Nicholas A. Bowman
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Active and collaborative learning has shown considerable promise for improving student outcomes and reducing group disparities. As one common form of collaborative learning, pair programming is an adapted work practice implemented widely in higher education computing programs. In the classroom setting, it typically involves two computer science students working together on the same programming assignment. The present study examined a cluster-randomized trial of 1,198 undergraduates in 96 lab sections. Overall, pair programming had no significant effect on students’ course performance; subject matter interest; plans for future coursework; or their confidence, comfort, and anxiety with computer science. These findings were consistent across various student characteristics, except that students with favorable pretest scores exhibited negative effects from pair programming.
- VenuGopal Balijepally, RadhaKanta Mahapatra, Sridhar Nerur, and Kenneth H. Price. 2009. Are two heads better than one for software development? The productivity paradox of pair programming. MIS Quart. 33, 1 (2009), 91–118. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/20650280 Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Lecia J. Barker, Charlie McDowell, and Kimberly Kalahar. 2009. Exploring factors that influence computer science introductory course students to persist in the major. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 41, 1 (2009), 153–157. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1539024.1508923 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kent Beck. 1999. Embracing change with extreme programming. Computer 32, 10 (1999), 70–77. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/2.796139 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yoav Benjamini and Yosef Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. Roy. Stat. Soc.: Ser. B (Methodol.) 57, 1 (1995), 289–300. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Jack W. Berry and Stephen L. Chew. 2008. Improving learning through interventions of student-generated questions and concept maps. Teach. Psychol. 35, 4 (2008), 305–312. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280802373841Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jennifer Bevan, Linda Werner, and Charlie McDowell. 2002. Guidelines for the use of pair programming in a freshman programming class. In Proceedings 15th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T 2002). IEEE Computer Society Press, 100–107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/CSEE.2002.995202 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nicholas A. Bowman. 2011. Promoting participation in a diverse democracy: A meta-analysis of college diversity experiences and civic engagement. Rev. Educ. Res. 81, 1 (2011), 29–68. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310383047Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nicholas A. Bowman and KC Culver. 2018. Promoting equity and student learning: Rigor in undergraduate academic experiences. New Direct. High. Educ. 2018, 181 (2018), 47–57. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20270 Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kenneth A. Bruffee. 1999. Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
- Sallyann Bryant, Pablo Romero, and Benedict du Boulay. 2008. Pair programming and the mysterious role of the navigator. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 66, 7 (2008), 519–529. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.03.005 Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Colin Cameron and Douglas L. Miller. 2015. A practitioner's guide to cluster-robust inference. J. Hum. Resourc. 50, 2 (2015), 317–372. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.50.2.317Google ScholarCross Ref
- Edgar Acosta Chaparro, Aybala Yuksel, Pablo Romero, and Sallyann Bryant. 2005. Factors affecting the perceived effectiveness of pair programming in higher education. In Psychology of Programming Interest Group 17th Workshop Proceedings (PPIG’05). Brighton, UK, 5–18.Google Scholar
- Sapna Cheryan, Victoria C. Plaut, Paul G. Davies, and Claude M. Steele. 2009. Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97, 6 (2009), 1045–1060. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016239Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sapna Cheryan, Sianna A. Ziegler, Amanda K. Montoya, and Lily Jiang. 2017. Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychol. Bull. 143, 1 (2017), 1–35. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000052Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wallace Chigona and Michael Pollock. 2008. Pair programming for information systems students new to programming: Students’ experiences and teachers’ challenges. In Proceedings of the Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering & Technology (PICMET’08). IEEE Computer Society Press, 1587–1594. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/picmet.2008.4599777Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel C. Cliburn. 2003. Experiences with pair programming in a small college. J. Comput. Sci. Coll 19, 1 (2003), 20–29. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jacob Cohen, Patricia Cohen, Stephen G. West, and Leona S. Aiken. 2003. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (3rd. ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
- Irina D. Coman, Pierre N. Robillard, Alberto Sillitti, and Giancarlo Succi. 2014. Cooperation, collaboration and pair programming: Field studies on backup behavior. J. Syst. Softw. 91, 1 (2014), 124–134. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2013.12.037 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Don A. Dillman, Jolene D. Smyth, and Leah Melani Christian. 2014. Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (4th. ed.). Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tore Dybå and Torgeir Dingsøyr. 2008. Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50, 9--10 (2008), 833–859. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.01.006 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hardy Ernst and Kay Colthorpe. 2007. The efficacy of interactive lecturing for students with diverse science backgrounds. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 31, 1 (2007), 41–44. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00107.2006Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mica Estrada, Myra Burnett, Andrew G. Campbell, Patricia B. Campbell, Wilfred F. Denetclaw, Carlos G. Gutiérrez, Sylvia Hurtado, Gilbert H. John, John Matsui, Richard McGee, Camellia Moses Okpodu, T. Joan Robinson, Michael F. Summers, Maggie Werner-Washburne, and MariaElena Zavala. 2016. Improving underrepresented minority student persistence in STEM. CBE—Life Sci. Educ. 15, 3 (2016), 1–10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0038Google Scholar
- Scott Freeman, Sarah L. Eddy, Miles McDonough, Michelle K. Smith, Nnadozie Okoroafor, Hanna Jordt, and Mary Pat Wenderoth. 2014. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 23 (2014), 8410–8415. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andrew D. Gaudet, Leanne M. Ramer, Joanne Nakonechny, Jacquelyn J. Cragg, and Matt S. Ramer. 2010. Small-group learning in an upper-level university biology class enhances academic performance and student attitudes toward group work. PLoS One 5, 12 (2010), e15821. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015821Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brian Hanks, Sue Fitzgerald, Renée McCauley, Laurie Murphy, and Carol Zander. 2011. Pair programming in education: A literature review. Comput. Sci. Educ. 21, 2 (2011), 135–173. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2011.579808Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brian Hanks, Charlie McDowell, David Draper, and Milovan Krnjajic. 2004. Program quality with pair programming in CS1. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITICSE’04). ACM Press, 176–180. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1007996.1008043 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jo E. Hannay, Tore Dybå, Erik Arisholm, and Dag I. K. Sjøberg. 2009. The effectiveness of pair programming: A meta-analysis. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51, 7 (2009), 1110–1122. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2009.02.001 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Elizabeth V. Howard. 2006. Attitudes on using pair-programming. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 35, 1 (2006), 89–103. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2190/5k87-58w8-g07m-2811Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sylvia Hurtado, Cynthia L. Alvarez, Chelsea Guillermo-Wann, Marcela Cuellar, and Lucy Arellano. 2012. A model for diverse learning environments: The scholarship on creating and assessing conditions for student success. In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, John C. Smart and Michael B. Paulsen (Eds.). Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 41–122. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2950-6_2Google Scholar
- David W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson, and Karl A. Smith. 1998. Cooperative learning returns to higher education: What evidence is there that it works? Change 30, 4 (1998), 26–35. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00091389809602629Google ScholarCross Ref
- Neha Katira, Laurie Williams, Eric Wiebe, Carol Miller, Suzanne Balik, and Ed Gehringer. 2004. On understanding compatibility of student pair programmers. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’04). ACM Press, 7–11. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/971300.971307 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Subbaraya Kuppuswami and Kalimuthu Vivekanandan. 2004. The effects of pair programming on learning efficiency in short programming assignments. Inf. Educ. 3, 2 (2004), 251–266.Google Scholar
- Eva Kyndt, Elisabeth Raes, Bart Lismont, Fran Timmers, Eduardo Cascallar, and Filip Dochy. 2013. A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning: Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings? Educ. Res. Rev. 10 (2013), 133–149. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.02.002 Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lucas Layman. 2006. Changing students’ perceptions: An analysis of the supplementary benefits of collaborative software development. In Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training (CSEET’06). IEEE Computer Society Press, 159–166. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/cseet.2006.10 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sarah-Jane Leslie, Andrei Cimpian, Meredith Meyer, and Edward Freeland. 2015. Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science 347, 6219 (2015), 262–265. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261375Google Scholar
- Chad N. Loes, Brian P. An, Kem Saichaie, and Ernest T. Pascarella. 2017. Does collaborative learning influence persistence to the second year of college? J. High. Educ. 88, 1 (2017), 62–84. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.1243942Google ScholarCross Ref
- Shirley Malcom and Michael Feder (Eds.). 2016. Barriers and Opportunities for 2-Year and 4-Year STEM Degrees. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. DOI:https://doi.org/10.17226/21739Google Scholar
- Matthew J. Mayhew, Alyssa N. Rockenbach, Nicholas A. Bowman, Tricia A. Seifert, and Gregory C. Wolniak. 2016. How College Affects Students: 21st Century Evidence That Higher Education Works. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
- Charlie McDowell, Linda Werner, Heather E. Bullock, and Julian Fernald. 2006. Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Commun. ACM 49, 8 (2006), 90–95. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1145287.1145293 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Grigori Melnik and Frank Maurer. 2005. A cross-program investigation of students’ perceptions of agile methods. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’05). IEEE Computer Society Press, 481–488. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1062455.1062543 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Emilia Mendes, Lubna Al-Fakhri, and Andrew Luxton-Reilly. 2006. A replicated experiment of pair-programming in a 2nd-year software development and design computer science course. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 38, 3 (2006), 108–112. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1140123.1140155 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Isabel C. Moura and Natascha van Huttum-Janssen. 2011. Teaching a CS introductory course: An active approach. Comput. Educ. 56, 2 (2011), 475–483. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.009 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nachiappan Nagappan, Laurie Williams, Miriam Ferzli, Eric Wiebe, Kai Young, Carol Miller, and Suzanne Balik. 2003. Improving the CS1 experience with pair programming. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 35, 1 (2003), 359–362. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/792548.612006 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ernest T. Pascarella and Patrick T. Terenzini. 2005. How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research (Vol. 2). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
- Laura Plonka, Helen Sharp, and Janet van der Linden. 2012. Disengagement in pair programming: Does it matter? In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’12). IEEE Computer Society Press, Zurich, Switzerland, 496–506. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/icse.2012.6227166 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael Prince. 2004. Does active learning work? A review of the research. J. Eng. Educ. 93, 3 (2004), 223–231. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Michael J. Prince and Richard M. Felder. 2006. Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. J. Eng. Educ. 95, 2 (2006), 123–138. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Fleur R. Prinsen, Monique L. Volman, and Jan Terwel. 2007. Gender-related differences in computer-mediated communication and computer-supported collaborative learning. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 23, 5 (2007), 393–409. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00224.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Miguel Angel Rubio, Rocio Romero-Zaliz, Carolina Mañoso, and Angel P. de Madrid. 2015. Closing the gender gap in an introductory programming course. Comput. Educ. 82 (2015), 409–420. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.003 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stephan Salinger, Franz Zieris, and Lutz Prechelt. 2013. Liberating pair programming research from the oppressive driver/observer regime. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’13). IEEE Computer Society Press, 1201–1204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/icse.2013.6606678 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Norsaremah Salleh, Emilia Mendes, and John Grundy. 2011. Empirical studies of pair programming for CS/SE teaching in higher education: A systematic literature review. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35, 4 (2011), 509–525. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2010.59 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Linda J. Sax, Kathleen J. Lehman, Jerry A. Jacobs, Allison Kanny, Gloria Lim, Laura Monje-Paulson, and Hilary B. Zimmerman. 2017. Anatomy of an enduring gender gap: The evolution of women's participation in computer science. J. High. Educ. 88, 2 (2017), 258–293. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.1257306Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jon F. Schamber and Sandra L. Mahoney. 2006. Assessing and improving the quality of group critical thinking exhibited in the final projects of collaborative learning groups. J. Gen. Educ. 55, 2 (2006), 103–137. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1353/jge.2006.0025Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lauren Schudde. 2019. Short- and long-term impacts of engagement experiences with faculty and peers at community colleges. Rev. High. Educ. 42, 2 (2019), 385–426. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0001Google ScholarCross Ref
- William R. Shadish, Thomas D. Cook, and Donald Thomas Campbell. 2002. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
- Tom A. B. Snijders and Roel J. Bosker. 2012. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling (2nd. ed.). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
- Adam Solinski and Kai Peterson. 2016. Prioritizing agile benefits and limitations in relation to practice usage. Softw. Qual. J. 24, 2 (2016), 447–482. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-014-9253-3 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Claude M. Steele. 1997. A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. Am. Psychol. 52, 6 (1997), 613–629. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.52.6.613Google ScholarCross Ref
- Patrick T. Terenzini, Alberto F. Cabrera, Carol L. Colbeck, John M. Parente, and Stefani A. Bjorklund. 2001. Collaborative learning vs. lecture/discussion: Students’ reported learning gains. J. Eng. Educ. 90, 1 (2001), 123–130. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2001.tb00579.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- The Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and IEEE Computer Society. 2013. Computer Science Curricula 2013: Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Computer Science. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2534860 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lynda Thomas, Mark Ratcliffe, and Ann Robertson. 2003. Code warriors and code-a-phobes: A study in attitude and pair programming. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 35, 1 (2003), 363–367. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/792548.612007 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thomas J. Tomcho and Rob Foels. 2012. Meta-analysis of group learning activities: Empirically based teaching recommendations. Teach. Psychol. 39, 3 (2012), 159–169. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312450414Google ScholarCross Ref
- Karthikeyan Umapathy and Albert D. Ritzhaupt. 2017. A meta-analysis of pair programming in computer programming courses. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 17, 4 (2017), 1–13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2996201 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tammy VanDeGrift. 2004. Coupling pair programming and writing. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 36, 1 (2004), 2–6. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1028174.971306 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Maryellen Weimer. 2013. Learner-centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
- Laurie Williams, Lucas Layman, Jason Osborne, and Neha Katira. 2006. Examining the pair compatibility of student pair programmers. In Proceedings of the AGILE 2006 Conference (AGILE’06). IEEE Computer Society Press, 411–420. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/agile.2006.25 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Laurie Williams and Richard L. Upchurch. 2001. In support of student pair-programming. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 33, 1 (2001), 327–331. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/366413.364614 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nick Z. Zacharis. 2011. Measuring the effects of virtual pair programming in an introductory programming java course. IEEE Trans. Educ. 54, 1 (2011), 168–170. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/te.2010.2048328 Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- The Impact of Pair Programming on College Students’ Interest, Perceptions, and Achievement in Computer Science
Recommendations
A Large-Scale Experimental Study of Gender and Pair Composition in Pair Programming
ITiCSE '19: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science EducationThe proportion of women in computer science majors is currently lower than in any other STEM major. Various studies have sought to explain---and ultimately find ways to reduce---gender disparities in computer science participation and persistence. Pair ...
Pair2 learning = pair programming × pair teaching
WCCCE '12: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Western Canadian Conference on Computing EducationPair programming is a frequently cited method for retaining students and improving student learning in introductory Computer Science courses. When pair programming is employed early in the curriculum, students work together to learn to program more ...
First-year students' impressions of pair programming in CS1
Pair programming, as part of the Agile Development process, has noted benefits in professional software development scenarios. These successes have led to a rise in use of pair programming in educational settings, particularly in Computer Science 1 (CS1)...
Comments