CAPM Agile Frameworks and Methodologies Practice Question
An XP team is practicing pair programming. A new developer feels uncomfortable because the partner frequently corrects their code. What is the best way to foster a positive pairing experience?
⚠ Common exam trap
Watch out — candidates often assume the problem is the senior developer's behavior or the new developer's lack of confidence, leading them to choose isolation (Option B) or avoidance (Option A or C), rather than recognizing that the XP framework provides a structured role-rotation mechanism to resolve such interpersonal friction.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Encourage the pair to set expectations and rotate roles (driver/navigator) regularly.
Setting expectations and rotating roles (driver/navigator) is a core XP practice that fosters collaboration, psychological safety, and skill transfer. In pair programming, the driver writes code while the navigator reviews and suggests improvements; rotating roles ensures both developers contribute equally and learn from each other, reducing the new developer's discomfort by making corrections a shared, constructive process rather than a one-sided critique.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Ask the senior developer to only observe and not comment.
Why it's wrong here
Silencing the senior developer removes the real-time code review and shared reasoning that make pairing valuable, so the new developer loses guidance entirely. It is tempting as a way to reduce pressure, and would fit a purely observational assessment, but the stem requires active, respectful collaboration rather than passive watching.
- ✗
Have the new developer work alone until they gain more confidence.
Why it's wrong here
Working alone abandons the continuous review and knowledge transfer that pairing provides, leaving the correction problem unaddressed rather than resolved. It appeals when confidence is the blocker, and would be right for tasks needing uninterrupted focus, but this scenario concerns interpersonal feedback, not solo skill-building.
- ✗
Discontinue pair programming for that pair.
Why it's wrong here
Dropping pairing removes the collaborative feedback loop that XP relies on, so the new developer never gains the shared-code ownership the practice builds. It is tempting as a quick fix for discomfort, and would suit a genuinely incompatible pairing, but here the issue is coaching style, not the practice itself.
- ✓
Encourage the pair to set expectations and rotate roles (driver/navigator) regularly.
Why this is correct
Setting explicit pairing expectations and rotating driver/navigator roles addresses the discomfort by distributing control and reducing constant correction. The navigator reviews strategy rather than seizing the keyboard, so feedback becomes collaborative. Regular rotation satisfies the stem's need to foster a positive pairing experience within XP practice.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This CAPM question is part of Courseiva's 451-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This CAPM practice question is part of Courseiva's free PMI certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the CAPM exam.