social_programming.md

title: Social Programming for Psychologists author: name: Paul Sharpe, Raf Gemmail email: paul.sharpe@plymouth.ac.uk output: social_programming.html controls: true progress: true #theme: sjaakvandenberg/cleaver-dark

--

Social Programming for Psychologists

--

Social Programming Patterns

• Pairing (2 people)
• Swarming, mobbing (>2 people)
• Interactive example: ePrime analysis

--

Money is Time

“for a development-time time cost of about 15%, pair programming improves design quality, reduces defects, reduces staffing risks, enhances technical skills, improves team communications, and is considered more enjoyable” (Cockburn & Williams, 2000)

• Less time lost to mental blocks
• Less time lost to bugs
• Apprenticeship learning

--

Patterns: Pairing

Rubber Duck Debugging

Common reports of 'Eureka!' moments when describing a problem out loud (Bryant et al., 2008)

--

Patterns: Pair Programming

• Driver-Navigator
• Distributed cognition?
• Pair as tag team rather than navigator as reviewer or foreman (Bryant et al., 2008)

--

Patterns: Pair Programming

• Backseat Driver
• Communities of practice/apprenticeship learning?

--

Patterns: Pair Programming

• Testing ping-pong
• Remote ping-pong with Floobits

--

Patterns: Pair Programming

• The Rally
• Flow?

--

Patterns: Group Programming

• Swarming and mobbing
• Teaching and learning?

--

References

Bryant, S., Romero, P., & du Boulay, B. (2008). Pair programming and the mysterious role of the navigator. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(7), 519–529.

Cockburn, A., & Williams, L. (2000). The costs and benefits of pair programming. In Extreme Programming Examined (pp. 223–247).

Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Psychology of Programming Interest Group (PPIG)

--