Brunel University London · Web view(1, 58) = 7.421, p < 0.05; Advanced Labs: F (1, 58) = 36.403, p < 0.001. Moreover, the t-test results of the homework scores (see Table 4) show

A Study of Pair Configuration in a Computer Networks Virtualization-

based Lab and Its Effect on Learning

Abstract: Previous studies have demonstrated that pair programming has beneficial effects

on students’ learning. Based on pair programming, this study proposes pair configuration for

learning computer networks and designs a virtualization-based lab that allows pair input

commands to be entered simultaneously from two computers to one terminal. In the

experiment, university students were divided into two groups: In the experimental group, a

pair configuration was used for lab assignments, whereas in the control group, students

completed lab assignments individually. The experimental group significantly outperformed

the control group in learning achievement and also had more confidence in their work,

thereby reducing the instructor’s workload. Finally, the findings of the interviews and

questionnaires reveal that the experimental group considerably enjoyed the pair configuration

in the virtualization-based lab and had high motivation to use the proposed system.

Therefore, pair configuration in a virtualization-based lab is suitable and helpful to facilitate

learning in a computer networks lab.

Keywords: pair programming, pair configuration, collaborative learning, teaching computer

networks

Introduction

Pair programming has been introduced in industry and forms part of the larger concept of

Extreme Programming (XP) (Beck, 2000). The concept of pair programming consists of two

programmers working collaboratively to develop software. One programmer (the driver)

plays the role of generating code, while the other programmer (the navigator) monitors the

driver’s work in order to prevent defects and offers suggestions regarding the overall

software design and development. The driver and the navigator regularly swap roles.

Although pair programming was not originally intended for use in educational settings, it has

quickly adapted for these educational purposes, and there is now a significant body of

research on educational usages of pair programming (Williams, Kessler, Cunningham, &

Jeffries, 2000).

Based on previous pair programming research that was originally conducted in a

programming lab, this study tries to propose a new mechanism called “pair configuration,”

through which pairs of users can input commands simultaneously from two computers to one

terminal, and applies this mechanism in a computer networks lab (Boyer, Phillips, Wallis,

Vouk, & Lester, 2009). The pair configuration technique enables pairs of students to work

collaboratively and share knowledge with each other. Moreover, the virtualization technique

is implemented in a computer networks lab where students can complete their assignments.

The purpose of this study is to assess how beneficial the pair configuration is for students’

behavior, perception, and learning achievement.

Several studies have compared pair and solo programming (Braught, Wahls, & Eby,

2011; Gómez, Batún, & Aguilar, 2013; Williams, Wiebe, Yang, Ferzli, & Miller, 2002).

Therefore, the students in this study were divided into the solo students of the control group

and the pair students of the experimental group; lab experiments were conducted for each

group. The experimental group did the lab assignments using pair configuration, whereas the

control group did them individually. Furthermore, a virtualization technique was

implemented in a computer networks lab (hereafter called the “virtualization-based lab”),

which allowed the running of labs on virtual machines (VMs). Both groups did their

assignments using the virtualization-based lab. However, the experimental group shared and

synchronized their input commands for configuring networks collaboratively in the web

terminal. Moreover, both groups used the online synchronous discussion (OSD) feature,

which enabled them to communicate with others as well as their instructors, who were the

teacher and teaching assistant (TA). The lab material consisted of Basic Labs (comprising

Linux concepts and basic practices) and Advanced Labs (comprising Linux networking and

advanced practices). The students completed the assignments individually in Basic Labs and

in groups in Advanced Labs.

Related work

This experiment was undertaken with three well-known techniques: pair programming,

synchronous collaborative programming, and virtualization for designing collaborative

learning and deploying virtual lab facilities. Details regarding the theory and technique are

described as follows:

Pair programming in programming labs

Williams, Kessler, Cunningham, and Jeffries (2000) and Canfora, Cimitile, Garcia, Piattini,

and Visaggio, (2007) originally introduced pair programming in industry. The concept of pair

programming consists of two programmers working collaboratively to develop software. One

programmer (the driver) has the responsibility to generate code, while the other programmer

(the navigator) monitors the driver’s work in order to safeguard against defects and offers

suggestions to the driver regarding the various components of the overall software process,

such as design, coding, and testing. The driver and navigator can swap their roles, thus

balancing the workload. Various studies applied pair programming in programming labs and

reported that it has more beneficial effects on performance than solo programming: Firstly,

paired students are more self-sufficient when they perform assignments and have a high level

of learning activities and interactions with each other in class (Wiebe et al., 2003). Secondly,

Williams, Wiebe, Yang, Ferzli, and Miller (2002) highlighted that pair programming reduced

students’ reliance on instructors during lab classes. Finally, the pairing mechanism can be

beneficial for students’ happiness when the pair has at least one high achieving student

because he/she will lead the pair to complete assignments with the correct output (Braught,

Eby, & Wahls, 2008). These findings support the proposal of this study. Furthermore, a new

synchronized and shared input mechanism is designed to facilitate the collaboration of pair

programming in this study, allowing the pair to input commands simultaneously from two

computers to one terminal.

Synchronous collaborative programming

Synchronous collaborative programming (SCP) has been used in computer science labs to

enable students to code together at the same time in both distance and face-to-face classroom

settings (Boyer, Dwight, Fondren, Vouk, & Lester, 2008; Schuemmer & Lukosch, 2009).

SCP uses plug-in with an IDE editor (Vandeventer & Barbour, 2012) to facilitate the program

development pane for coding and compiling and the chat pane for online chatting. The SCP

system is a synchronized tasks system. When one user creates a task, that task generates an

action that is transmitted to the other user. Synchronized actions consist of file operations

(e.g., creating, saving, and removing files), editor operations (e.g., coding, code checking,

and code integrating) and program running (execution and debugging).

Virtualization-based lab

Past research has suggested using on-campus, remote-access lab facilities; in this manner,

learners can access work on real devices and monitor the results achieved anywhere (Lahoud

& Tang, 2006; Summers, Bhagyavati, & Martin, 2005). Recently, this type of remote-access

lab has been adopted in various computer science courses. However, one disadvantage it has

is that it requires a properly installed lab facility and additional resources to handle such

remote access. Moreover, reconfiguring this type of lab requires significant effort from

numerous staff members (Abler, Contis, Grizzard, & Owen, 2006).

Therefore, Anisetti et al. (2007), Border (2007), and Wannous and Nakano (2010)

introduced virtualization-based technology as a new way of installing a group of VMs on one

server and running OSs on these VMs. Moreover, labs that implement virtualization-based

technology allow learners to conduct experiments like real lab devices with flexible and

portable features that have been successfully tested and verified for learning purposes.

Recently, this virtualization-based technique has even been utilized in many online services,

especially in cloud computing (Chengjun, Quanhong, & Heng, 2012). Hence, this study tries

to implement a virtualization-based lab with VMs and build virtual devices like hubs, switches,

and routers for computer networks lab classes.

Method

Participants and procedures

The experiment was conducted during the summer semester (March to May 2014) at a

university in Thailand. The participants consisted of 62 undergraduate students enrolled in

two sections of a computer networks course. One section, with 33 students, was assigned to

be the control group, while the other section, with 29 students, was assigned to be the

experimental group.

The procedures of the experiment were based on four overall steps, as shown in Figure 1:

1) Pre-test 1 and lab orientation; 2) experimental treatment for the Basic Labs and Post-test 1;

3) Pre-test 2 and experimental treatment for the Advanced Labs; and 4) Post-test 2 and a

questionnaire. The experiment was administered twice a week in three-hour increments. The

same teacher lectured both groups with the same lab topics (see Appendix 2), which

consisted of two parts: Basic Labs (Linux concept and basic practices: Labs 1-3) and

Advanced Labs (Linux networking and advanced practices: Labs 4-6). In the lab class, both

groups did their lab assignments using the virtualization-based lab. The experimental group

did their lab assignments using a pair configuration technique, whereas the control group

worked individually. The instructors informed the students about how to use the

virtualization-based lab.

Learning activity designs

In this experiment, the learning activities consisted of individual and group assignments,

which were designed on the basis of lab topics and network equipment. The Basic Labs were

assigned as individual assignments and the Advanced Labs as group assignments. Before the

lab started, the experimental and control students were further divided into groups of four

pairs and groups of four students, respectively. Details regarding the designed lab class and

the homework assignments are described as follows.

Basic Labs assignments

The Basic Labs assignments were individual assignments and consisted of Labs 1 to 3. The

instructors prepared the lab materials and assignments for both student groups. At the

beginning of class, the teacher briefed the students on the objective and contents of the

experiment and gave them the assignments, which were completed by the end of the three-

hour class period. The completed assignments were then presented to the instructors for

evaluation. In addition, the students had both face-to-face discussions and OSDs with group

members and instructors; moreover, their classmates used the virtualization-based lab’s chat

feature.

Figure 1: Flowchart for the experiment

Advanced Labs assignments

The Advanced Labs were group assignments and consisted of Labs 4 to 6. Students in both

the experimental and control groups were asked to collaborate with their fellow group

members to complete the lab assignments within the class period. Again, the students had

both face-to-face discussions and OSDs with other group members and the instructors; and

classmates also used the virtualization-based lab’s chat feature. In Lab 4 (see Appendix 3),

each student and each pair configured a file server, web server, database server, and FTP

server. At the beginning of the assignment, one student or one pair configured one type of

server and then explained how to do so to the other group members. In Labs 5 and 6 (see

Appendix 4), each student and each pair managed and configured one of four routers.

Homework

The teacher prepared the same homework assignments for the control group and the

experimental group, which consisted of a post-lab question aimed at improving the students’

understanding of the experiment. The students were allowed to use the virtualization-based

lab to determine the answers from the command manual window and to redo the assignments

to confirm their answers.

Research variables

In this experiment, the following variables were defined: command count, the ratio of

incorrect to total commands, chat message count, homework scores, pre-test, post-test, and

number of face-to-face help. In addition, these variables were compared to each other as well

as with overall learning achievement.

1. Command count: The total number of Linux commands coded by a student using the

virtualization-based lab for Labs 2-3 and 4-6.

2. The ratio of incorrect to total commands: The ratio of incorrect to total Linux

commands coded by a student using the virtualization-based lab for Labs 2-3 and 4-6.

3. Chat message count: The total number of chat messages typed by a student using the

virtualization-based lab for Labs 2-3 and 4-6 that were relevant to the lab assignment.

4. Homework scores: The homework scores for Labs 1-6.

5. Pre-test and post-test: Pre-tests 1 and 2 are the students’ exam scores before the Basic

Labs and Advanced Labs, respectively. Post-test 1 is the students’ midterm exam

scores, while Post-test 2 is the students’ final exam scores.

6. The number of face-to-face help: The total number of face-to- face help meetings

when students had face-to-face help from instructors.

Research questions

1. When pair configuration is applied, do the students do their assignments (homework

and post-test objectives) better than those working without pair configuration? Dose

pair configuration reduce the instructor’s effort in helping students?

2. What are the students’ perceptions and behavioral intentions when using the proposed

system in the two groups?

3. Is pair configuration beneficial to students’ learning, and what are the reasons for this,

as deduced from interviews?

Figure 2: Virtualization-based Lab Web GUI: 1) Web terminal; 2) Command search window; 3) Lab materials; and 4) Group chat windows

The virtualization-based lab

Figure 2 shows the GUI of the virtualization-based lab. This is a web GUI with a simple

server-side script with an interface that includes the following: 1) a web Linux terminal that

allows students to open a command line window on the guest OS; 2) a command search box

that enables students to find the command manual; 3) lab materials for Labs 1-6; and 4) a

chat feature that allows students to have OSDs for sharing Linux and configuration

commands with their classmates.

Results and discussion

The results of this research and the pedagogical implications are presented in relation to each

of the research questions above. The answers to the three research questions are shown in the

following sections, respectively.

Analysis of pre-test, post-test results and homework scores

The pre-test aimed to ensure that both groups of students had the equivalent basic knowledge

required for learning the course. According to Table 1, the mean and standard deviation of

pre-test 1 for the experimental group were 1.69 and 0.71, respectively, while those of pre-test

2 were 2.17 and 0.97; for the control group, these measures were 2.13 and 0.19 for pre-test 1,

and 2.69 and 0.93 for pre-test 2. Since the pre-test 1 and 2 scores for both groups were less

than 3 (out of a total of 10), it is evident that the two groups of students had equivalent

abilities prior to taking the course. There are significant differences in pre-test 1 (t = −2.095,

p = 0.041) and pre-test 2 (t = −2.119, p = 0.038) for the two groups.

Analysis of covariance (pre-test as covariate) was also used to investigate whether

students in the two groups differed in their post-test performance when pair configuration

was used or not during a lab (see Tables 2 and 3). These analyses reveal a significant

difference between the students in the experimental and control groups: Basic Labs: F (1, 58)

= 7.421, p < 0.05; Advanced Labs: F (1, 58) = 36.403, p < 0.001.

Moreover, the t-test results of the homework scores (see Table 4) show that the

experimental group has a significantly higher difference than the control group in Homework

1 (t = 7.283; p = 0.0), Homework 4 (t = 2.485; p = 0.016), and Homework 5 (t = 9.742; p =

0.0), and the averages score of Homework 2, 3, and 6 for the experimental group are higher

than for the control group. The primary reason for this difference is that the experimental

students usually discussed and answered the homework questions with their partner and

therefore attained higher homework scores.

Based on the findings, it can be concluded that in both Basic and Advanced Labs, paired

students in the experimental group performed better than solo students in the control group.

We believe that this is because they worked and synchronized with their partners in numerous

discussions and engaged in knowledge sharing to impart and receive more knowledge than

might be gained through individual work (Lee, 2011).

Table 1: Results of the pre-test and post-test analysis

Assessment Experimental Group Control Group t p(n = 29) (n = 33)

Mean SD SE Mean SD SEPre-test 1 1.69 0.71 0.13 2.13 0.91 0.16 −2.095 0.041*Pre-test 2 2.17 0.97 0.18 2.69 0.93 0.16 −2.119 0.038*Post-test 1 9.62 0.93 0.16 7.59 3.18 0.56Post-test 2 10.00 3.70 0.69 5.47 2.38 0.42

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Table 2: Analysis of covariance of the post-test 1 performance with pre-test 1 as a covariate (Basic Labs)

Source of Variance SS df MS F Sig.Between groups 73.822 1 73.822 7.4210.009**Within group (errors) 576.978 58 9.948

Total 5120.000 61*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Table 3: Analysis of covariance of the post-test 2 performance with pre-test 2 as a covariate (Advanced Labs)

Source of Variance SS df MS F Sig.Between groups 336.383 1 336.383 36.4030.000***Within group (errors) 535.944 58 9.240

Total 4417.000 61*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Table 4: T-test results of the homework

Assignment Experimental Group Control Group t p(n = 29) (n = 33)

Mean SD SE Mean SD SEHomework 1 4.48 0.91 0.17 2.66 1.04 0.18 7.283 0.0***Homework 2 3.50 0.82 0.15 3.19 0.68 0.12 1.621 0.11Homework 3 4.21 0.73 0.13 4.16 0.99 0.17 0.226 0.822Homework 4 2.93 0.65 0.12 2.56 0.50 0.09 2.485 0.016*Homework 5 4.46 0.87 0.16 2.79 0.35 0.06 9.742 0.0***Homework 6 3.72 0.80 0.15 3.69 0.78 0.14 0.181 0.857*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Table 5: T-test results of command count and the ratio of incorrect to total commands

Assignment Experimental Group Control Group t p(n = 14) (n = 33)

Mean SD SE Mean SD SELab 2 Command Count 103.79 40.25 10.7

653.84 20.51 3.63 4.399 0.0***

Lab 3 Command Count 49.14 28.10 7.51 41.34 21.30 3.76 1.035 0.306Lab 4 Command Count 57.29 23.84 6.37 39.34 23.22 4.11 2.392 0.021*Lab 5 Command Count 78.93 34.60 9.25 54.13 21.54 3.81 2.967 0.005**Lab 6 Command Count 38.36 14.01 3.75 24.81 16.82 2.97 2.634 0.012*Lab 2 Ratio of incorrect to total commands

0.06 0.03 0.01 0.14 0.10 0.02 −4.142 0.0***

Lab 3 Ratio of incorrect to total commands

0.07 0.04 0.01 0.16 0.15 0.03 −2.221 0.032*


0.07 0.04 0.01 0.12 0.07 0.01 −2.823 0.007**


0.05 0.03 0.01 0.08 0.04 0.01 −2.345 0.024*


0.06 0.05 0.01 0.14 0.10 0.02 −3.148 0.003**

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

T-test results of command count and the ratio of incorrect to total commands

There are statistically significant differences regarding command count in Lab 2 (t = 4.339, p

= 0.00), Lab 4 (t = 2.392, p = 0.021), Lab 5 (t = 2.967, p = 0.005), and Lab 6 (t = 2.634, p =

0.012) between the experimental group and the control group. Although it was found the

command count is not direct related to learning achievement, this finding shows command

count is possibly an indicator affecting students’ learning. As Table 5 shows, the mean of the

lab command count of the experimental group was higher than the mean of the control group.

This implies that the experimental group created more activities in command practices than

the control group. Moreover, the significant differences in command count in Labs 2, 4, 5,

and 6 show that the paired students synchronized commands and helped each other to

perform assignments collaboratively in the virtualization-based lab, which led the

experimental group to generate more commands than the control group (Braught, Eby, &

Wahls, 2008).

Furthermore, according to Table 5, the ratios of incorrect to total commands show

statistically significant differences between the experimental group and the control group in

all six labs: (t = −4.142, p = 0.0), (t = −2.221, p = 0.032), (t = −2.823, p = 0.007), (t = −2.345,

p = 0.024), and (t = −3.148, p = 0.003), respectively. The results demonstrate that students in

the experimental group improved their typing capability more than their counterparts in the

control group because paired synchronization can facilitate careful and correct work;

therefore, the students in the experimental group could reduce syntax and type errors (Lui &

Chan, 2006).

T-test results of chat message count and number of face-to-face help

Regarding the t-test results of the chat message count as shown in Table 6, there are

statistically significant differences in the command count in Lab 4 (t = −2.404, p = 0.019),

Lab 5 (t = −2.501, p = 0.015), and Lab 6 (t = 2.737, p = 0.008) between the experimental

group and the control group. Besides, almost all average values of the chat message count of

the experimental group are lower than those of the control group, excluding that of Lab 1.

Moreover, as regards the numbers of face-to-face help in Table 6, there are no significant

differences between the experimental group and the control group. However, the average

number of face-to-face help of the experimental group is lower than that of the control group

across all laboratories.

The main reasons for this situation is that the students in the experimental group could

communicate directly with their partners to solve problems and lab assignments; as such, they

could understand and solve problems better than the students who worked alone, without help

from instructors (Williams & Kessler, 2002). Furthermore, Asian students are generally shy

in asking for help from instructors (Liu, 2001). For this reason, the numbers of face-to-face

help of the two groups were small, and there were no significant differences between the two

groups.

Table 6: T-test results of the chat message count and number of face-to-face help

Assessment Experimental Group

Control Group t p

(n = 29) (n = 33) Mean SD SE Mean SD SELab 2 Chat Message Count 7.00 5.56 1.03 6.93 5.91 1.05 0.042 0.996Lab 3 Chat Message Count 2.34 2.09 0.39 3.72 3.70 0.66 −1.757 0.084Lab 4 Chat Message Count 4.14 3.82 0.71 6.53 3.93 0.70 −2.404 0.019*Lab 5 Chat Message Count 2.24 2.54 0.47 4.31 3.84 0.68 −2.501 0.015*Lab 6 Chat Message Count 0.72 0.88 0.16 1.28 0.68 0.12 −2.737 0.008**Lab 1 Number of face-to- face help

1.07 1.58 0.29 1.44 2.14 0.38 −0.759 0.451

Lab 2 Number of face-to- face help

1.00 1.10 0.20 1.78 2.85 0.50 −1.437 0.158


1.34 1.63 0.30 1.59 2.20 0.39 −0.498 0.620


1.59 1.70 0.32 2.09 2.01 0.35 −1.060 0.293


1.72 1.87 0.35 1.75 1.87 0.35 −0.056 0.955


1.28 1.87 0.35 1.31 1.38 0.24 −0.088 0.930

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

In conclusion, although the two groups did the same assignments, the experimental group

spent less effort than the control group in terms of chatting and asking other students or

instructors questions.

Students’ perceptions and behavioral intentions

A questionnaire survey was conducted in order to investigate the students’ perceptions and

behavioral intentions when using the proposed system. The questionnaire was designed

following the technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, 1986) and based on the following

four dimensions: 1) perceived ease of the proposed system use; 2) perceived usefulness of the

proposed system; 3) attitude toward using the proposed system; and 4) behavioral intentions

when using the proposed system. Furthermore, it included five external dimensions (e.g.,

system characteristics) that affect intention to use and actual use (Davis, Bagozzi, &

Warshaw, 1989): 1) system characteristics of the proposed system; 2) system accessibility of

the proposed system; 3) perceived readiness based on using the proposed system; 4)

perceived usefulness of the proposed system for collaborative group work; and 5) perceived

subjective norm from classmates to use the proposed system. The responses obtained from

the two groups were ranked using a five-point Likert scale (ranging from strongly disagree

(1) to strongly agree (5)). The statistical results of the questionnaire survey are presented in

Table A-1 in Appendix 1. According to the t-test results, the average mean scores of all the

dimensions for the experimental group were higher than those for the control group. In

addition, there was statistically significant difference regarding the perceived subjective norm

from classmates to use the proposed system (t = 2.036, p = 0.046). This finding demonstrates

three aspects of the experiment. First, the significant result highlights that subjective norm

among the students in the experimental group can enhance the use and continued use of the

proposed system in their future studies, as pairing helps them have more confidence and

motivation to complete lab assignments. Second, the students in the experimental group felt

that they were better prepared for performing laboratory assignments when using the

proposed system and that it had helpful characteristics. Third, they perceived that the

proposed system provided a Linux OS environment that was more user-friendly than a real

network device. Fourth, they confirmed that the proposed system was easy to access and that

it offered quick and stable remote access.

Moreover, all questionnaire dimensions were rated “agree” by the experimental group,

and all of the questionnaire ratings of this group were higher than those of the control group.

This indicates that the proposed system was ready to be utilized for the particular scope of

teaching computer networks; moreover, the proposed system was uncomplicated and useful

for conducting experiments and collaborative group work. Furthermore, the highest rating

given by the experimental group for system characteristics of the proposed system dimension

was 3.80. This result strongly implies that the characteristics of the proposed system allow

students to have real experiences of laboratory practice through this virtual device (Anisetti et

al., 2007; Border, 2007; Wannous & Nakano, 2010).

Interview and in-depth investigation

During the one-on-one semi-structured interviews, the students mentioned that they could

benefit from using pair configuration for labs in class. Regarding the use of pair configuration

for experiments, the students in the experimental group pointed out that pair configuration

influenced their behavior to have more discussions and share more, which related to the

Linux commands and networks configuration (Williams, Wiebe, Yang, Ferzli, & Miller,

2002). The following content was extracted from two different interviews:

In lab class, I often discussed with my partner how to use Linux commands in the

first three labs and how to configure networks in the last three labs. My partner

helped me complete the assignments in a short time because he have a lot of

experience in Linux OS.

During the lab class, I had online and face-to-face communication with other

group members, the TA, and the teacher. However, it was not as helpful in

comparison to communications with my partner, which saved me time spent in

discussions with others about the assignments. Besides, the direct communications

with my partner make us had more understanding about the assignment problems.

In addition, the paired configuration students were typically able to find the solutions to

reduced level problems such as syntax and type errors without assistance, and the instances of

them asking instructors for help were much less frequent (Braught, Wahls, & Eby, 2011). The

following content is derived from two different interviews:

My web terminal was synchronized with my partner’s web terminal. This

technique allowed us to type configuration commands at the same time. Therefore, we

could check our typing before we submitted the inputs.

In Labs 2 and 3, we completed our assignments by ourselves, and all assignments

were correct as checked by the instructors. When I worked with my partner, I was

very confident in finishing assignments without any help from others.

However, the use of paired configuration in our study was also intended to give students

an opportunity to experience two different roles (driver and navigator) while doing the

experiment. In either case, if one student in the pair is struggling or absent, the partner can

swap roles to be the driver for the lab (Wiebe et al., 2003). The following content is extracted

from two different interviews:

In every lab class, my partner and I worked together when we did assignments.

Both of us typed concurrently commands into the virtualization-based lab. Moreover,

we agreed to change roles so each of us was the driver for three laboratories and the

navigator for three laboratories.

Some students had to attend department activities before Lab 3 started. Therefore,

the teacher allowed one member of each pair to joint this event. My partner did the

assignment for me, and we received the lab score as a pair.

On the other hand, the solo students in the control group frequently asked for help and had

questions for the instructors and other students in both face-to-face and online discussions of

the assignments (Wiebe et al., 2003). Moreover, the students in the control group waited for

help from the instructors when they ran into problems (Williams, Wiebe, Yang, Ferzli, &

Miller, 2002). Furthermore, some students in the solo class had no self-confidence to do

assignments by themselves, and they did not ask others for help; thus, they did not finish the

assignments on time (Williams & Kessler, 2002). The following content is extracted from

two different interviews:

I often used the virtualization-based lab to chat with other group members and

instructors. Moreover, during lab class, when I could not solve the problems, I

requested face-to-face help from the instructor, and then I could complete my

assignments.

The network configuration part of the lab was too difficult for me. I should have

finished the assignments in 3 hours; however, the instructors could not advise all the

students because there were 33 students in the class. Thus, I could not finish the

assignments on time. Then, the teacher gave me an extra time to complete the

assignments.

Implications regarding education and technology

Based on the findings, this study presents the following implications and recommendations

for instructors who plan to teach computer networks. Firstly, it is recommended to use pair

configuration in virtualization-based labs for enhancing students’ understanding of the lab

contents. Secondly, pair configuration is a collaborative learning environment in which the

paired students can work and share knowledge together for completing assignments; in

addition, the paired students and instructors can have direct conversations via a chat feature,

and instructors can simultaneously monitor paired students in class and help them correct

certain configurations by sending messages. Therefore, the pair configuration can increase

students’ attention when performing assignments during lab class. Thirdly, it was observed

that paired students had many discussions with their partners during both Basic and

Advanced Labs. Thus, instructors should chat directly into class windows (not individual

windows), discussing the assignments with all the pairs, especially when it comes to giving

guideline commands. Fourthly, this experiment recommends that instructors should assign

pairs based on students’ ability levels. Each pair should have at least one high achieving

student, because he/she will help his/her partner to have a better understanding of the lab

contents (Dawande, Johar, Kumar, & Mookerjee, 2008). Finally, this experiment shows that

virtualization-based labs can be a cost-efficient lab solution, when the alternative is to buy

expensive high-profile network equipment directly from the manufacturers. Furthermore, if

instructors apply the Linux OS to teach computer networks, then students will gain

experience in both computer networks and Linux, i.e., business enterprise OS.

Conclusion

This study applied the pair configuration mechanism for a computer networks lab in order to

determine its effectiveness in students’ learning performance. In addition, the study

investigated students’ perceptions and behavioral intentions when implementing pair

configuration in labs. First of all, this study successfully proposed pair configuration for

learning in computer networks labs. Second, the experimental group in the pair configuration

class was more productive in command count; moreover, there was a decreased effort from

the instructor in terms of chat message count and face-to-face help. Thus, the experimental

group significantly outperformed the control group in both post-tests. Third, this study

successfully deployed a virtualization-based lab into a computer networks lab, a technique

that allowed the instructors to create a variety of virtual network topologies to be deployed as

the lab facilities. Therefore, the students learned with real experience and accepted the

virtualization-based labs for performing the assignments during lab class.

There are several limitations that need to be acknowledged regarding this experiment. The

first limitation is the relatively small sample, which limits the broad generalization of the

results. Therefore, in the future, this study will increase the number of participants to include

one control groups and two experimental groups, thus producing more, alternative data.

Finally, future efforts should compare performance of students working in pairs with

synchronized and non-synchronized configurations.

References

Abler, R. T., Contis, D., Grizzard, J. B., & Owen, H. L. (2006). Georgia tech information

security center hands-on network security laboratory. Ieee Transactions on Education,

49(1), 82-87. doi: Doi 10.1109/Te.2005.858403

Anisetti, M., Bellandi, V., Colombo, A., Cremonini, M., Damiani, E., Frati, F., . . .

Rebeccani, D. (2007). Learning computer networking on open paravirtual laboratories.

Ieee Transactions on Education, 50(4), 302-311. doi: Doi 10.1109/Te.2007.904584

Beck, K. (2000). Extreme programming explained: embrace change: Addison-Wesley

Professional.

Border, C. (2007). The development and deployment of a multi-user, remote access

virtualization system for networking, security, and system administration classes. ACM

SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(1), 576. doi: 10.1145/1227504.1227501

Boyer, K. E., Dwight, A. A., Fondren, R. T., Vouk, M. A., & Lester, J. C. (2008). A

development environment for distributed synchronous collaborative programming. ACM

SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(3), 158-162.

Boyer, K. E., Phillips, R., Wallis, M. D., Vouk, M. A., & Lester, J. C. (2009). Investigating

the role of student motivation in computer science education through one-on-one tutoring.

Computer Science Education, 19(2), 111-135.

Braught, G., Eby, L. M., & Wahls, T. (2008). The effects of pair-programming on individual

programming skill. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 200-204.

Braught, G., Wahls, T., & Eby, L. M. (2011). The case for pair programming in the computer

science classroom. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 11(1), 2.

Canfora, G., Cimitile, A., Garcia, F., Piattini, M., & Visaggio, C. A. (2007). Evaluating

performances of pair designing in industry. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(8),

1317-1327. doi: DOI 10.1016/j.jss.2006.11.004

Chengjun, X., Quanhong, T., & Heng, Z. (2012, 14-17 July 2012). A research of safety

mechanism in cloud computing platform based on virtualization. Paper presented at the

Computer Science & Education (ICCSE), 2012 7th International Conference on,

Melbourne, Australia.

Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user

information systems: Theory and results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer

technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8), 982-

1003. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982

Dawande, M., Johar, M., Kumar, S., & Mookerjee, V. S. (2008). A comparison of pair versus

solo programming under different objectives: An analytical approach. Information

Systems Research, 19(1), 71-92. doi: 10.1287/isre.1070.0147

Gómez, O. S., Batún, J. L., & Aguilar, R. A. (2013). Pair versus Solo Programming--An

Experience Report from a Course on Design of Experiments in Software Engineering.

International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 10(1), 734-742.

Hilmi A. Lahoud, P., & Xin Tang, P. (2006). Information security labs in IDS/IPS for

distance education. Paper presented at the The 7th conference on Information technology

education, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

Lee, Y. J. (2011). Empowering teachers to create educational software: A constructivist

approach utilizing Etoys, pair programming and cognitive apprenticeship. Computers &

Education, 56(2), 527-538. doi: DOI 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.018

Liu, J. (2001). Asian students' classroom communication patterns in US universities: An emic

perspective: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Lui, K. M., & Chan, K. C. C. (2006). Pair programming productivity: Novice-novice vs.

expert-expert. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(9), 915-925. doi:

10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.04.010

Schuemmer, T., & Lukosch, S. (2009). Understanding Tools and Practices for Distributed

Pair Programming. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 15(16), 3101-3125.

Summers, W. C., Bhagyavati, & Martin, C. (2005). Using a virtual lab to teach an online

information assurance program. Paper presented at the The 2nd annual conference on

Information security curriculum development, Kennesaw, Georgia.

Vandeventer, J., & Barbour, B. (2012). CodeWave: a real-time, collaborative IDE for

enhanced learning in computer science. Paper presented at the The 43rd ACM technical

symposium on Computer Science Education.

Wannous, M., & Nakano, H. (2010). NVLab, a Networking Virtual Web-Based Laboratory

that Implements Virtualization and Virtual Network Computing Technologies. Ieee

Transactions on Learning Technologies, 3(2), 129-138. doi: Doi 10.1109/Tlt.2009.31

Wiebe, E., Williams, L., Petlick, J., Nagappan, N., Balik, S., Miller, C., & Ferzli, M. (2003).

Pair programming in introductory programming labs. Paper presented at the American

Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition.

Williams, L., & Kessler, R. (2002). Pair programming illuminated: Addison-Wesley

Longman Publishing Co., Inc.

Williams, L., Kessler, R. R., Cunningham, W., & Jeffries, R. (2000). Strengthening the case

for pair programming. Ieee Software, 17(4), 19-25. doi: 10.1109/52.854064

Williams, L., Wiebe, E., Yang, K., Ferzli, M., & Miller, C. (2002). In support of pair

programming in the introductory computer science course. Computer Science Education,

12(3), 197-212.

Appendix 1. Questionnaire survey

Table A-1: T-test of questionnaire survey.

# Item Group Item Mean

Dimension Mean

SD t Sig. (2-tailed)

1. System characteristics of the proposed system. 1-1 I think that the proposed system can provide a real

Linux networking environment as a working in real machine.

Experimental 3.93 3.80 0.49 0.223 0.824Control 3.85 3.77 0.52

1-2 I think that the Virtual Box can provide a real Linux networking environment as a working in real machine.

Experimental 3.66Control 3.73

1-3 I think that the proposed system have good facilitates.


1-4 I think that the proposed system have helpful peer and tutor support.


2. System accessibility of the proposed system.2-1 I have no difficulty accessing and using Virtual

Box.Experimental 3.83 3.57 0.88 0.533 0.596Control 3.82 3.46 0.70

2-2 I have no difficulty accessing and using this system.


2-3 I think that I can remote to this system is stable in every place.


2-4 I think that I can access to this system faster and smoothly.


3. Perceived readiness from using the proposed system.3-1 I always peer review laboratory contents on the

proposed system before class.Experimental 3.10 3.43 0.60 1.746 0.086Control 2.88 3.16 0.58

3-1 I think that our educational (style) culture in class is ready for the proposed system.


3-3 I think that the proposed system make student ready to do lab assignments.


4. Perceived usefulness of the proposed system for collaborative group work.4-1 I would like to collaborate with class mates in the

same group for doing lab assignments.Experimental 3.76 3.72 0.75 0.563 0.575Control 3.67 3.62 0.69

4-2 I would like to collaborate with class mates in another group for doing lab assignments.


4-3 I would like to share networks configuration and topology with group members for doing lab assignments.


4-4 From my experience, “collaboration” among classmates usually succeeds to finish assignment faster.


5. Perceived subjective norm from classmates to use the proposed system.5-1 I think other students in my group would be aware

to use this system.Experimental 3.90 0.71 0.13 2.036 0.046*Control 3.48 0.63 0.11

5-2 I think other students in my group would be willing to use this system.


5-3 I think other students in my classes would be willing to use this system.


5-4 Most people who are important to me think that it would be fine to use this system to do lab assignments.


*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Table A-1: T-test of questionnaire survey.

6. Perceived ease of the proposed system use.6-1 I think that the proposed system is very convenient to

do lab assignments.Experimental 3.83 3.68 0.53 0.960 0.341Control 3.67 3.53 0.67

6-2 I think that the operation of the proposed system does not require too much time.


6-3 I think that the proposed system is very easy to do practical lessons and exercises after class.


6-4 I feel that learning to use this system is quite easy. Experimental 3.62Control 3.15

6-5 I think that the proposed system is very easy for communication with instructor and other students.


7. Perceived usefulness of the proposed system.7-1 I think that the chat windows can communicate

with other group members to have suggestions for accomplishing lab assignments.

Experimental 4.10 3.73 0.54 0.266 0.791Control 4.03 3.69 0.67

7-2 I think that the sharing of virtual network devices is helpful for doing lab assignments.


7-3 I think that the sharing of chat window is useful for doing lab assignments.


7-4 I think that the proposed system increase collaborative work with other group members when do lab assignments.


7-5 I think that the proposed system enhance my attention.


7-6 I think that I can decrease my workload when work with the proposed system.


7-7 I think that I can have a good memory when work with the proposed system.


8. Attitude toward using the proposed system.8-1 I like using this system to learn computer

networks.Experimental 3.79 3.78 0.69 1.367 0.177Control 3.67 3.56 0.61

8-2 I have a positive attitude toward using this system. Experimental 3.79Control 3.52

8.3 I feel that using this system to do lab assignments is a good method.


9. Behavioral intentions when using the proposed system.9-1 If I have access to this system, I will use it to learn

computer networks.Experimental 3.59 3.56 0.68 1.204 0.233Control 3.52 3.36 0.63

9-2 If I do lab assignments, I will enjoy doing with this system.


9-3 I think that I will use this system to help me when I do my homework.


*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Appendix 2. Topic of Laboratory assignment

Basic Labs: Linux concepts and basic practices Lab1 Introduction to Linux and Linux command

Lab2 Linux ScriptLab3 Install LinuxAdvanced Labs: Linux networking and advance practices Lab4 Linux Networking, ConfigurationLab5 Linux Networking, Static Routing Lab6 Linux Networking, Dynamic Routing

Appendix 3. Network topology of Linux Networking, Configuration: Lab4

Appendix 4. Network topology of Networking, Static Routing and Dynamic Routing: Lab5 and Lab6

Documents

Brunel University London · Web view(1, 58) = 7.421, p < 0.05; Advanced Labs: F (1, 58) = 36.403, p < 0.001. Moreover, the t-test results of the homework scores (see Table 4) show