Enhancing collaborative learning using pair programming: Who benefits?

Incoming university students who have not previously studied computer programming often find it a challenging subject, leading to high failure rates. Research has suggested that the lack of a formalised structure for collaborative learning may be one of the factors responsible for students’ negative impressions of computer science. In this study we investigated whether the use of pair programming in practical laboratories would facilitate peer learning and enhance students’ confidence in their programming ability. Results showed that this intervention was generally well received, although the weaker programmers (as measured by prior exam grades) perceived it to be of more benefit than the stronger ones. Students who reported a lower initial level of enjoyment and confidence in programming were more likely to report learning from the paired intervention, though this did not necessarily lead to enhanced performance. The most frequently reported positive feature of pair programming was that it allowed students to meet more people in the class. Although there was no significant increase in final exam grades for male students, there was a significant increase for female students, suggesting this teaching strategy may have asymmetrical gender benefits.

[1]  Jeffrey C. Carver,et al.  Increased Retention of Early Computer Science and Software Engineering Students Using Pair Programming , 2007, 20th Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training (CSEET'07).

[2]  Jiyoon Yoon,et al.  Water Project: Computer-Supported Collaborative E-Learning Model for Integrating Science and Social Studies , 2011 .

[3]  Anthony Kaye,et al.  Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing: The Najaden Papers , 2012 .

[4]  Laurie A. Williams,et al.  Pair Programming Illuminated , 2002 .

[5]  Anne Gardner,et al.  Investigating the capacity of self and peer assessment to engage students and increase their desire to learn , 2009 .

[6]  Colleen M. Lewis Is pair programming more effective than other forms of collaboration for young students? , 2011, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[7]  Oliver Mooney,et al.  A study of progression in Irish higher education , 2010 .

[8]  Stuart Zweben,et al.  Computing Degree and Enrollment Trends , 2012 .

[9]  Tim Wahls,et al.  The benefits of pairing by ability , 2010, SIGCSE.

[10]  R KesslerRobert,et al.  All I really need to know about pair programming I learned in kindergarten , 2000 .

[11]  Judith Kleine Staarman,et al.  Peer Interaction in Three Collaborative Learning Environments , 2005 .

[12]  Wei-Tek Tsai,et al.  Collaborative Learning Using Wiki Web Sites for Computer Science Undergraduate Education: A Case Study , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Education.

[13]  Charles E. McDowell,et al.  Experimenting with pair programming in the classroom , 2003, ITiCSE '03.

[14]  David Preston,et al.  PAIR programming as a model of collaborative learning: a review of the research , 2005 .

[15]  D. Boud,et al.  ‘Peer learning’ as pedagogic discourse for research education 1 , 2005 .

[16]  Charles E. McDowell,et al.  Pair-programming helps female computer science students , 2004, JERC.

[17]  Phil Maguire,et al.  Can Clickers Enhance Team Based Learning? Findings From A Computer Science Module , 2013 .

[18]  Robert A. DeVillar,et al.  Sharing, Talking, and Learning in the Elementary School Science Classroom: Benefits of Innovative Design and Collaborative Learning in Computer-Integrated Settings , 2011 .

[19]  Jacob P. Somervell Pair Programming: Not for Everyone? , 2006, FECS.

[20]  David Preston,et al.  Using collaborative learning research to enhance pair programming pedagogy , 2006, SITE.

[21]  Lynda Thomas,et al.  Code warriors and code-a-phobes: a study in attitude and pair programming , 2003 .

[22]  Ada W. W. Ma,et al.  Peer learning and learning‐oriented assessment in technology‐enhanced environments , 2006 .

[23]  Anne Gardner,et al.  Investigating the capacity of self and peer assessment activities to engage students and promote learning , 2010 .

[24]  Giancarlo Succi,et al.  Extreme Programming Examined , 2001 .

[25]  David Boud,et al.  Introduction: making the move to peer learning , 2014 .

[26]  Tim Wahls,et al.  The Case for Pair Programming in the Computer Science Classroom , 2011, TOCE.

[27]  Emilia Mendes,et al.  Empirical Studies of Pair Programming for CS/SE Teaching in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[28]  Charles E. McDowell,et al.  Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality , 2006, CACM.

[29]  Penelope Bidgood,et al.  A first year experience of student-directed peer-assisted learning , 2010 .

[30]  Janet Rountree,et al.  Learning and Teaching Programming: A Review and Discussion , 2003, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[31]  Jill Denner,et al.  Pair Programming: Under What Conditions Is It Advantageous for Middle School Students? , 2014 .

[32]  Laurie A. Williams,et al.  All I really need to know about pair programming I learned in kindergarten , 2000, Commun. ACM.

[33]  James C. Spohrer,et al.  Cognitive Consequences of Programming Instruction , 2013 .

[34]  Laurie A. Williams,et al.  Improving the CS1 experience with pair programming , 2003, SIGCSE.

[35]  Sten R. Ludvigsen,et al.  Student sensemaking with science diagrams in a computer-based setting , 2013, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[36]  Wei-Ying Lim,et al.  Changing Epistemology of Science Learning through Inquiry with Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 2005 .

[37]  Karen J. Nelson,et al.  Enhancing student success and retention: An institution-wide strategy for peer programs , 2012 .

[38]  Kristopher Hardy,et al.  First-year experience , 2014 .

[39]  C. Jackson,et al.  Teaching Students and Teaching Each Other: The Importance of Peer Learning for Teachers , 2009 .

[40]  Laurie Williams,et al.  The costs and benefits of pair programming , 2001 .

[41]  Sarah Evans,et al.  A large-scale quantitative study of women in computer science at Stanford University , 2013, SIGCSE '13.

[42]  Wu-Yuin Hwang,et al.  Effects of drag-and-response interaction mechanism of multi-touch operated tabletop technology on users' awareness and collaborative performance , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[43]  Jens Bennedsen,et al.  Failure rates in introductory programming , 2007, SGCS.

[44]  K. Topping Trends in Peer Learning , 2005 .

[45]  Iwona Miliszewska,et al.  Befriending computer programming: a proposed approach to teaching introductory programming , 2007 .

[46]  Laurie A. Williams,et al.  In support of student pair-programming , 2001, SIGCSE '01.

[47]  Nazir S. Hawi,et al.  Causal attributions of success and failure made by undergraduate students in an introductory-level computer programming course , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[48]  J. Paul Gibson,et al.  Towards the development of a cognitive model of programming: a software engineering proposal , 2004, PPIG.

[49]  Emilia Mendes,et al.  A replicated experiment of pair-programming in a 2nd-year software development and design computer science course , 2006, ITICSE '06.