Technical Interview? A Study of LeetCode Problem Solving Statistics2024 36th International Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T)10.1109/CSEET62301.2024.10663022(1-10)Online publication date: 29-Jul-2024

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
SIGCSE 2024: Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1
March 2024
1583 pages
ISBN:9798400704239
DOI:10.1145/3626252
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 07 March 2024

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. github
  2. qualitative study
  3. software engineering education
  4. statistical study
  5. teamwork and collaboration

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

SIGCSE 2024
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,595 of 4,542 submissions, 35%

Upcoming Conference

SIGCSE TS 2025
The 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
February 26 - March 1, 2025
Pittsburgh , PA , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)95
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5
Reflects downloads up to 24 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Utilizing the Constrained K-Means Algorithm and Pre-Class GitHub Contribution Statistics for Forming Student TeamsProceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3649217.3653634(569-575)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2024
  • (2024)A Comparative Analysis of GitHub Contributions Before and After An OSS Based Software Engineering ClassProceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3649217.3653535(576-582)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2024
  • (2024)How Much Effort Do You Need to Expend on a Technical Interview? A Study of LeetCode Problem Solving Statistics2024 36th International Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T)10.1109/CSEET62301.2024.10663022(1-10)Online publication date: 29-Jul-2024

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media