Equitable Student Collaboration in Pair Programming
Pages 274 - 285
Abstract
Pair programming is considered a very beneficial method for software development and is gaining increased attention in computer science education. Both partners in a programming pair should be equal and active participants, alternating on the roles of driver and navigator, but how pairs are formed in educational settings and how the resulting level of equity influences the outcomes of pair programming in classrooms remain open questions. To answer these questions, we conducted a survey involving 250 students and 100 teachers with prior pair programming experience, along with 147 students and teachers lacking such experience. We identify the currently common and preferred pair formation processes by teachers and students. We evaluate the outcomes of pair programming, as indicated by attitudes and perceived learnings, while we assess equity through behavioural patterns such as dominance, role compliance, and acknowledgment. Consequently, we investigate the relationship between outcomes and equity. Our results reveal a misalignment in pairing practices between teachers, who pair students based on diverse digital skills, and students, who express a preference for pairings aligned with similar skills. Despite this disparity, all participants think of pair programming as a method supporting equity. High acknowledgment between partners emerges as a significant factor of equity for positive attitudes and learnings, while role violations are identified as a common problem and a sign for lack of equity. These findings confirm that educators should take equity into account in pair programming classes.
References
[1]
Silvia T. Acuña, Marta Gómez, and Natalia Juristo. 2009. How Do Personality, Team Processes and Task Characteristics Relate to Job Satisfaction and Software Quality? Information and Software Technology 51, 3 (March 2009), 627--639.
[2]
Aslihan Akalin, Nathaniel Weinman, Katherine Stasaski, and Armando Fox. 2021. Exploring the Impact of Gender Bias on Pair Programming. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM, Virtual Event USA, 435--437.
[3]
Mewati Ayub, Oscar Karnalim, Risal Risal, Wenny Franciska Senjaya, and Maresha Caroline Wijanto. 2019. Utilising Pair Programming to Enhance the Performance of Slow-Paced Students on Introductory Programming. Journal of Technology and Science Education 9, 3 (2019), 357--367.
[4]
Albert Bandura. 1977. Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review 84 (1977), 191--215.
[5]
Kent Beck. 1999. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., USA.
[6]
Kacey Beddoes and Grace Panther. 2018. Gender and Teamwork: An Analysis of Professors' Perspectives and Practices. European Journal of Engineering Education 43, 3 (May 2018), 330--343.
[7]
Trudie Benadé and Janet Liebenberg. 2017. Pair Programming as a Learning Method beyond the Context of Programming. In Proceedings of the 6th Computer Science Education Research Conference. 48--55.
[8]
Sarah B. Berenson, Kelli M. Slaten, Laurie Williams, and Chih-Wei Ho. 2004. Voices of Women in a Software Engineering Course: Reflections on Collaboration. J. Educ. Resour. Comput. 4, 1 (March 2004), 3.
[9]
Maxwell Bigman, Ethan Roy, Jorge Garcia, Miroslav Suzara, Kaili Wang, and Chris Piech. 2021. PearProgram: A More Fruitful Approach to Pair Programming. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 900--906.
[10]
Nicholas A. Bowman, Lindsay Jarratt, K. C. Culver, and Alberto Segre. 2020. (Mis) Match of Students' Country of Origin and the Impact of Collaborative Learning in Computer Science. In 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access.
[11]
Grant Braught, John MacCormick, and Tim Wahls. 2010. The Benefits of Pairing by Ability. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, Milwaukee Wisconsin USA, 249--253.
[12]
Habibe Çal and Gülfidan Can. 2020. The Influence of Pair Programming on Secondary School Students' Confidence and Achievement in Computer Programming. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi 10, 1 (Jan. 2020), 221--237.
[13]
Antonella Carbonaro and Mirko Ravaioli. 2017. Peer Assessment to Promote Deep Learning and to Reduce a Gender Gap in the Traditional Introductory Programming Course. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society 13, 3 (2017).
[14]
Jeffrey C. Carver, Henry Muccini, Birgit Penzenstadler, Rafael Prikladnicki, Alexander Serebrenik, and Thomas Zimmermann. 2021. Behavioral Science and Diversity in Software Engineering. IEEE Software 38, 2 (March 2021), 107--112.
[15]
Kyungsub Stephen Choi. 2015. A Comparative Analysis of Different Gender Pair Combinations in Pair Programming. Behaviour & Information Technology (2015).
[16]
Elizabeth G. Cohen and Rachel A. Lotan. 1995. Producing Equal-Status Interaction in the Heterogeneous Classroom. American Educational Research Journal 32, 1 (March 1995), 99--120.
[17]
Ana M. Corbacho, Lucía Minini, Mariana Pereyra, Alice Elizabeth González-Fernández, Rodrigo Echániz, Lorena Repetto, Paula Cruz, Verónica Fernández-Damonte, Andrea Lorieto, and Maximiliano Basile. 2021. Interdisciplinary Higher Education with a Focus on Academic Motivation and Teamwork Diversity. International Journal of Educational Research Open 2--2 (Jan. 2021), 100062.
[18]
Ömer Demir and Süleyman Sadi Seferoglu. 2021. The Effect of Determining Pair Programming Groups According to Various Individual Difference Variables on Group Compatibility, Flow, and Coding Performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research 59, 1 (2021), 41--70.
[19]
Ömer Demir and Süleyman Sadi Seferoglu. 2021. The Effect of Determining Pair Programming Groups According to Various Individual Difference Variables on Group Compatibility, Flow, and Coding Performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research 59, 1 (March 2021), 41--70.
[20]
Jill Denner, Emily Green, and Shannon Campe. 2021. Learning to Program in Middle School: How Pair Programming Helps and Hinders Intrepid Exploration. Journal of the Learning Sciences 30, 4-5 (Oct. 2021), 611--645.
[21]
Jill Denner, Linda Werner, Shannon Campe, and Eloy Ortiz. 2014. Pair Programming: Under What Conditions Is It Advantageous for Middle School Students? Journal of Research on Technology in Education 46, 3 (2014), 277--296.
[22]
Randi A. Engle, Jennifer M. Langer-Osuna, and Maxine McKinney De Royston. 2014. Toward a Model of Influence in Persuasive Discussions: Negotiating Quality, Authority, Privilege, and Access Within a Student-Led Argument. Journal of the Learning Sciences 23, 2 (April 2014), 245--268.
[23]
Lee Gardenswartz and Anita Rowe. 2003. Diverse Teams at Work: Capitalizing on the Power of Diversity. Society for Human Resource.
[24]
Isabella Graßl and Gordon Fraser. 2023. The ABC of Pair Programming: Gender-dependent Attitude, Behavior and Code of Young Learners. arXiv:2304.08940 [cs]
[25]
Isabella Graßl, Stephan Krusche, and Gordon Fraser. 2023. Diversity and Teamwork in Student Software Teams. In Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Software Engineering Education. ACM, Seeon/Bavaria Germany, 110--119.
[26]
Sarah Gretter, Aman Yadav, Phil Sands, and Susanne Hambrusch. 2019. Equitable Learning Environments in K-12 Computing: Teachers' Views on Barriers to Diversity. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 19, 3 (2019), 1--16.
[27]
Brian Hanks. 2008. Problems Encountered by Novice Pair Programmers. J. Educ. Resour. Comput. 7, 4 (Jan. 2008), 1--13.
[28]
Idit Ed Harel and Seymour Ed Papert. 1991. Constructionism. Ablex Publishing.
[29]
Anja Hawlitschek, Sarah Berndt, and Sandra Schulz. 2022. Empirical Research on Pair Programming in Higher Education: A Literature Review. Computer Science Education 0, 0 (March 2022), 1--29.
[30]
N. G. Holmes, Grace Heath, Katelynn Hubenig, Sophia Jeon, Z. Yasemin Kalender, Emily Stump, and Eleanor C. Sayre. 2022. Evaluating the Role of Student Preference in Physics Lab Group Equity. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 1 (Jan. 2022), 010106.
[31]
Olivera Iskrenovic-Momcilovic. 2019. Pair Programming with Scratch. Educ Inf Technol 24, 5 (Sept. 2019), 2943--2952.
[32]
Arash Issaee, Renate Motschnig, and Oswald Comber. 2021. Pair-versus Solo-Programming of Mini-Games as a Setting for Learning to Program: An Action Research Approach. In 2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, 1--9.
[33]
Arash Issaee, Renate Motschnig, and Katrin Göltl. 2022. Learning to Program in Secondary Classrooms: Students' and Teachers' Perceptions of the Pair-Programming Setting. In 2022 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1--9.
[34]
Norman Jacobson and Suzanne K. Schaefer. 2008. Pair Programming in CS1: Overcoming Objections to Its Adoption. SIGCSE Bull. 40, 2 (June 2008), 93--96.
[35]
Lindsay Jarratt, Nicholas A. Bowman, K. C. Culver, and Alberto Maria Segre. 2019. A Large-Scale Experimental Study of Gender and Pair Composition in Pair Programming. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 176--181.
[36]
Tony Jenkins and John Davy. 2002. Diversity and Motivation in Introductory Programming. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences 1, 1 (Jan. 2002), 1--9.
[37]
Sophia Jeon, Natasha G. Holmes, Eleanor C. Sayre, and Scott Franklin. 2021. An Interplay of Problem-Solving Modes and Authority: Framework for Equitable Collaboration in Undergraduate Physics Labs. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of the Learning Sciences-ICLS 2021. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
[38]
Menglu Jiang, Yanyan Li, Jing Zheng, and Xue Han. 2017. Gender Group Differences on Behavior Patterns in Collaborative Problem Solving through LEGO. Journal of Computers in Education 4, 2 (2017), 127--145.
[39]
Mark Kasunic. 2005. Designing an Effective Survey.
[40]
Gloria Ashiya Katuka, Richard T. Bex, Mehmet Celepkolu, Kristy Elizabeth Boyer, Eric Wiebe, Bradford Mott, and James Lester. 2021. My Partner Was a Good Partner: Investigating the Relationship between Dialogue Acts and Satisfaction among Middle School Computer Science Learners. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning-CSCL 2021. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
[41]
Heng-Yu Ku, Hung Wei Tseng, and Chatchada Akarasriworn. 2013. Collaboration Factors, Teamwork Satisfaction, and Student Attitudes toward Online Collaborative Learning. Computers in Human Behavior 29, 3 (May 2013), 922--929.
[42]
Janine Küng, Andrea Schmid, and Dorothee Brovelli. 2022. Gender and Pair Programming - Effects of the Gender Composition of Pairs on Collaboration in a Robotics Workshop. Frontiers in Education 7 (Aug. 2022), 7:973674.
[43]
J. Richard Landis and Gary G. Koch. 1977. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. biometrics (1977), 159--174.
[44]
Colleen M. Lewis and Niral Shah. 2015. How Equity and Inequity Can Emerge in Pair Programming. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research. 41--50.
[45]
Johan Linaker, Sardar Muhammad Sulaman, Martin Höst, and Rafael Maiani de Mello. 2015. Guidelines for Conducting Surveys in Software Engineering v. 1.1. Lund University 50 (2015).
[46]
Teo Ling and Nurfaradilla Mohamad Nasri. 2019. A Systematic Review: Issues on Equity in Education. Creative Education 10, 12 (2019), 3163.
[47]
Caroline Lott, Alexander McAuliffe, and Sandeep Kaur Kuttal. 2021. Remote Pair Collaborations of CS Students: Leaving Women Behind?. In 2021 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). 1--11.
[48]
Kayla R. Maxey and Morgan M. Hynes. 2018. Equity in Collaboration: My Ideas Matter, Too! K-12 Students' Negotiation of Social Status in Collaborative Engineering Teams (Fundamental Research). In 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.
[49]
Amity L. Noltemeyer, Julie Mujic, and Caven S. McLoughlin. 2012. The History of Inequity in Education. Disproportionality in education and special education: A guide to creating more equitable learning environments (2012), 3--22.
[50]
Stefan Palan and Christian Schitter. 2018. Prolific. Ac---A Subject Pool for Online Experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 17 (2018), 22--27.
[51]
Stamatios Papadakis. 2018. Is Pair Programming More Effective than Solo Programming for Secondary Education Novice Programmers?: A Case Study. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies (IJWLTT) 13, 1 (2018), 1--16.
[52]
Eyal Peer, David Rothschild, Andrew Gordon, Zak Evernden, and Ekaterina Damer. 2022. Data Quality of Platforms and Panels for Online Behavioral Research. Behavior Research Methods (2022), 1.
[53]
Fernando J. Rodríguez, Kimberly Michelle Price, and Kristy Elizabeth Boyer. 2017. Exploring the Pair Programming Process: Characteristics of Effective Collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 507--512.
[54]
Gema Rodríguez-Pérez, Reza Nadri, and Meiyappan Nagappan. 2021. Perceived Diversity in Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review. Empir Software Eng 26, 5 (July 2021), 102.
[55]
Norsaremah Salleh, Emilia Mendes, and John Grundy. 2010. Empirical Studies of Pair Programming for CS/SE Teaching in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 37, 4 (2010), 509--525.
[56]
Norsaremah Salleh, Emilia Mendes, and John Grundy. 2014. Investigating the Effects of Personality Traits on Pair Programming in a Higher Education Setting through a Family of Experiments. Empirical Software Engineering 19 (2014), 714--752.
[57]
Niral Shah, Colleen Lewis, and Roxane Caires. 2014. Analyzing Equity in Collaborative Learning Situations: A Comparative Case Study in Elementary Computer Science. Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
[58]
Niral Shah and Colleen M. Lewis. 2019. Amplifying and Attenuating Inequity in Collaborative Learning: Toward an Analytical Framework. Cognition and Instruction 37, 4 (Oct. 2019), 423--452.
[59]
Benyamin T. Tabarsi, Ally Limke, Heidi Reichert, Rachel Qualls, Thomas Price, Chris Martens, and Tiffany Barnes. 2022. How to Catch Novice Programmers' Struggles: Detecting Moments of Struggle in Open-Ended Block-Based Programming Projects Using Trace Log Data. (July 2022).
[60]
Jennifer Tsan, Kristy Elizabeth Boyer, and Collin F. Lynch. 2016. How Early Does the CS Gender Gap Emerge? A Study of Collaborative Problem Solving in 5th Grade Computer Science. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education. 388--393.
[61]
Jennifer Tsan, Jessica Vandenberg, Zarifa Zakaria, Danielle C. Boulden, Collin Lynch, Eric Wiebe, and Kristy Elizabeth Boyer. 2021. Collaborative Dialogue and Types of Conflict: An Analysis of Pair Programming Interactions between Upper Elementary Students. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 1184--1190.
[62]
Karthikeyan Umapathy and Albert D. Ritzhaupt. 2017. A Meta-Analysis of Pair-Programming in Computer Programming Courses: Implications for Educational Practice. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 17, 4 (2017), 1--13.
[63]
Sterre van Breukelen, Ann Barcomb, Sebastian Baltes, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2023. "STILL AROUND": Experiences and Survival Strategies of Veteran Women Software Developers. arXiv:2302.03723 [cs]
[64]
Jessica Vandenberg, Arif Rachmatullah, Collin Lynch, Kristy Elizabeth Boyer, and Eric Wiebe. 2021. The Relationship of CS Attitudes, Perceptions of Collaboration, and Pair Programming Strategies on Upper Elementary Students' CS Learning. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1. 46--52.
[65]
Marilyn Domas White and Emily E. Marsh. 2006. Content Analysis: A Flexible Methodology. Library trends 55, 1 (2006), 22--45.
[66]
Laurie Williams. 2007. Lessons Learned from Seven Years of Pair Programming at North Carolina State University. SIGCSE Bull. 39, 4 (Dec. 2007), 79--83.
[67]
Laurie Williams, Lucas Layman, Jason Osborne, and Neha Katira. 2006. Examining the Compatibility of Student Pair Programmers. In AGILE 2006 (AGILE'06). IEEE, 10--pp.
[68]
Laurie Williams, D. Scott McCrickard, Lucas Layman, and Khaled Hussein. 2008. Eleven Guidelines for Implementing Pair Programming in the Classroom. In Agile 2008 Conference. IEEE, Toronto, ON, Canada, 445--452.
[69]
L. Williams, C. McDowell, N. Nagappan, J. Fernald, and L. Werner. 2003. Building Pair Programming Knowledge through a Family of Experiments. In 2003 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, 2003. ISESE 2003. Proceedings. 143--152.
[70]
Kimberly Michelle Ying, Lydia G. Pezzullo, Mohona Ahmed, Kassandra Crompton, Jeremiah Blanchard, and Kristy Elizabeth Boyer. 2019. In Their Own Words: Gender Differences in Student Perceptions of Pair Programming. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, Minneapolis MN USA, 1053--1059.
[71]
Zarifa Zakaria, Jessica Vandenberg, Jennifer Tsan, Danielle Cadieux Boulden, Collin F. Lynch, Kristy Elizabeth Boyer, and Eric N. Wiebe. 2022. Two-Computer Pair Programming: Exploring a Feedback Intervention to Improve Collaborative Talk in Elementary Students. Computer Science Education 32, 1 (2022), 3--29.
[72]
Zehui Zhan, Patrick S.W. Fong, Hu Mei, and Ting Liang. 2015. Effects of Gender Grouping on Students' Group Performance, Individual Achievements and Attitudes in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Computers in Human Behavior 48, Complete (2015), 587--596.
[73]
Franz Zieris and Lutz Prechelt. 2019. Does Pair Programming Pay Off? In Rethinking Productivity in Software Engineering, Caitlin Sadowski and Thomas Zimmermann (Eds.). Apress, Berkeley, CA, 251--259.
[74]
Franz Zieris and Lutz Prechelt. 2021. Two Elements of Pair Programming Skill. 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering: New Ideas and Emerging Results (ICSE-NIER)} (Feb. 2021).
Index Terms
- Equitable Student Collaboration in Pair Programming
Recommendations
How Equity and Inequity Can Emerge in Pair Programming
ICER '15: Proceedings of the eleventh annual International Conference on International Computing Education ResearchResearch suggests that pair programming increases student performance and decreases student attrition. However, less is known about the ways in which pair programming can unintentionally lead to inequitable relationships between students. Audio data ...
Student attitudes toward pair programming
ITICSE '06: Proceedings of the 11th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science educationStudents in four introductory programming classes who participated in a pair programming study had very positive attitudes toward pair programming: they liked it, thought that it was fun, would like to do it again, and believed that they learned more ...
Student attitudes toward pair programming
Students in four introductory programming classes who participated in a pair programming study had very positive attitudes toward pair programming: they liked it, thought that it was fun, would like to do it again, and believed that they learned more ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
April 2024
417 pages
ISBN:9798400704987
DOI:10.1145/3639474
- Co-chairs:
- Ana Paiva,
- Rui Abreu,
- Kiev Gama,
- Janet Siegmund,
- Program Co-chairs:
- Abhik Roychoudhury,
- Margaret Storey
Copyright © 2024 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Sponsors
In-Cooperation
- Faculty of Engineering of University of Porto
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 24 May 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
ICSE-SEET '24
Sponsor:
ICSE-SEET '24: 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training
April 14 - 20, 2024
Lisbon, Portugal
Upcoming Conference
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 39Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)39
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)11
Reflects downloads up to 22 Sep 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in