Myth or Fact Game

A group activity where statements about pair programming are evaluated as myths or facts. This game reinforces understanding of concepts through debate and clarification.

Learning Design Principles

The Myth or Fact Game leverages evidence-based learning design principles that enhance knowledge retention and conceptual clarity around pair programming. The activity creates productive cognitive conflict when participants' existing beliefs are challenged by statements that contradict their assumptions, triggering deeper processing than would occur with simple information presentation. This game format taps into the testing effect, where attempting to retrieve and evaluate information strengthens memory pathways more effectively than passive review. The social dimension of group discussion activates multiple learning channels simultaneously, with verbal, auditory, and interpersonal engagement reinforcing core concepts while addressing misconceptions that might otherwise persist despite formal instruction.

Facilitation Techniques

Effective facilitation of the Myth or Fact Game requires specific techniques that maximize learning outcomes while managing group dynamics. Experienced facilitators carefully sequence statements to build complexity gradually, beginning with foundational concepts before addressing more nuanced or controversial aspects of pair programming. The debriefing phase proves equally important as the game itself, with skilled facilitators guiding reflection on why certain beliefs persist and connecting misconceptions to specific experiences or organizational contexts. Advanced implementations employ techniques like anonymous voting before discussion to prevent social influence effects, ensuring participants reveal their authentic beliefs rather than conforming to perceived group consensus.

Content Development Strategies

Creating effective content for the Myth or Fact Game demands careful consideration of statement design to maximize educational impact and engagement. The most valuable statements target common misconceptions identified through research and experience, addressing areas where intuitive beliefs frequently contradict empirical evidence about pair programming outcomes. Well-crafted statements often incorporate quantifiable elements (e.g., "Pair programming reduces defects by at least 15%") that allow for nuanced discussion beyond binary truth values. Organizations running this activity multiple times benefit from developing statement banks that track which concepts consistently generate confusion, enabling them to refine workshop content to address persistent knowledge gaps and evolve the game as team understanding matures.

Facilitator Guide

Preparation Checklist

• Prepare 10-15 myth/fact statements of varying difficulty
• Create visual aids (slides or cards) for each statement
• Prepare "Myth" and "Fact" voting cards or digital voting mechanism
• Review explanations for each statement to facilitate discussion

Implementation Steps

1. Setup (5 minutes):

   • Arrange participants in a way that allows for both individual voting and group discussion
   • Distribute voting cards or explain digital voting mechanism
   • Explain the activity rules: each statement will be presented, participants vote individually, then discuss

2. Activity Introduction (3 minutes):

   • Explain the purpose: to challenge assumptions about pair programming
   • Set expectations for respectful discussion and learning-focused debate
   • Emphasize that many statements may be partially true or context-dependent

3. Statement Rounds (30-45 minutes, 3-4 minutes per statement):

   • Present a statement
   • Allow 15-30 seconds for individual voting
   • Reveal voting results
   • Facilitate brief discussion about why people voted as they did
   • Provide the evidence-based answer with explanation
   • Move to next statement

4. Group Reflection (10 minutes):

   • Identify which statements generated the most disagreement or surprise
   • Discuss patterns in misconceptions
   • Review key learnings from the activity

Group Size

• Optimal: 8-30 participants
• For larger groups: Consider breaking into smaller discussion groups after initial voting

Common Challenges and Solutions

Challenge	Solution
Dominant voices in discussion	Use a "round robin" technique where each person speaks briefly
Disagreement with evidence	Acknowledge limitations of studies and contextual factors
Losing track of time	Assign a timekeeper; use a visible timer
Low participation	Use paired discussion before group sharing
Emotional responses to being "wrong"	Frame as learning opportunity; emphasize that experts often disagree

Materials

Required Items

• Set of 10-15 myth/fact statements with explanations
• "Myth" and "Fact" voting cards for each participant (or digital alternative)
• Timer or stopwatch
• Display method for statements (slides, posters, or handouts)

Sample Statements

1. Myth: "Pair programming always doubles the cost of development."
   Fact: While two people are working together, productivity increases and defect rates decrease, often resulting in comparable or even reduced total costs.

2. Fact: "Pairing reduces the number of interruptions developers experience."
   Explanation: Studies show that pairs are interrupted less frequently than solo programmers, as others are more hesitant to interrupt two people working together.

3. Myth: "Pair programming is only effective when both programmers have similar skill levels."
   Fact: Different skill levels often create valuable learning opportunities and knowledge transfer.

4. Context-dependent: "Pair programming should be used for all programming tasks."
   Explanation: While pairing has many benefits, some tasks may not benefit enough from pairing to justify the resource investment.

5. Fact: "Pair programming significantly reduces defect rates in code."
   Explanation: Multiple studies have shown defect rate reductions of 15-60% compared to solo programming.

Room Setup

• U-shaped or circular arrangement if possible
• Visual focal point for displaying statements
• Space for pairs to confer if using small group discussions
• Whiteboard or flipchart for capturing key insights

Debriefing Questions

1. Belief Examination:

   • "Which statement result surprised you the most and why?"
   • "What previous experiences shaped your beliefs about these topics?"

2. Organizational Context:

   • "How do these facts or myths manifest in your current team or organization?"
   • "What organizational barriers might prevent implementing evidence-based pair programming practices?"

3. Application Planning:

   • "Based on what you've learned, what is one practice you want to start, stop, or continue?"
   • "How might you share these insights with team members who weren't present today?"

4. Resistance Identification:

   • "Which of these facts might be most difficult for your team to accept?"
   • "How could you address skepticism about these findings in your workplace?"

Follow-up Activities

• Create team-specific myth/fact cards for ongoing reference
• Establish a "pairing experiment" to test assumptions identified during the game
• Schedule a follow-up session to report on real-world applications of learnings
• Create a shared document where participants can add their own research findings