Cooperative learning manifests itself as pair programming in coding education. There is a limited number of studies experimentally demonstrating that pair programming is effective in the educational context. Therefore, in this study, solo and pair programming were compared in terms of flow experience, coding quality, and coding achievement. The method used in this study is a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design. The study group consists of 42 volunteer senior university students (28 males, 14 females). While solo programming was performed in the control group, pair programming was performed in the experimental group. It was concluded that the flow experience of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group in four weeks of the six-week implementation, whereas the coding quality of the experimental group was higher in three weeks. No difference was found in the other weeks in terms of both flow experience and coding quality. Although the coding achievement of both the control and experimental groups increased in the study, the experimental group did not exhibit better performance in terms of coding achievement. In conclusion, since it was revealed in this study that pair programming is effective, it is recommended to use pair programming more frequently in educational settings.
BaymanP.MayerR. (1988).
Using conceptual models to teach BASIC computer programming. Journal of Educational Psychology,
80(3), 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.291
2.
Begel, A., & Nagappan, N. (2008, October 9–10). Pair programming: What’s in it for me? [Presentation]. Second ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2018), Kaiserslautern, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1145/1414004.1414026
3.
Belshee, A. (2005, August). Promiscuous pairing and beginner’s mind: Embrace inexperience [Presentation]. Agile Development Conference (ADC 2005). https://doi.org/10.1109/ADC.2005.37
4.
BippT.LepperA.SchmeddingD. (2008).
Pair programming in software development teams—An empirical study of its benefits. Information and Software Technology,
50(3), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2007.05.006
5.
Bishop-ClarkC.CourteJ.HowardE. V. (2006).
Programming in pairs with Alice to improve confidence, enjoyment, and achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
34(2), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.2190/CFKF-UGGC-JG1Q-7T40
6.
Boe, B., Hill, C., Len, M., Dreschler, G., Conrad, P., & Franklin, D. (2013, March 6–9). Hairball: Lint-inspired static analysis of scratch projects [Presentation]. SIGCSE 2013, Denver, Colorado, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445265
7.
BryantS.RomeroP.Du BoulayB. (2008).
Pair programming and the mysterious role of the navigator. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
66(7), 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.03.005
8.
CockburnA.WilliamsL. (2001). The costs and benefits of pair programming. In SucciG.MarchesiM. (Eds.), Extreme programming examined (pp. 223–243).
Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=377517.377531
9.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Erlbaum Press.
10.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety.
Jossey-Bass Press.
DeMarcoT.ListerT. (1999). Peopleware: Productive projects and teams (2nd ed.).
Dorset Press.
13.
DemirÖ.SeferoğluS. S. (2019).
Developing a scratch-based coding achievement test. Information and Learning Sciences,
120(5/6), 383–406. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-08-2018-0078
14.
DemirörenS. (2016).
Eşli programlama etkinliğinin ortaokul öğrencilerinin programlama başarılarına etkisi [The effect of pair programming activity on the programming success of the secondary school students]. Educational Sciences & Practice,
15(29), 1–20.
15.
DongoT.ReedA. H.O’HaraM. (2016).
Exploring pair programming benefits for MIS majors. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice,
15, 223–239. https://doi.org/10.28945/3625
FraenkelJ. R.WallenN. E.HyunH. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.).
McGraw-Hill Press.
18.
GomezO. S.AguiletaA. A. (2018).
Influence on the use of an IDE tool support in the pair programming: A controlled experiment. IEEE Latin America Transactions,
16(3), 948–956. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLA.2018.8358678.
19.
HanksB.FitzgeraldS.McCauleyR.MurphyL.ZanderC. (2011).
Pair programming in education: A literature review. Computer Science Education,
21(2), 135–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2011.579808
20.
HannayJ. E.DybåT.ArisholmE.SjøbergD. I. (2009).
The effectiveness of pair programming: A meta-analysis. Information and Software Technology,
51(7), 1110–1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2009.02.001
JensenR. W. (2003).
A pair programming experience crosstalk. The Journal of Defense Software Engineering,
16(3), 22–24.
23.
Jones, D. L., & Fleming, S. D. (2013, September 15–19). What use is a backseat driver? A qualitative investigation of pair programming [Presentation]. 2013 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human Centric Computing, San Jose, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.1109/VLHCC.2013.6645252
24.
KaraoğluH. (2018). The influence of pair-programming technique on secondary school students' confidence and achievement in computer programming [Unpublished master’s thesis].
Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, METU,
Ankara, Turkey.
25.
KonradtU.SulzK. (2001).
The experience of flow in interacting with a hypermedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,
10(1), 69–84.
26.
Lambropoulos, N, & Mystakidis, S. (2012, September 9–12). Learning experience + within 3D immersive worlds [Presentation]. 2012 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS 2012), Wroclaw, Poland. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6354452
27.
LandhaußerA.KellerJ. (2012). Flow and its affective, cognitive, and performance-related consequences. In EngeserS. (Ed.), Advances in flow research (pp. 65–85).
Springer Press.
28.
LataneB.WilliamsK.HarkinsS. (1979).
Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
37(6), 822–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822
29.
LuiK. M.ChanK. C. (2003). When does a pair outperform two individuals? In MarchesiM.SucciG. (Eds.), International conference on extreme programming and agile processes in software engineering (pp. 225–233).
Springer Press.
30.
McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H., & Fernald, J. (2002). The effects of pair programming on performance in an introductory programming course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(1), 38–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/563340.563353.
31.
Moreno-Leon, J., & Robles, G. (2014, October 22–25). Automatic detection of bad programming habits in Scratch: A preliminary study [Presentation]. 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Madrid, Spain. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2014.7044055
32.
Moreno-LeónJ.RoblesG. (2015, August). Analyze your scratch projects with Dr. Scratch and assess your computational thinking skills [Presentation]. Scratch Conference, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
33.
Moreno-Leon, J., Roman-Gonzalez, M., Harteveld, C., & Robles, G. (2017, May 6–11). On the automatic assessment of computational thinking skills: A comparison with human Experts [Presentation]. 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, Colorado, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3053216
34.
Nawahdah, M., & Taji, D. (2016, April 10–13). Investigating students’ behavior and code quality when applying pair-programming as a teaching technique in a Middle Eastern society [Presentation]. 2016 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2016.7474527
35.
NickersonR. S. (1998).
Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology,
2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
36.
NunnallyJ. C.BernsteinI. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.).
McGraw-Hill Press.
37.
PapadakisS. (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,
13(1), 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/IJWLTT.2018010101
38.
PelsF.KleinertJ.MennigenF. (2018).
Group flow: A scoping review of definitions, theoretical approaches, measures and findings. PLoS One,
13(12), e0210117. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210117
39.
PlonkaL.SharpH.Van der LindenJ.DittrichY. (2015).
Knowledge transfer in pair programming: An in-depth analysis. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
73, 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.001
40.
RadhakrishnanP.KanmaniS.NandhiniM. (2017).
Pair programming: A teaching and learning tool for defending student’s mental energy. The International Arab Journal of Information Technology,
14(2), 152–158.
41.
Roque HernándezR. V.Cárdenas DomínguezJ.López MendozaA.Herrera IzaguirreJ. A.Juárez IbarraC. M. (2019).
Comparison of pair and solo programming through software metrics in university students’ projects. RIDE Revista Iberoamericana Para la Investigación y el Desarrollo Educativo,
10(19). https://doi.org/10.23913/ride.v10i19.549
42.
SahrançÜ. (2008).
Bir durumluk akış modeli: Stres kontrolü, genel özyeterlik, durumluk kaygı, yaşam doyumu ve akış ilişkileri [A state flow model: The relationships among stress control, general self-efficacy, state anxiety, life satisfaction and state flow]. The Journal of SAU Education Faculty,
16, 122–144.
43.
TekinH. (2003). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme [Assessment and evaluation in education] (16th ed.).
Yargı Publishing.
44.
ThorndikeR. M.CunninghamG. K.ThorndikeR. L.HagenE. P. (1991). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (5th ed.).
MacMillan Press.
45.
TungaY.TokelT. (2018). The use of pair programming in education: A systematic literature review [Presentation]. Education 4.0 Studies (EDUCCON) 2018 (pp. 19–29).
46.
UmapathyK.RitzhauptA. D. (2017).
A Meta-analysis of pair-programming in computer programming courses: Implications for educational practice. ACM Transactions on Computing Education,
17(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/2996201
47.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
Williams, L., McCrickard, S. D., Layman, L., & Hussein, K. (2008, August 4–8). Eleven guidelines for implementing pair programming in the classroom [Presentation]. Agile 2008 Conference, Toronto, ON, Canada. https://doi.org/10.1109/Agile.2008.12
50.
WolzU.HallbergC.TaylorB. (2011, March). Scrape: A tool for visualizing the code of Scratch programs [Presentation]. 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Dallas, Texas, USA.
YangY. F.LeeC. I.ChangC. K. (2016).
Learning motivation and retention effects of pair programming in data structures courses. Education for Information,
32(3), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-160976
53.
ZierisF.PrecheltL. (2020). PP-ind: A repository of industrial pair programming session recordings. arXiv: 2002.03121v3 [cs.SE]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.03121
