Not Signed-In
Which clippings match 'North Carolina State University' keyword pg.1 of 1
27 JUNE 2014

Collaborative peer learning through pair programming

"Pair programming is a style of programming in which two programmers work side–by–side at one computer, continuously collaborating on the same design, algorithm, code, or test. One of the pair, called the driver, types at the computer or writes down a design. The other partner, called the navigator, has many jobs. One is to observe the work of the driver, looking for defects. The navigator also has a more objective point of view and is the strategic, long–range thinker. Together, the driver and the navigator continuously brainstorm a solution. Periodically, the programmers switch roles between the driver and the navigator."

(Laurie Williams, 2007)

Williams, L. (2007). "Lessons learned from seven years of pair programming at North Carolina State University." SIGCSE Bull. 39(4): 79–83.



active learning • brainstorming solutions • co-learnercollaborative learningcomputer programming education • continuously collaborating • design pedagogy • design roles • design teams • driver (peer learning) • Laurie Williams • learn to codelearning is socially enactedlearning processlearning software • learning strategies • learning support • navigator (peer learning) • North Carolina State University • pair programming • participatory learningpedagogic approachespedagogic practicespeer instructionpeer learningpeer-production • role specialisation • side-by-side • social learningsocial-constructivist approachsoftware programmingtechnology educationworking practicesworking together


Liam Birtles
04 OCTOBER 2013

Meredith Davis: A Call to Action for Design Educators

"I believe that design education, at the most fundamental level, views complexity as a problem to be overcome through reductivist artifacts, not as an inevitable and pervasive attribute of life in the post–industrial community. So if the future is about an ever–expanding web of connectedness, how are we preparing students for meaningful work in this complex world? I'd like to suggest that we're not. Despite the obvious emotional impact of Glaser's poster, he belongs to a generation in which the goal of design was to make things simple. Negroponte, on the other hand, is a technologist for whom the design goal is to render the complex manageable and to make complicated things meaningful.

Almost everything about today's graphic design education is matched to Glaser's worldview. We structure both curricula and projects in craft–based progressions from simple to complex, from the abstract to the contextualized. In typography classes, for example, we begin with the letter, and then advance to the word, sentence, paragraph, and page. Sequences of typography courses are built on this simple to complex progression, when opening InDesign demands that students address the formal and interpretive issues of publication design simultaneously; how do you defer a discussion of leading, of column width, of the modernist preconceptions of software, of language? The only option is default, and what kind of typographic lesson is that?

The reality is that our strategy for teaching typography is residue from how students could comp type in predigital times; by drawing. It is the organizational structure for every type book since James Craig's 1970 Designing with Type, but it holds less relevance for what students need to know about communication in a digital world. Typography today is a complex relational system that depends on the interplay of formal, technological, linguistic, and cultural variables. Yet we persist in teaching this progression of scale, isolating such variables within their own distinct conceptual frameworks and rules.

The same strategy exists for how students progress in other studies of form. Foundation lessons begin with abstraction: point, line, and plane; color wheels; and paper–folding exercises. We defer discussions of meaning and context until later levels of the curriculum and beginning students learn these abstraction principles only through patterns in what makes their teachers smile. Nothing about these studies resembles what students know about in the real world, and as a colleague recently suggested, what the clients of design see in our work. So what if we begin with the familiar and complex?"

(Meredith Davis, 4 April 2008, AIGA Boston Presentation)

Presentation made at W/Here: Contesting Knowledge in the 21st Century, Emily Carr University of Art+Design, Vancouver, Canada, 7–9 December 2011.



Simon Perkins
27 DECEMBER 2010

North Carolina State University: aggregating shared Twitter feeds

"NC State on Twitter takes all of the official NC State University Twitter accounts we know about and shows the most recent 'tweets' in one combined timeline. No more scouring the social media sphere to find out who's in and who's not–it's all right here, pulled straight from Twitter every time you load the page. ...

NC State on Twitter is a collaborative project shared jointly by University Communications and the Office of Information Technology (specifically Web Communications and Outreach Technology respectively). If you would like to create your own site like NC State on Twitter, you can download the source and use it for free."

(North Carolina State University)



affiliationaggregationauthorshipcollaborative projectcollectcommunicationcultural signalsdeviceengagementfeedsICTinnovationintegration • NC State • NC State University • North AmericaNorth Carolina State Universityoutreach technologyparticipationsocial constructionismsocial interactionsocial mediatechnologytimelinetweetsTwitter • university communications • usabilityweb application • web communications


Simon Perkins

to Folksonomy

Can't access your account?

New to Folksonomy?

Sign-Up or learn more.