research-article

Designing PairBuddy—A Conversational Agent for Pair Programming

Authors:

Sandeep Kaur KuttalAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), Volume 29, Issue 4

Article No.: 34, Pages 1 - 44

https://doi.org/10.1145/3498326

Published: 05 May 2022 Publication History

Abstract

From automated customer support to virtual assistants, conversational agents have transformed everyday interactions, yet despite phenomenal progress, no agent exists for programming tasks. To understand the design space of such an agent, we prototyped PairBuddy—an interactive pair programming partner—based on research from conversational agents, software engineering, education, human-robot interactions, psychology, and artificial intelligence. We iterated PairBuddy’s design using a series of Wizard-of-Oz studies. Our pilot study of six programmers showed promising results and provided insights toward PairBuddy’s interface design. Our second study of 14 programmers was positively praised across all skill levels. PairBuddy’s active application of soft skills—adaptability, motivation, and social presence—as a navigator increased participants’ confidence and trust, while its technical skills—code contributions, just-in-time feedback, and creativity support—as a driver helped participants realize their own solutions. PairBuddy takes the first step towards an Alexa-like programming partner.

References

[1]

2017. ISO/IEC/IEEE international standard - systems and software engineering–vocabulary. ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765:2017(E) (2017), 1–541. Retrieved on 17 March, 2022 from

[2]

2018. ISO/IEC/IEEE international standard - systems and software engineering – developing information for users in an agile environment. ISO/IEC/IEEE 26515:2018(E) (2018), 1–32. Retrieved on 17 March, 2022 from

[3]

2020. GitHub. Retrieved from http://github.com.

[4]

2020. Main Study Supporting Material. Retrieved on 17 March, 2022 from https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/179OnUEVqPHQjW_K38ynUopyL4MDKlG-u?usp=sharing.

[5]

2020. Pilot Study Supporting Material. Retrieved on 17 March, 2022 from https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1WgINmA_iz3iONfpbAfNB70oCN25mJ76k?usp=sharing.

[6]

2020. StackOverflow. Retrieved on 17 March, 2022 from http://stackoverflow.com.

[7]

2021. JetBrains. Retrieved on 17 March, 2022 from https://www.jetbrains.com/.

[8]

2021. Visual Studio. Retrieved on 17 March, 2022 from https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/.

[9]

Tahir Abbas, Vassilis-Javed Khan, Ujwal Gadiraju, and Panos Markopoulos. 2020. Trainbot: A conversational interface to train crowd workers for delivering on-demand therapy. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing 8, 1 (Oct. 2020), 3–12. Retrieved from https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/HCOMP/article/view/7458.

[10]

Gregory D. Abowd and Alan J. Dix. 1992. Giving undo attention. Interacting with Computers 4, 3 (12 1992), 317–342. DOI: arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/iwc/article-pdf/4/3/317/2175174/iwc4-0317.pdf.

Digital Library

[11]

Daniel Adiwardana, Minh-Thang Luong, David R. So, Jamie Hall, Noah Fiedel, Romal Thoppilan, Zi Yang, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Gaurav Nemade, Yifeng Lu, and Quoc V. Le. 2020. Towards a human-like open-domain chatbot. arXiv:2001.09977. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.09977.

[12]

Ali Ahmadvand, Jason Ingyu Choi, and Eugene Agichtein. 2019. Contextual dialogue act classification for open-domain conversational agents. In Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 1273–1276.

Digital Library

[13]

M. Ai-Chang, J. Bresina, L. Charest, A. Chase, J. C.-J. Hsu, A. Jonsson, B. Kanefsky, P. Morris, Kanna Rajan, J. Yglesias, B. G. Chafin, W. C. Dias, and P. F. Maldague. 2004. MAPGEN: Mixed-initiative planning and scheduling for the Mars Exploration Rover mission. IEEE Intelligent Systems 19, 1 (2004), 8–12. DOI:

Digital Library

[14]

Milam Aiken, Mahesh Vanjami, and James Krosp. 1995. Group decision support systems. Review of Business 16, 3 (2020/3/2/ 1995), 38+.

[15]

B. Al-Ani and D. Redmiles. 2009. In strangers we trust? Findings of an empirical study of distributed teams. In Proceedings of the 2009 4th IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering. 121–130.

Digital Library

[16]

Maryam Alavi. 1994. Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly 18, 2 (1994), 159–174.

Digital Library

[17]

S. Ali, L. C. Briand, H. Hemmati, and R. K. Panesar-Walawege. 2010. A systematic review of the application and empirical investigation of search-based test case generation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 36, 6 (2010), 742–762.

Digital Library

[18]

Teresa M. Amabile and Michael G. Pratt. 2016. The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior 36 (2016), 157–183. DOI:

[19]

Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N. Bennett, Kori Inkpen, Jaime Teevan, Ruth Kikin-Gil, and Eric Horvitz. 2019. Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, Article 3, 13 pages. DOI:

Digital Library

[20]

Ofer Arazy, Oded Nov, and Nanda Kumar. 2015. Personalityzation: UI personalization, theoretical grounding in HCI and design research. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction 7, 2 (2015), 43–69.

[21]

Michael Armstrong. 2012. Armstrong’s Handbook of Reward Management Practice: Improving Performance Through Reward (12 ed.). Kogan Page Publishers.

[22]

Zahra Ashktorab, Mohit Jain, Q. Vera Liao, and Justin D. Weisz. 2019. Resilient chatbots: Repair strategy preferences for conversational breakdowns. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, Article 254, 12 pages. DOI:

Digital Library

[23]

D. C. Hoaglin, B. A. Kitchenham, S. L. Pfleeger, and J. Rosenberg. 2002. “Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering”. In Proceedings of the IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 28. 721–734.

[24]

Claudio Barra and Broderick Crawford. 2007. Fostering creativity thinking in agile software development. In Proceedings of the Symposium of the Austrian HCI and Usability Engineering Group, Vol. 4799. 415–426. DOI:

[25]

Amy L. Baylor and Soyoung Kim. 2009. Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: When less is more. Computers in Human Behavior 25, 2 (2009), 450–457. DOI:

Digital Library

[26]

Tara Behrend, Steven Toaddy, Lori Foster Thompson, and David J. Sharek. 2012. The effects of avatar appearance on interviewer ratings in virtual employment interviews. Computers in Human Behavior 28, 6 (2012), 2128–2133. DOI:

Digital Library

[27]

A. Belshee. 2005. Promiscuous pairing and beginner’s mind: Embrace inexperience. In Proceedings of the Agile Development Conference. 125–131. DOI:

Digital Library

[28]

Gary Bente, Sabine Rüggenberg, Nicole C. Krämer, and Felix Eschenburg. 2008. Avatar-mediated networking: Increasing social presence and interpersonal trust in net-based collaborations. Human Communication Research 34, 2 (April 2008), 287–318. DOI:arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/hcr/article-pdf/34/2/287/22325251/jhumcom0287.pdf

[29]

Timothy Bickmore and Justine Cassell. 2001. Relational agents: A model and implementation of building user trust. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 396–403.

Digital Library

[30]

Dan Bohus, Chit W. Saw, and Eric Horvitz. 2014. Directions robot: In-the-wild experiences and lessons learned. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. 637–644.

[31]

Yvonne Brackbill, William E. Boblitt, Douglas Davlin, and John E. Wagner. 1963. Amplitude of response and the delay-retention effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology 66, 1 (1963), 57.

[32]

Jay Bradley, David Benyon, Oli Mival, and Nick Webb. 2010. Wizard of Oz experiments and companion dialogues. In Proceedings of the 24th BCS Interaction Specialist Group Conference. British Computer Society, 117–123.

Digital Library

[33]

Sheryl Brahnam and Antonella De Angeli. 2012. Gender affordances of conversational agents. Interacting with Computers 24, 3 (April 2012), 139–153. DOI: arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/iwc/article-pdf/24/3/139/2027399/iwc24-0139.pdf

Digital Library

[34]

Petter Bae Brandtzaeg and Asbjørn Følstad. 2017. Why people use chatbots. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Internet Science. Springer, 377–392.

Digital Library

[35]

Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (Jan. 2006), 77–101. DOI:

[36]

Tim Brown. 2009. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. HarperBusiness.

[37]

Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D. Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 1877–1901.

[38]

Tung X. Bui. 1987. Co-oP: A Group Decision Support System for Cooperative Multiple Criteria Group Decision Making. Springer, Berlin.

[39]

Margaret Burnett, Anicia Peters, Charles Hill, and Noha Elarief. 2016. Finding gender-inclusiveness software issues with GenderMag: A field investigation. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2586–2598.

Digital Library

[40]

Margaret Burnett, Simone Stumpf, Jamie Macbeth, Stephann Makri, Laura Beckwith, Irwin Kwan, Anicia Peters, and William Jernigan. 2016. GenderMag: A method for evaluating software’s gender inclusiveness. Interacting with Computers 28, 6 (Oct. 2016), 760–787.

[41]

Ramón Burri. 2018. Improving User Trust Towards Conversational Chatbot Interfaces with Voice Output. Master’s Thesis. KTH, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS).

[42]

ROSE Carolyn. 2007. Tools for authoring a dialogue agent that participates in learning studies. Artificial Intelligence in Education: Building Technology Rich Learning Contexts That Work 158 (2007), 43.

[43]

Justine Cassell, Yukiko I. Nakano, Timothy W. Bickmore, Candace L. Sidner, and Charles Rich. 2001. Non-verbal cues for discourse structure. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 114–123.

Digital Library

[44]

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. ACM, New York, NY, 771–776. DOI:

Digital Library

[45]

Christopher P. Cerasoli, Jessica M. Nicklin, and Michael T. Ford. 2014. Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 140, 4 (2014), 980.

[46]

Hyun Jin Cha, Yong Se Kim, Seon Hee Park, Tae Bok Yoon, Young Mo Jung, and Jee-Hyong Lee. 2006. Learning styles diagnosis based on user interface behaviors for the customization of learning interfaces in an intelligent tutoring system. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer, 513–524.

Digital Library

[47]

Tak-Wai Chan. 1996. Learning companion systems, social learning systems, and the global social learning club. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 7, 2 (1996), 125. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/82394.

Digital Library

[48]

Gary Charness and Uri Gneezy. 2012. Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 83, 1 (2012), 50–58.

[49]

J. Y. C. Chen and M. J. Barnes. 2014. Human–agent teaming for multirobot control: A review of human factors issues. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 44, 1 (2014), 13–29.

[50]

K. S. Choi. 2013. Evaluating gender significance within a pair programming context. In Proceedings of the 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 4817–4825.

Digital Library

[51]

Tai-Liang Chou and Yu-Ling Hsueh. 2019. A task-oriented chatbot based on LSTM and reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Information Retrieval. ACM, New York, NY, 87–91. DOI:

Digital Library

[52]

Alistair Cockburn and Laurie Williams. 2001. Extreme Programming Examined. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, Chapter The Costs and Benefits of Pair Programming, 223–243. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=377517.377531.

[53]

Michelle Cohn, Chun-Yen Chen, and Zhou Yu. 2019. A large-scale user study of an alexa prize chatbot: Effect of TTS dynamism on perceived quality of social dialog. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue. 293–306.

[54]

Juan Manuel Contreras, Mahzarin R. Banaji, and Jason P. Mitchell. 2013. Multivoxel patterns in fusiform face area differentiate faces by sex and race. PloS One 8, 7 (2013), e69684.

[55]

Stephen Cooper, Wanda Dann, and Randy Pausch. 2000. Alice: A 3-D tool for introductory programming concepts. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 15, 5 (April 2000), 107–116.

Digital Library

[56]

Tyne Crow, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Burkhard Wünsche. 2018. Intelligent tutoring systems for programming education: A systematic review. In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Computing Education Conference. 53–62. DOI:

Digital Library

[57]

Ron Cytron, Jeanne Ferrante, Barry K. Rosen, Mark N. Wegman, and F. Kenneth Zadeck. 1991. Efficiently computing static single assignment form and the control dependence graph. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 13, 4 (Oct. 1991), 451–490. DOI:

Digital Library

[58]

Fabio Q. B. da Silva, Catarina Costa, A. Cesar C. Franca, and Rafael Prikladinicki. 2010. Challenges and solutions in distributed software development project management: A systematic literature review. In Proceedings of the 2010 5th IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering. IEEE, 87–96.

Digital Library

[59]

Nils Dahlbäck, Arne Jönsson, and Lars Ahrenberg. 1993. Wizard of Oz studies: Why and how. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 193–200.

Digital Library

[60]

M. Day, M. R. Penumala, and J. Gonzalez-Sanchez. 2019. Annete: An intelligent tutoring companion embedded into the eclipse IDE. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 1st International Conference on Cognitive Machine Intelligence. 71–80.

[61]

Claudio León de la Barra and Broderick Crawford. 2007. Fostering creativity thinking in agile software development. In Proceedings of the HCI and Usability for Medicine and Health Care. Andreas Holzinger (Ed.). Springer Berlin, 415–426.

[62]

Harm De Vries, Florian Strub, Sarath Chandar, Olivier Pietquin, Hugo Larochelle, and Aaron Courville. 2017. Guesswhat?! visual object discovery through multi-modal dialogue. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 5503–5512.

[63]

Hans Dechert and Manfred Raupach. 1987. Conversational style. Psycholinguistic Models of Production (1987), 251–267.

[64]

Edward L. Deci, Anja H. Olafsen, and Richard M. Ryan. 2017. Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 4, 1 (2017), 19–43.

[65]

Doris M. Dehn and Susanne van Mulken. 2000. The impact of animated interface agents: A review of empirical research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 52, 1 (Jan. 2000), 1–22. DOI:

Digital Library

[66]

Tom DeMarco and Timothy Lister. 1987. Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams. Dorset House Publishing Co., Inc., New York, NY.

Digital Library

[67]

Gerardine DeSanctis and R. Brent Gallupe. 1987. A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science 33, 5 (May 1987), 589–609.

[68]

David DeVault, Ron Artstein, Grace Benn, Teresa Dey, Ed Fast, Alesia Gainer, Kallirroi Georgila, Jon Gratch, Arno Hartholt, Margaux Lhommet, Gale Lucas, Stacy Marsella, Fabrizio Morbini, Angela Nazarian, Stefan Scherer, Giota Stratou, Apar Suri, David Traum, Rachel Wood, Yuyu Xu, Albert Rizzo, and Louis-Philippe Morency. 2014. SimSensei kiosk: A virtual human interviewer for healthcare decision support. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems. 1061–1068.

Digital Library

[69]

Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805.

[70]

Eclipse 2019. Eclipse IDE. Retrieved on 17 March, 2022 from https://www.eclipse.org/.

[71]

Eclipse 2020. Junit. Retrieved on 17 March, 2022 from https://junit.org/junit5/.

[72]

Stephan Salinger, Christopher Oezbek, Karl Beecher, and Julia Schenk. 2010. Saros: An Eclipse Plug-in for Distributed Party Programming (CHASE’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 48–55.

Digital Library

[73]

Berland Edelman and Inc. 2010. Creativity and Education: Why it Matters. Retrieved September 18th, 2019 from http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pdfs/Adobe_Creativity_and_Education_Why_It_Matters_study.pdf.

[74]

R. Elghondakly, S. Moussa, and N. Badr. 2015. Waterfall and agile requirements-based model for automated test cases generation. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 7th International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Information Systems. 607–612.

[75]

Martha Evens and Joel Michael. 2006. One-on-one Tutoring By Humans and Computers. Psychology Press.

[76]

Stef van der Struijk, Hung-Hsuan Huang, Maryam Sadat Mirzaei, and Toyoaki Nishida. 2018. FACSvatar: An Open Source Modular Framework for Real-Time FACS Based Facial Animation. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (Sydney, NSW, Australia) (IVA’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 159–164.

Digital Library

[77]

Raoul Festante. 2007. An Introduction to the Theory of Gender-neutral Language. BoD–Books on Demand.

[78]

Carmen Fischer, Charlotte P. Malycha, and Ernestine Schafmann. 2019. The influence of intrinsic motivation and synergistic extrinsic motivators on creativity and innovation. Frontiers in Psychology 10 (2019), 137. DOI:

[79]

James Fogarty, Scott E. Hudson, Christopher G. Atkeson, Daniel Avrahami, Jodi Forlizzi, Sara Kiesler, Johnny C. Lee, and Jie Yang. 2005. Predicting human interruptibility with sensors. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 12, 1 (March 2005), 119–146. DOI:

Digital Library

[80]

Cyrus K. Foroughi, Nicole E. Werner, Erik T. Nelson, and Deborah A. Boehm-Davis. 2014. Do interruptions affect quality of work? Human Factors 56, 7 (2014), 1262–1271. DOI:arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814531786PMID: 25490806.

[81]

Gordon Fraser and Andrea Arcuri. 2012. Whole test suite generation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 39, 2 (2012), 276–291.

Digital Library

[82]

Gordon Fraser and Andrea Arcuri. 2013. Evosuite: On the challenges of test case generation in the real world. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 6th International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation. IEEE, 362–369.

Digital Library

[83]

Freelancing Platform n.d. Upwork Inc.

[84]

Hans Gallis and Erik Arisholm. 2002. A transition from partner programming to pair programming-an industrial case study. In Proceedings of the Workshop: “Pair Programming Installed” at Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications.

[85]

Jianfeng Gao, Michel Galley, and Lihong Li. 2018. Neural approaches to conversational ai. In Proceedings of the 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval. 1371–1374.

Digital Library

[86]

Tom Geller. 2008. Overcoming the uncanny valley. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 28, 4 (2008), 11–17.

Digital Library

[87]

GenderMag 2019. GenderMag. Retrieved on 17 March, 2022 from http://gendermag.org/.

[88]

Stella George. 2019. From sex and therapy bots to virtual assistants and tutors: How emotional should artificially intelligent agents be? In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces. ACM, New York, NY, Article 19, 3 pages. DOI:

Digital Library

[89]

Alex Gerdes, Bastiaan Heeren, Johan Jeuring, and L. Thomas van Binsbergen. 2016. Ask-Elle: An adaptable programming tutor for haskell giving automated feedback. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 27, 1 (Feb. 2016), 65–100. DOI:

[90]

Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine de Gruyter, New York, NY.

[91]

M. Gonzalez-Franco, A. Steed, S. Hoogendyk, and E. Ofek. 2020. Using facial animation to increase the enfacement illusion and avatar self-identification. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 5 (2020), 2023–2029.

[92]

Paul Gray. 1987. Group decision support systems. Decision Support Systems 3, 3 (Sept. 1987), 233–242.

Digital Library

[93]

Paul Green and Lisa Wei-Haas. 1985. The Wizard of Oz: A Tool for Rapid Development of User Interfaces. Technical Report UU-CS-2015-019. Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

[94]

Pamela Grimm. 2010. Social Desirability Bias. John Wiley Sons, Ltd. arXiv:

[95]

GTP-3 2020. Tweet of Code Generated from GPT-3. Retrieved on 17 March, 2022 from https://twitter.com/sharifshameem/status/1282676454690451457.

[96]

GTP-3 2020. YouTube Video Showing Generation of Code by GPT3. Retrieved on 17 March, 2022 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utuz7wBGjKM.

[97]

GTP-3 2020. YouTube Video Showing Generation of Code by GPT3. Retrieved 24 June, 2020 from GPT3:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5- wzgIySb4.

[98]

GTTS 2019. Google Text-to-speech Python Library. Retrieved on 17 March, 2022 from https://github.com/pndurette/gTTS.

[99]

Keun-Woo Han, EunKyoung Lee, and Youngjun Lee. 2010. The impact of a peer-learning agent based on pair programming in a programming course. IEEE Transactions on Education 53, 2 (June 2010), 318–327. DOI:

Digital Library

[100]

Qinghong Han, Yuxian Meng, Fei Wu, and Jiwei Li. 2020. Non-autoregressive neural dialogue generation. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.04250.

[101]

Brian F. Hanks. 2004. Distributed pair programming: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the Extreme Programming and Agile Methods - XP/Agile Universe 2004. Carmen Zannier, Hakan Erdogmus, and Lowell Lindstrom (Eds.). Springer Berlin, 81–91.

[102]

Benjamin Hardin and Michael A. Goodrich. 2009. On using mixed-initiative control: A perspective for managing large-scale robotic teams. In Proceedings of the 2009 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 165–172. DOI:

Digital Library

[103]

Dai Hasegawa, Justine Cassell, and Kenji Araki. 2010. The role of embodiment and perspective in direction-giving systems. In Proceedings of the 2010 AAAI Fall Symposium Series.

[104]

Khaled Hassanein and Milena Head. 2007. Manipulating perceived social presence through the web interface and its impact on attitude towards online shopping. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 65, 8 (2007), 689–708. DOI:

Digital Library

[105]

John Hattie. 1999. Influences on student learning. Inaugural Lecture Given on August 2, 1999 (1999), 21.

[106]

John Hattie and Helen Timperley. 2007. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 77, 1 (2007), 81–112.

[107]

Renate Häuslschmid, Max von Bülow, Bastian Pfleging, and Andreas Butz. 2017. SupportingTrust in autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, New York, NY, 319–329. DOI:

Digital Library

[108]

Charles Hill. 2017. The sum of its parts: Investigating the component pieces of GenderMag. Retrieved on 17 March, 2022 from http://hdl.handle.net/1957/61887.

[109]

Xinting Huang, Jianzhong Qi, Yu Sun, and Rui Zhang. 2020. Semi-Supervised Dialogue Policy Learning via Stochastic Reward Estimation. In ACL. 660–670.

[110]

Niklas Humble and Peter Mozelius. 2019. Teacher-supported AI or AI-supported teachers? In European Conference on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics 2019 (ECIAIR’19), Oxford, UK, Vol. 1. Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited, 157–164.

[111]

Lilly Irani. 2004. Understanding gender and confidence in CS course culture. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 36, 1 (2004), 195–199. ACM, New York, NY. DOI:

Digital Library

[112]

Scott G. Isaksen and Donald J. Treffinger. 2004. Celebrating 50 years of reflective practice: Versions of creative problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior 38, 2 (June 2004), 75–101.

[113]

Mohit Jain, Pratyush Kumar, Ishita Bhansali, Q. Vera Liao, Khai Truong, and Shwetak Patel. 2018. FarmChat: A conversational agent to answer farmer queries. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable Ubiquitous Technologies 2, 4 (Dec. 2018), Article 170, 22 pages. DOI:

Digital Library

[114]

Mohit Jain, Pratyush Kumar, Ramachandra Kota, and Shwetak N. Patel. 2018. Evaluating and informing the design of chatbots. In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 895–906.

Digital Library

[115]

William Jernigan, Amber Horvath, Michael Lee, Margaret Burnett, Taylor Cuilty, Sandeep Kuttal, Anicia Peters, Irwin Kwan, Faezeh Bahmani, Andrew Ko, and Christopher Mendez. 2017. General principles for a generalized idea garden. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 39, C (May 2017), 51–65. DOI:

Digital Library

[116]

Will Jernigan, Amber Horvath, Michael Lee, Margaret Burnett, Cuilty Taylor, Sandeep Kuttal, Anicia Peters, Irwin Kwan, Faezeh Bahmani, and Andrew Ko. 2015. A principled evaluation for a principled idea garden. Retrieved on 17 March, 2022 from

[117]

Danielle Jones and Scott Fleming. 2013. What use is a backseat driver? A qualitative investigation of pair programming. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, 103–110. DOI:

[118]

Ankur Joshi, Saket Kale, Satish Chandel, and D. Kumar Pal. 2015. Likert scale: Explored and explained. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology 7, 4 (2015), 396–403.

[119]

Ewa Kacewicz, James W. Pennebaker, Matthew Davis, Moongee Jeon, and Arthur C. Graesser. 2014. Pronoun use reflects standings in social hierarchies. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 33, 2 (2014), 125–143. DOI:arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X13502654

[120]

Peter H. Kahn, Nathan G. Freier, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Jolina H. Ruckert, Rachel L. Severson, and Shaun K. Kane. 2008. Design patterns for sociality in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction ACM, New York, NY, 97–104. DOI:

Digital Library

[121]

Neha Katira, Laurie Williams, Laurie Williams, Eric Wiebe, Carol Miller, Suzanne Balik, and Ed Gehringer. 2004. On understanding compatibility of student pair programmers. SIGCSE Bull. 36, 1 (March 2004), 7–11. DOI:

Digital Library

[122]

R. K. Kavitha and M. S. Irfan Ahmed. 2013. Knowledge sharing through pair programming in learning environments: An empirical study. Education and Information Technologies 20, 2 (Oct. 2013), 319–333.

Digital Library

[123]

Greg P. Kearsley. 1987. Artificial Intelligence and Instruction: Applications and Methods. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.

Digital Library

[124]

Iman Keivanloo, Juergen Rilling, and Ying Zou. 2014. Spotting working code examples. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, New York, NY, 664–675. DOI:

Digital Library

[125]

Kisub Kim, Dongsun Kim, Tegawendé F. Bissyandé, Eunjong Choi, Li Li, Jacques Klein, and Yves Le Traon. 2018. FaCoY: A code-to-code search engine. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, New York, NY, 946–957. DOI:

Digital Library

[126]

Sungdong Kim, Sohee Yang, Gyuwan Kim, and Sang-Woo Lee. 2020. Efficient Dialogue State Tracking by Selectively Overwriting Memory. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 567–582.

[127]

Lorenz Cuno Klopfenstein, Saverio Delpriori, Silvia Malatini, and Alessandro Bogliolo. 2017. The rise of bots: A survey of conversational interfaces, patterns, and paradigms. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 555–565. DOI:

Digital Library

[128]

Avraham N. Kluger and Angelo DeNisi. 1996. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin 119, 2 (1996), 254.

[129]

Andrew J. Ko and Brad A. Myers. 2004. Designing the whyline: A debugging interface for asking questions about program behavior. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 151–158. DOI:

Digital Library

[130]

Andrew J. Ko and Brad A. Myers. 2009. Finding causes of program output with the Java whyline. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 1569–1578. DOI:

Digital Library

[131]

James A. Kulik and J. D. Fletcher. 2016. Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research 86, 1 (2016), 42–78. DOI:

[132]

James A. Kulik and Chen-Lin C. Kulik. 1988. Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research 58, 1 (1988), 79–97. DOI: arXiv:

[133]

Sandeep Kuttal, Kevin Gerstner, and Alexandra Bejarano. 2019. Remote pair-programming in online CS education: Investigating through a gender lens. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages & Human-Centric Computing.

[134]

S. K. Kuttal, J. Myers, S. Gurka, D. Magar, D. Piorkowski, and R. Bellamy. 2020. Towards designing conversational agents for pair programming: Accounting for creativity strategies and conversational styles. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing. 1–11.

[135]

Danielle L. Jones and Scott D. Fleming. 2013. What use is a backseat driver? A qualitative investigation of pair programming. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing. 103–110.

[136]

Shuvendu K. Lahiri, Chris Hawblitzel, Ming Kawaguchi, and Henrique Rebêlo. 2012. Symdiff: A language-agnostic semantic diff tool for imperative programs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Aided Verification. Springer, 712–717.

Digital Library

[137]

Thomas K. Landauer. 1987. Psychology as a mother of invention. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin 18, 4 (1987), 333–335.

Digital Library

[138]

H. Lane and Kurt Vanlehn. 2005. Teaching the tacit knowledge of programming to novices with natural language tutoring. Computer Science Education 15, 3 (Sep. 2005), 183–201. DOI:

[139]

Hung Le, Richard Socher, and Steven C. H. Hoi. 2020. Non-autoregressive dialog state tracking. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations. Retrieved from https://openreview.net/forum?id=H1e_cC4twS.

[140]

Nguyen-Thinh Le. 2016. A classification of adaptive feedback in educational systems for programming. Systems 4, 2 (May 2016), 22. DOI:

[141]

Nguyen-Thinh Le, Sven Strickroth, Sebastian Gross, and Niels Pinkwart. 2013. A review of AI-supported tutoring approaches for learning programming. Advanced Computational Methods for Knowledge Engineering 479 (Jan. 2013), 267–279. DOI:

[142]

Marvin Levine. 1988. Effective Problem Solving. Prentice Hall.

[143]

Clayton Lewis. 1982. Using the “thinking-aloud” Method in Cognitive Interface Design. IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, N.Y.

[144]

Shaofeng Li. 2010. The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60, 2 (2010), 309–365.

[145]

Toby Jia-Jun Li, Jingya Chen, Tom Mitchell, and Brad Myers. 2020. Towards Effective Human-AI Collaboration in GUI-Based Interactive Task Learning Agents. CHI 2020 Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for HCI: A Modern Approach (AI4HCI). https://doi.org/arXiv:2003.02622

[146]

Moez Limayem, Probir Banerjee, and Louis Ma. 2006. Impact of GDSS: Opening the black box. Decision Support Systems 42, 2 (Nov. 2006), 945–957.

Digital Library

[147]

Dapeng Liu, Andrian Marcus, Denys Poshyvanyk, and Vaclav Rajlich. 2007. Feature location via information retrieval based filtering of a single scenario execution trace. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. 234–243. DOI:

Digital Library

[148]

Xiaodong Liu, Pengcheng He, Weizhu Chen, and Jianfeng Gao. 2019. Multi-task deep neural networks for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 4487–4496.

[149]

Zhiqiang Liu and Dieter J. Schonwetter. 2004. Teaching creativity in engineering. International Journal of Engineering Education 20, 5 (2004), 801–808.

[150]

Ju Long. 2009. Open source software development experiences on the students’ resumes: Do they count?-insights from the employers’ perspectives. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research 8, 1 (2009), 229–242.

[151]

Irene Lopatovska and Harriet Williams. 2018. Personification of the amazon alexa: BFF or a mindless companion. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Human Information Interaction & Retrieval. ACM, New York, NY, 265–268. DOI:

Digital Library

[152]

Ewa Luger and Abigail Sellen. 2016. “Like having a really bad PA” the gulf between user expectation and experience of conversational agents. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 5286–5297.

Digital Library

[153]

Wenting Ma, Olusola O. Adesope, John C. Nesbit, and Qing Liu. 2014. Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology 106, 4 (2014), 901.

[154]

Stephen Makonin, Daniel McVeigh, Wolfgang Stuerzlinger, Khoa Tran, and Fred Popowich. 2016. Mixed-initiative for big data: The intersection of human + visual analytics + prediction. In Proceedings of the 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 1427–1436. DOI:

Digital Library

[155]

Divine Maloney. 2018. Mitigating negative effects of immersive virtual avatars on racial bias. In Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts. 39–43.

Digital Library

[156]

A. Marcus, V. Rajlich, J. Buchta, M. Petrenko, and A. Sergeyev. 2005. Static techniques for concept location in object-oriented code. In Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Program Comprehension. 33–42.

Digital Library

[157]

Jennifer Marlow and Laura Dabbish. 2013. Activity traces and signals in software developer recruitment and hiring. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 145–156.

Digital Library

[158]

Akane Matsushima, Natsuki Oka, Chie Fukada, and Kazuaki Tanaka. 2019. Understanding dialogue acts by bayesian inference and reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 262–264. DOI:

Digital Library

[159]

Charlie McDowell, Linda Werner, Heather Bullock, and Julian Fernald. 2002. 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, New York, NY, 38–42. DOI:

Digital Library

[160]

Charlie McDowell, Linda Werner, Heather E. Bullock, and Julian Fernald. 2003. The impact of pair programming on student performance, perception and persistence. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 602–607. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=776816.776899.

Digital Library

[161]

Phil McMinn. 2004. Search-based software test data generation: A survey: Research Articles. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability 14, 2 (June 2004), 105–156. DOI:

[162]

Paola Medel and Vahab Pournaghshband. 2017. Eliminating gender bias in computer science education materials. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, 411–416. DOI:

Digital Library

[163]

Meiliana, Irwandhi Septian, Ricky Setiawan Alianto, Daniel, and Ford Lumban Gaol. 2017. Automated test case generation from UML activity diagram and sequence diagram using depth first search algorithm. Procedia Computer Science 116 (2017), 629–637. DOI:

Digital Library

[164]

Grigori Melnik and Frank Maurer. 2002. Perceptions of agile practices: A student survey. In Proceedings of the Conference on Extreme Programming and Agile Methods. Springer, 241–250.

[165]

Suejb Memeti and Sabri Pllana. 2018. PAPA: A parallel programming assistant powered by IBM Watson cognitive computing technology. Journal of Computational Science 26 (2018), 275–284.

[166]

Christopher Mendez, Hema Susmita Padala, Zoe Steine-Hanson, Claudia Hilderbrand, Amber Horvath, Charles Hill, Logan Simpson, Nupoor Patil, Anita Sarma, and Margaret Burnett. 2018. Open source barriers to entry, revisited: A sociotechnical perspective. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, 1004–1015.

Digital Library

[167]

Casey Miller and Kate Swift. 2001. The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing. iUniverse.

[168]

Matheus Monteiro Mariano, Érica F. Souza, André T. Endo, and Nandamudi L. Vijaykumar. 2019. Analyzing graphbased algorithms employed to generate test cases from finite state machines. In 2019 IEEE Latin American Test Symposium (LATS). 1–6.

[169]

Dana Movshovitz-Attias, Yair Movshovitz-Attias, Peter Steenkiste, and Christos Faloutsos. 2013. Analysis of the reputation system and user contributions on a question answering website: Stackoverflow. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining. ACM, 886–893.

Digital Library

[170]

Susanne van Mulken, Elisabeth André, and Jochen Müller. 1999. An empirical study on the trustworthiness of life-like interface agents. In Proceedings of the HCI International’99 8th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction on Human-Computer Interaction: Communication, Cooperation, and Application Design-Volume 2 - Volume 2. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, 152–156. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=647944.741893.

Digital Library

[171]

Emerson Murphy-Hill and Andrew P. Black. 2007. Why don’t people use refactoring tools? In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Refactoring Tools. 61–62.

[172]

Alena Naiakshina, Anastasia Danilova, Eva Gerlitz, and Matthew Smith. 2020. On conducting security developer studies with CS students: Examining a password-storage study with CS students, freelancers, and company developers. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 1–13.

Digital Library

[173]

Anton J. Nederhof. 1985. Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology 15, 3 (1985), 263–280.

[174]

J. C. Nesbit, O. O. Adesope, Q. Liu, and W. Ma. 2014. How effective are intelligent tutoring systems in computer science education? In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. 99–103.

Digital Library

[175]

Magdalene Ng, Kovila PL Coopamootoo, Ehsan Toreini, Mhairi Aitken, Karen Elliot, and Aad van Moorsel. 2020. Simulating the effects of social presence on trust, privacy concerns & usage intentions in automated bots for finance. In 2020 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW). IEEE, 190–199.

[176]

Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich. 1990. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 249–256.

Digital Library

[177]

Haoran Niu, Iman Keivanloo, and Ying Zou. 2017. Learning to rank code examples for code search engines. Empirical Software Engineering 22, 1 (2017), 259–291.

Digital Library

[178]

John Noll, Sarah Beecham, and Ita Richardson. 2010. Global software development and collaboration: Barriers and solutions. ACM Inroads 1, 3 (2010), 66–78.

Digital Library

[179]

David Novick and Stephen Sutton. 1997. What is mixed-initiative interaction? InProceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Computational Models for Mixed Initiative Interaction.

[180]

Catherine S. Oh, Jeremy N. Bailenson, and Gregory F. Welch. 2018. A systematic review of social presence: Definition, antecedents, and implications. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 5 (2018), 114. DOI:

[181]

Andy Oram and Greg Wilson. 2010. Making Software: What Really Works, and Why We Believe It (1st ed.). O’Reilly Media, Inc.

[182]

A. F. Osborn. 1957. Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking. Charles Scribner’s Sons. 57007589

[183]

Carlos Pacheco and Michael D. Ernst. 2007. Randoop: Feedback-directed random testing for Java. In Proceedings of the Companion to the 22nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-oriented Programming Systems and Applications Companion. 815–816.

Digital Library

[184]

M. Page-Jones. 1988. The Practical Guide to Structured Systems Design. Prentice Hall. 87034000

Digital Library

[185]

David Walsh Palmieri. 2002. Knowledge management through pair programming. Retrieved on 17 March, 2022 from http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/1429.

[186]

Nelishia Pillay. 2003. Developing intelligent programming tutors for novice programmers. SIGCSE Bull. 35, 2 (June 2003), 78–82. DOI:

Digital Library

[187]

George Polya. 2004. How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method. Vol. 85. Princeton university press.

[188]

Marshall Scott Poole, Michael Holmes, Richard Watson, and Gerardine DeSanctis. 1993. Group decision support systems and group communication: A comparison of decision making in computer-supported and nonsupported groups. Communication Research 20, 2 (1993), 176–213.

[189]

Marshall Scott Poole, Michael Homes, and Gerardine DeSanctis. 1988. Conflict management and group decision support systems. In Proceedings of the 1988 ACM Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work - CSCW'88. ACM Press.

Digital Library

[190]

Sihang Qiu, Ujwal Gadiraju, and Alessandro Bozzon. 2020. Estimating conversational styles in conversational microtask crowdsourcing. Proceedings of the ACM Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW1 (May 2020), Article 032, 23 pages. DOI:

Digital Library

[191]

Sihang Qiu, Ujwal Gadiraju, and Alessandro Bozzon. 2020. Improving worker engagement through conversational microtask crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems ACM, New York, NY, 1–12. DOI:

Digital Library

[192]

Ricardo Alexandre Peixoto Queirós and José Paulo Leal. 2012. PETCHA: A programming exercises teaching assistant. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 192–197.

Digital Library

[193]

M. Raghothaman, Y. Wei, and Y. Hamadi. 2016. SWIM: Synthesizing what I mean - code search and idiomatic snippet synthesis. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering. 357–367.

Digital Library

[194]

Vipul Raheja and Joel Tetreault. 2019. Dialogue act classification with context-aware self-attention. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers). 3727–3733.

[195]

Jorge Ramirez Uresti and Benedict Du Boulay. 2004. Expertise, motivation and teaching in learning companion systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 14, 2 (Jan. 2004), 193–231.

[196]

Prerana Pradeepkumar Rane. 2017. Automatic Generation of Test Cases for Agile Using Natural Language Processing. Ph. D. Dissertation. Virginia Tech.

[197]

James L. Reinertsen. 2000. Let’s talk about error. BMJ 320, 7237 (2000), 730. DOI:arXiv:https://www.bmj.com/content/320/7237/730.full.pdf.

[198]

Ehud Reiter and Robert Dale. 2000. Building Natural Language Generation Systems. Cambridge university press.

[199]

Liliang Ren, Jianmo Ni, and Julian McAuley. 2019. Scalable and Accurate Dialogue State Tracking via Hierarchical Sequence Generation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP). Association for Computational Linguistics, Hong Kong, China, 1876–1885.

[200]

P. Robe, S. Kaur Kuttal, Y. Zhang, and R. Bellamy. 2020. Can machine learning facilitate remote pair programming? Challenges, insights implications. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing. 1–11.

[201]

Fernando J. Rodríguez, Kimberly Michelle Price, and Kristy Elizabeth Boyer. 2017. Exploring the pair programming process: Characteristics of effective collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, 507–512. DOI:

Digital Library

[202]

Carl Ransom Rogers and Richard Evans Farson. 1957. Active Listening. Industrial Relations Center of the University of Chicago Chicago, IL.

[203]

José Miguel Rojas, José Campos, Mattia Vivanti, Gordon Fraser, and Andrea Arcuri. 2015. Combining multiple coverage criteria in search-based unit test generation. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Search Based Software Engineering. Springer, 93–108.

[204]

Reudismam Rolim, Gustavo Soares, Loris D’Antoni, Oleksandr Polozov, Sumit Gulwani, Rohit Gheyi, Ryo Suzuki, and Björn Hartmann. 2017. Learning syntactic program transformations from examples. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering. 404–415. DOI:

Digital Library

[205]

Sherry Ruan, Jacob O. Wobbrock, Kenny Liou, Andrew Ng, and James A. Landay. 2018. Comparing speech and keyboard text entry for short messages in two languages on touchscreen phones. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable Ubiquitous Technologies 1, 4 (Jan. 2018), Article 159, 23 pages. DOI:

Digital Library

[206]

Omar Ruvalcaba, Linda Werner, and Jill Denner. 2016. Observations of pair programming: Variations in collaboration across demographic groups. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, 90–95. DOI:

Digital Library

[207]

V. Sambamurthy and Wynne W. Chin. 1994. The effects of group attitudes toward alternative GDSS designs on the decision-making performance of computer-supported groups*. Decision Sciences 25, 2 (1994), 215–241.

[208]

Kate Kwasny, Peter Robe, Sandeep Kaur Kuttal, and Bali Ong. 2021. Trade-offs for substituting a human with an agent in a pair programming context: The good, the bad, and the ugly. (2021). Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1kIkt_d-q5F_DMsshhctv_Mbrm2YhtDdW?usp=sharing.

[209]

Anita Sarma, Xiaofan Chen, Sandeep Kuttal, Laura Dabbish, and Zhendong Wang. 2016. Hiring in the global stage: Profiles of online contributions. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 11th International Conference on Global Software Engineering. IEEE, 1–10.

[210]

T. Savage, M. Revelle, and D. Poshyvanyk. 2010. FLAT3: Feature location and textual tracing tool. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM/IEEE 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering, Vol. 2. 255–258.

Digital Library

[211]

Marvin L. Schroth and Elissa Lund. 1993. Role of delay of feedback on subsequent pattern recognition transfer tasks. Contemporary Educational Psychology 18, 1 (1993), 15–22.

[212]

Carolyn B. Seaman. 1999. Qualitative methods in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25, 4 (1999), 557–572.

Digital Library

[213]

Young-Ho Seo and Jong-Hoon Kim. 2016. Analyzing the effects of coding education through pair programming for the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students. Indian Journal of Science and Technology 9, 46 (Dec. 2016). DOI:

[214]

Michael Seymour, Kai Riemer, and Judy Kay. 2017. Interactive realistic digital avatars-revisiting the uncanny valley. (2017). In Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[215]

Arun Shekhar and Nicola Marsden. 2018. Cognitive walkthrough of a learning management system with gendered personas. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Gender & IT. ACM, 191–198.

Digital Library

[216]

Leonid Sheremetov and Adolfo Guzmán Arenas. 2002. EVA: An interactive web-based collaborative learning environment. Computers & Education 39, 2 (2002), 161–182. DOI:

Digital Library

[217]

Ben Shneiderman. 1982. Designing computer system messages. Communication of the ACM 25, 9 (1982), 610–611.

Digital Library

[218]

Leif Singer, Fernando Figueira Filho, Brendan Cleary, Christoph Treude, Margaret-Anne Storey, and Kurt Schneider. 2013. Mutual assessment in the social programmer ecosystem: An empirical investigation of developer profile aggregators. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 103–116.

Digital Library

[219]

Gillian Smith, Jim Whitehead, and Michael Mateas. 2010. Tanagra: A mixed-initiative level design tool. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 209–216. DOI:

Digital Library

[220]

Social Bot 2020. Chatbot Statistics. Retrieved 17 March, 2022 from https://www.smallbizgenius.net/by-the-numbers/chatbot-statistics/#gref.

[221]

Social Bot n.d. Cleverbot. Retrieved 17 March, 2022 from https://www.cleverbot.com/.

[222]

Social Bot n.d. Mitsuku. Retrieved 15 June, 2021 from https://www.pandorabots.com/mitsuku/.

[223]

Social Bot n.d. SAP Conversational AI. Retrieved 17 March, 2022 from https://www.sap.com/products/conversational-ai.html.

[224]

Li Zhou, Jianfeng Gao, Di Li, and Heung-Yeung Shum. 2020. The Design and Implementation of XiaoIce, an Empathetic Social Chatbot. Computational Linguistics 46, 1 (03 2020), 53–93. arXiv:https://direct.mit.edu/coli/article-pdf/46/1/53/1847834/coli_a_00368.pdf

Digital Library

[225]

Social Media Website n.d. Facebook. Retrieved 17 March, 2022 from www.facebook.com.

[226]

Social Media Website n.d. Twitter. Retrieved 17 March, 2022 from www.twitter.com.

[227]

Software Application n.d. Facerig. Retrieved 15 June, 2021 from https://facerig.com/.

[228]

Jörg Spieler. 2021. UCDetector. Retrieved from http://www.ucdetector.org/.

[229]

Lee Sproull, Mani Subramani, Sara Kiesler, Janet H. Walker, and Keith Waters. 1996. When the interface is a face. Human-Computer Interaction 11, 2 (June 1996), 97–124. DOI:

Digital Library

[230]

Saiying Steenbergen-Hu and Harris Cooper. 2013. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K–12 students’ mathematical learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 105, 4 (2013), 970.

[231]

Saiying Steenbergen-Hu and Harris Cooper. 2014. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students’ academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 106, 2 (2014), 331.

[232]

Anselm L. Strauss and Juliet M. Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif. XIII, 312 s pages.

[233]

Persis T. Sturges. 1972. Information delay and retention: Effect of information in feedback and tests. Journal of Educational Psychology 63, 1 (1972), 32.

[234]

Linda K. Swindell and Walter F. Walls. 1993. Response confidence and the delay retention effect. Contemporary Educational Psychology 18, 3 (1993), 363–375.

[235]

Ryuichi Takanobu, Runze Liang, and Minlie Huang. 2020. Multi-Agent Task-Oriented Dialog Policy Learning with Role-Aware Reward Decomposition. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 625–638.

[236]

Diana-Cezara Toader, Graţiela Boca, Rita Toader, Mara Mǎcelaru, Cezar Toader, Diana Ighian, and Adrian T. Rǎdulescu. 2019. The effect of social presence and chatbot errors on trust. Sustainability 12, 1 (Dec 2019), 256. DOI:

[237]

Jorge A. Ramirez Uresti. 2000. Should I teach my computer peer? Some issues in teaching a learning companion. In Proceedings of the Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Gilles Gauthier, Claude Frasson, and Kurt VanLehn (Eds.). Springer Berlin, 103–112.

[238]

Susanne van Mulken, Elisabeth André, and Jochen Müller. 1998. The persona effect: How substantial is it? In Proceedings of the People and Computers XIII. Hilary Johnson, Lawrence Nigay, and Christopher Roast (Eds.). Springer, 53–66.

[239]

Kurt VanLehn. 2011. The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist 46, 4 (2011), 197–221. DOI:

[240]

Kurt VanLehn, Arthur C. Graesser, G. Tanner Jackson, Pamela Jordan, Andrew Olney, and Carolyn P. Rosé. 2007. When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading? Cognitive Science 31, 1 (2007), 3–62. DOI:

[241]

Roli Varma. 2010. Why so few women enroll in computing? Gender and ethnic differences in students’ perception. Computer Science Education 20, 4 (Dec. 2010), 301–316. DOI:

[242]

Nicolas Vermeulen, Olivier Corneille, and Paula M. Niedenthal. 2008. Sensory load incurs conceptual processing costs. Cognition 109, 2 (2008), 287–294. DOI:

[243]

Virtual Assistant n.d. Amazon Alexa. Retrieved 17 March, 2022 from https://developer.amazon.com/en-US/alexa.

[244]

Virtual Assistant n.d. Apple Siri. Retrieved 17 March, 2022 from https://www.apple.com/siri/.

[245]

Virtual Assistant n.d. Google Assistant. Retrieved 17 March, 2022 from https://assistant.google.com/.

[246]

Virtual Assistant n.d. IBM Watson Assistant. Retrieved 17 March, 2022 from https://cloud.ibm.com/apidocs/assistant/assistant-v2.

[247]

Virtual Assistant 2022. Oracle Digital Assistant. Retrieved 17 March, 2022 from https://www.oracle.com/solutions/chatbots/.

[248]

Aurora Vizcaíno. 2005. A Simulated Student Can Improve Collaborative Learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 15, 1 (Jan. 2005), 3–40.

Digital Library

[249]

Doug Vogel and Jay Nunamaker. 1990. Group decision support system impact: Multi-methodological exploration. Information & Management 18, 1 (1990), 15–28.

Digital Library

[250]

Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Lingyi Zhang, Yun-Han Huang, Claudia Hilderbrand, Zoe Steine-Hanson, and Margaret Burnett. 2019. From gender biases to gender-inclusive design: An empirical investigation. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, Article 53, 14 pages. DOI:

Digital Library

[251]

Tony Wagner and Robert A. Compton. 2012. Creating Innovators: The Making of Young People Who Will Change the World. Simon and Schuster.

[252]

Pierre Wargnier, Giovanni Carletti, Yann Laurent-Corniquet, Samuel Benveniste, Pierre Jouvelot, and Anne-Sophie Rigaud. 2016. Field evaluation with cognitively-impaired older adults of attention management in the embodied conversational agent louise. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health. IEEE, 1–8.

[253]

Richard T. Watson, Gerardine DeSanctis, and Marshall Scott Poole. 1988. Using a GDSS to facilitate group consensus: Some intended and unintended consequences. MIS Quarterly 12, 3 (1988), 463–478.

Digital Library

[254]

Website n.d. Bing QA. Retrieved 17 March, 2022 from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/open-domain-question-answering/.

[255]

Linda L. Werner, Brian Hanks, and Charlie McDowell. 2004. Pair-programming helps female computer science students. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing 4, 1 (March 2004), Article 4, 4. DOI:

Digital Library

[256]

Wayne A. Wickelgren. 1974. How to Solve Problems: Elements of a Theory of Problems and Problem Solving. WH Freeman San Francisco.

[257]

Alex C. Williams, Harmanpreet Kaur, Shamsi Iqbal, Ryen W. White, Jaime Teevan, and Adam Fourney. 2019. Mercury: Empowering programmers’ mobile work practices with microproductivity. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, New York, NY, 81–94. DOI:

Digital Library

[258]

Laurie Williams and Bob Kessler. 2000. The effects of “pair-pressure” and “pair-learning” on software engineering education. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 59–. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=794188.794326.

[259]

Laurie Williams and Robert Kessler. 2002. Pair Programming Illuminated. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA.

Digital Library

[260]

L. Williams, C. McDowell, N. Nagappan, J. Fernald, and L. Werner. 2003. Building pair programming knowledge through a family of experiments. In Proceedings of the 2003 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, 2003.143–152. DOI:

[261]

Laurie A. Williams, Eric N. Wiebe, Kai Yang, Miriam Ferzli, and Carol Miller. 2002. In support of pair programming in the introductory computer science course. Computer Science Education 12, 3 (2002), 197–212.

[262]

James Wilson and Daniel Rosenberg. 1988. Rapid prototyping for user interface design. In Proceedings of the Handbook of Human-computer Interaction. Elsevier, 859–875.

[263]

Ian H. Witten, Craig G. Nevill-Manning, and D. L. Maulsby. 1996. Interacting with learning agents: Implications for ml from hci. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Machine Learning meets Human-Computer Interaction, ML, Vol. 96. 51–58.

[264]

Beverly Park Woolf. 2008. Building Intelligent Interactive Tutors: Student-Centered Strategies for Revolutionizing e-Learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA.

Digital Library

[265]

Qingyang Wu, Yichi Zhang, Yu Li, and Zhou Yu. 2021. Alternating Recurrent Dialog Model with Large-scale Pre-trained Language Models. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 1292–1301.

[266]

Yvonne Wærn and Robert Ramberg. 1996. People’s perception of human and computer advice. Computers in Human Behavior 12, 1 (1996), 17–27. DOI:

[267]

Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Russ R. Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. XLNet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32. H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d’Alché-Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett (Eds.). Curran Associates, Inc., 5753–5763. Retrieved from http://papers.nips.cc/paper/8812-xlnet-generalized-autoregressive-pretraining-for-language-understanding.pdf.

[268]

Georgios N. Yannakakis, Antonios Liapis, and Constantine Alexopoulos. 2014. Mixed-Initiative Co-Creativity. Foundations of Digital Games.

[269]

Nick Yee, Jeremy N. Bailenson, and Kathryn Rickertsen. 2007. A meta-analysis of the impact of the inclusion and realism of human-like faces on user experiences in interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 1–10. DOI:

Digital Library

[270]

Mohan Zalake, Julia Woodward, Amanpreet Kapoor, and Benjamin Lok. 2018. Assessing the Impact of virtual human’s appearance on users’ trust levels. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents. ACM, New York, NY, 329–330. DOI:

Digital Library

[271]

Jiaping Zhang, Tiancheng Zhao, and Zhou Yu. 2018. Multimodal Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning Policy for Task-Oriented Visual Dialog. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue. Association for Computational Linguistics, Melbourne, Australia, 140–150.

[272]

Yichi Zhang, Zhijian Ou, and Zhou Yu. 2020. Task-oriented dialog systems that consider multiple appropriate responses under the same context. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 34. 9604–9611.

[273]

Yong Zhao. 2012. World Class Learners: Educating Creative and Entrepreneurial Students. Corwin Press.

[274]

R. Zhi, S. Marwan, Y. Dong, N. Lytle, T. W. Price, and T. Barnes. 2019. Toward data-driven example feedback for novice programming. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Educational Data Mining.

[275]

C. Zhou, S. K. Kuttal, and I. Ahmed. 2018. What makes a good developer? An empirical study of developers’ technical and social competencies. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing. 319–321.

[276]

Su Zhu, Jieyu Li, Lu Chen, and Kai Yu. 2020. Efficient context and schema fusion networks for multi-domain dialogue state tracking. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 766–781.

[277]

Franz Zieris and Lutz Prechelt. 2014. On knowledge transfer skill in pair programming. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. ACM, New York, NY, Article 11, 10 pages. DOI:

Digital Library

Cited By

Abuhaimed SSen SDastani MSichman JAlechina NDignum V(2024)Team Performance and User Satisfaction in Mixed Human-Agent TeamsProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3635637.3662846(4-12)Online publication date: 6-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3635637.3662846
Lambiase SCatolino GPalomba FFerrucci F(2024)Motivations, Challenges, Best Practices, and Benefits for Bots and Conversational Agents in Software Engineering: A Multivocal Literature ReviewACM Computing Surveys10.1145/3704806Online publication date: 20-Nov-2024
https://doi.org/10.1145/3704806
Mason SKuttal S(2024)Diversity’s Double-Edged Sword: Analyzing Race’s Effect on Remote Pair Programming InteractionsACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/369960134:1(1-45)Online publication date: 7-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3699601
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Designing PairBuddy—A Conversational Agent for Pair Programming
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. HCI design and evaluation methods
      1. User studies

Recommendations

How's Your Day Look? The (Un)Expected Sociolinguistic Effects of User Modeling in a Conversational Agent
CHI EA '20: Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

We performed an ex situ Wizard of Oz study of young adults interacting with an idealized digital personal assistant to discuss daily scheduling concerns and stress levels. We further varied rates of "learning" and personalization with the system to test ...
Conversational Agents: Acting on the Wave of Research and Development
CHI EA '19: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

In the last five years, work on software that interacts with people via typed or spoken natural language, called chatbots, intelligent assistants, social bots, virtual companions, non-human players, and so on, increased dramatically. Chatbots burst into ...
Multimodal Conversational Agent for Older Adults' Behavioral Change
ICMI '20 Companion: Companion Publication of the 2020 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction

Recently, research in the multimodal interaction area has shown a rapid development and users have been embracing their experience of multimodal technologies. In fact, having a multimodal system means allowing the user to choose one or more ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction

ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction Volume 29, Issue 4

August 2022

469 pages

ISSN:1073-0516

EISSN:1557-7325

DOI:10.1145/3514186

Editor:
Kristina Höök
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden

Issue’s Table of Contents

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 ACM 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].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 05 May 2022

Accepted: 01 November 2021

Revised: 01 July 2021

Received: 01 November 2020

Published in TOCHI Volume 29, Issue 4

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Refereed

Funding Sources

National Science Foundation (CAREER)

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

17
Total Citations
View Citations
2,122
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)696
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)87

Reflects downloads up to 03 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Abuhaimed SSen SDastani MSichman JAlechina NDignum V(2024)Team Performance and User Satisfaction in Mixed Human-Agent TeamsProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3635637.3662846(4-12)Online publication date: 6-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3635637.3662846
Lambiase SCatolino GPalomba FFerrucci F(2024)Motivations, Challenges, Best Practices, and Benefits for Bots and Conversational Agents in Software Engineering: A Multivocal Literature ReviewACM Computing Surveys10.1145/3704806Online publication date: 20-Nov-2024
https://doi.org/10.1145/3704806
Mason SKuttal S(2024)Diversity’s Double-Edged Sword: Analyzing Race’s Effect on Remote Pair Programming InteractionsACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/369960134:1(1-45)Online publication date: 7-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3699601
Thiede CTaeumel MBöhme LHirschfeld REdwards JTaeumel M(2024)Talking to Objects in Natural Language: Toward Semantic Tools for Exploratory ProgrammingProceedings of the 2024 ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on New Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on Programming and Software10.1145/3689492.3690049(68-84)Online publication date: 17-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689492.3690049
Chen JLu XDu YRejtig MBagley RHorn MWilensky U(2024)Learning Agent-based Modeling with LLM Companions: Experiences of Novices and Experts Using ChatGPT & NetLogo ChatProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642377(1-18)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642377
Sergeyuk AGolubev YBryksin TAhmed I(2024)Using AI-based coding assistants in practice: State of affairs, perceptions, and ways forwardInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107610(107610)Online publication date: Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107610
Li JLi JSu Y(2024)A Map of Exploring Human Interaction Patterns with LLM: Insights into Collaboration and CreativityArtificial Intelligence in HCI10.1007/978-3-031-60615-1_5(60-85)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-60615-1_5
Juca-Aulestia MCabrera-Paucar ESánchez-Burneo V(2024)Education and Characteristics of Computational Thinking: A Systematic Literature ReviewInformation Systems and Technologies10.1007/978-3-031-45645-9_15(156-171)Online publication date: 14-Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45645-9_15
Quiroz-Palma PSantamaría-Philco ACevallos-Macias JHerrera-Tapia JPincay-Ponce JDelgado-Reyes KMuñoz-Verduga D(2023)Serious game in web programming learning: A systematic literature review2023 18th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI)10.23919/CISTI58278.2023.10211695(1-6)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2023
https://doi.org/10.23919/CISTI58278.2023.10211695
Johnson ABeasley Z(2023)Strategies to Optimize Student Success in Pair Programming Teams2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings10.18260/1-2--44272Online publication date: Jun-2023
https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--44272
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Full Text

View this article in Full Text.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Figures

Tables

Media

View full text|Download PDF

View Issue’s Table of Contents