[enriquto]

I only have anecdotal evidence. But in my lab we have tried all combinations (working in groups of n, for n=1 to 4, randomly assigned or not). All setups may fail, for different reasons, but the setup that is consistently less likely to fail is two students that get along well with each other. The case when one of them is more skilled is actually very good, because then they teach the other one. There's often other work to do, like presenting the solution, or writing a short report, and they can share that work as they see fit.

As a student, many years ago, I have been in both situations: the more skilled of the group who taught the other, or the less skilled that was taught (and worked really hard because I was ashamed to be a "useless nuisance"). Both experiences have been very positive in my case.

[mkingston]

I was swayed by the argument against working in pairs, then swayed back by your argument in favour of working in pairs. I think the key part that changed my mind was "two students that get along well with each other". I wonder if you emphasise this in your instructions to students? And if so, how?

[enriquto]

We just let them group themselves. If there's an odd number of students, a group of three is allowed. Every couple of years there's a "bad experience", in which one of the students does all the work, or some kind of conflict. But so far it seems to be a good choice overall (after the deal, the students generally say that it was a happy experience).

[throwaway287391]

> The case when one of them is more skilled is actually very good, because then they teach the other one.

Right, I get that that's the theory, it's just that I've never personally seen it work out so well in practice.

I can imagine how it's extremely useful and rewarding for both partners if you have two very motivated people, and the better one is keen to teach and even genuinely open to suggestions from the "worse" one, and the "worse" one is keen to learn. That's the model for a good partnership that most people probably have in mind when they propose doing a project like this. I've just never actually seen a partnership work out like that -- it feels like it requires both members of the parternship have top ~quartile motivation/empathy/communication skills (which as you could imagine might end up being pretty rare among randomly selected CS students...).

In any case thanks for sharing your experience -- good to know that it actually can/does happen!

[makeitdouble]

To me the key part is really this:

> There's often other work to do

IMO there needs to be somewhat of a give and take situation (which can also work on other angles with pairs that already like each other for whatever reasons).

When finding a balance is just hard, straight rewarding the more knowledgeable/faster half of the pair could work too, provided there is a reliable way to identify them and how much they helped their counterpart.

[visiblink]

I don't know about C.S., but anecdotally, I studied with another student as an undergrad and taught him Zoology. It was good for me (I was forced to explain all the concepts thoroughly) and good for him (he did fairly well in the course). Win-win.

[anonymousDan]

Out of interest, do you actually force them to follow pair programming best practice (e.g. periodic switching)? Or just put them in groups of two and let them at it?

[rytor718]

Im not the person youre responding to but I have a similar experience and I usually let the pairs make their own decisions about how they work. I've found that to be many times more effective than "switch every x minutes" or interfering in any other way. Let them work it out. I only step in if there's a problem (students not showing up, refusing to work, etc -- which is very, very rare).