Table of Links Abstract and I. Introduction Abstract and I. Introduction II. Related Work A. On the Existence of Pair Programming Skill A. On the Existence of Pair Programming Skill B. On the Elements of Pair Programming Skill B. On the Elements of Pair Programming Skill III. Research Method A. Research Goal and Data Collection A. Research Goal and Data Collection B. Qualitative Research Approach B. Qualitative Research Approach C. Our Notions of ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ C. Our Notions of ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ IV. Results A. Two Elements of Pair Programming Skill A. Two Elements of Pair Programming Skill B. Anti-Pattern: Getting Lost in the Weeds B. Anti-Pattern: Getting Lost in the Weeds C. Anti-Pattern: Losing the Partner C. Anti-Pattern: Losing the Partner D. Anti-Pattern: Drowning the Partner D. Anti-Pattern: Drowning the Partner E. Doing the Right Thing and F. Further Elements of Pair Programming Skill E. Doing the Right Thing and F. Further Elements of Pair Programming Skill V. Discussion V. Discussion VI. Summary and Future Work VI. Summary and Future Work VII. Data Availability and References VII. Data Availability and References B. On the Elements of Pair Programming Skill While there is some awareness in the literature that two developers are not suddenly more productive just because they are placed next to each other, there has been only little research into the elements that make pair programming work. In their ethnographic study, Chong & Hurlbutt [6] report that two partners with a similar level of task-relevant expertise can become “tightly coupled” such that they do not even need complete sentences for effective communication. However, with a large-enough expertise difference between them, the more knowledgeable partner will be dominant. “tightly coupled” For the aspect of transferring knowledge during pair programming, both Plonka et al. [8] and Zieris & Prechelt [12], [13] summarize a number of ‘expertly’ pair programming behaviors, including: Making one’s thinking process visible [8], [13], letting the learner work something out on her own [8], letting the explainer finish her thoughts [12], and making sure to deal with complex topics completely [12]. Authors: (1) Franz Zieris, Institut fur Informatik, Freie Universitat, Berlin Berlin, Germany (zieris@inf.fu-berlin.de); (2) Lutz Prechelt, Institut fur Informatik. Freie Universitat Berlin, Berlin, Germany (prechelt@inf.fu-berlin.de). Authors: Authors: (1) Franz Zieris, Institut fur Informatik, Freie Universitat, Berlin Berlin, Germany (zieris@inf.fu-berlin.de); (2) Lutz Prechelt, Institut fur Informatik. Freie Universitat Berlin, Berlin, Germany (prechelt@inf.fu-berlin.de). This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv available on arxiv