Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Collaborative learning is an activity in which two or more students learn something together. Many studies have found that collaborative learning improve students' memory retention and motivation to learn. Peer Instruction(PI) is one of the most successful evidence-based collaborative learning methods. This article investigates issues of student motivation in courses on data structures through a one-on-one PI collaborative learning activity. Students typically find the concepts of data structure vague and the related programs complex and difficult to comprehend. Pair programming was conducted to scaffold university students understanding data structures by commenting related programs. To investigate students' motivational status, the ARCS model was used to evaluate students' motivation in each of four dimensions: Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction. Moreover, three items about the retention of learning were added to measure how information is lost over time. Every ``pair'' (i.e., two students) was asked to comment on the programs provided by a specific data structures concept. The control groups were asked to elaborate on the data structures programs by adding algorithmic description comments to the beginning of programs. The experimental groups were asked to elaborate on the data structures programs by adding code description comments to the data structures programs line by line. The experimental results show that the confidence and retention of learning in experimental groups are significantly better than those of the control group. The findings suggest that the effects of pair programming activities can be leveraged based on an understanding of students' motivation for and retention of learning.

Keywords

Collaborative learning computer science education ARCS model pair programming retention of learning learning style

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

De Lisi

and Golbeck

S.L.

, Implications of Piagetian theory for peer learning, 1999.

Dillenbourg

, Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. Advances in Learning and Instruction Series: ERIC, 1999.

Jong

B.-S.

, Lai

C.-H.

, Hsia

Y.-T.

, Lin

T.-W.

and Lu

C.-Y.

, Using Game-Based Cooperative Learning to Improve Learning Motivation: A Study of Online Game Use in an Operating Systems Course, Education, IEEE Transactions on 56 (2013), 183-190.

Johnson

R.T.

and Johnson

D.W.

, Action Research: Cooperative Learning in the Science Classroom, Science and Children 24 (1986), 31-32.

Fischer

and Mandl

, Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of external representation tools, The Journal of the Learning Sciences 14 (2005), 405-441.

Totten

, Sills

, Digby

and Russ

, Cooperative learning: A guide to research: Garland New York, 1991.

Goel

and Kathuria

, A novel approach for collaborative pair programming, Journal of Information Technology Education: Research 9 (2010), 183-196.

Faja

, Pair programming as a team based learning activity: A review of research, Issues in Information Systems 12 (2011), 207-216.

Adán-Coello

J.M.

, Tobar

C.M.

, de Faria

E.S.J.

, de Menezes

W.S.

and de Freitas

R.L.

, Forming Groups for Collaborative Learning of Introductory Computer Programming Based on Students' Programming Skills and Learning Styles, International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE) 7 (2011), 34-46.

10.

Williams

L.A.

and Kessler

R.R.

, All I really need to know about pair programming I learned in kindergarten, Communications of the ACM 43 (2000), 108-114.

11.

Gorla

and Lam

Y.W.

, Who should work with whom? Building effective software project teams, Communications of the ACM 47 (2004), 79-82.

12.

McDowell

, Werner

, Bullock

H.E.

and Fernald

, Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality, Communications of the ACM 49 (2006), 90-95.

13.

Han

K.-W.

, Lee

and Lee

, The impact of a peer-learning agent based on pair programming in a programming course, Education, IEEE Transactions on 53 (2010), 318-327.

14.

Forte

and Guzdial

, Motivation and nonmajors in computer science: identifying discrete audiences for introductory courses, Education, IEEE Transactions on 48 (2005), 248-253.

15.

Keller

J.M.

, Motivational design of instruction, Instructional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of Their Current Status 1 (1983), 383-434.

16.

Ebbinghaus

, Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology: Teachers college, Columbia university, 1913.

17.

Craik

F.I.

and Lockhart

R.S.

, Levels of processing: A framework for memory research, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11 (1972), 671-684.

18.

Mandler

, Organization and memory, 1967.

19.

Mandler

, From association to organization, Current Directions in Psychological Science 20 (2011), 232-235.

20.

Eysenck

M.W.

and Eysenck

M.C.

, Effects of processing depth, distinctiveness, and word frequency on retention, British Journal of Psychology 71 (1980), 263-274.

21.

Tyler

S.W.

, Hertel

P.T.

, McCallum

M.C.

and Ellis

H.C.

, Cognitive effort and memory, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 5 (1979), 607.

22.

Palmere

, Benton

S.L.

, Glover

J.A.

and Ronning

R.R.

, Elaboration and recall of main ideas in prose, Journal of Educational Psychology 75 (1983), 898.

23.

Wade

S.E.

, Trathen

and Schraw

, An analysis of spontaneous study strategies, Reading Research Quarterly (1990), 147-166.

24.

Brush

A.J.B.

and Borning

, Annotating digital documents for asynchronous collaboration, University of Washington (2002), 9-16.

25.

Thelen

H.A.

, Dynamics of groups at work, 1954.

26.

James

W.B.

and Gardner

D.L.

, Learning styles: Implications for distance learning, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 1995 (1995), 19-31.

27.

Furnham

, Jackson

C.J.

and Miller

, Personality, learning style and work performance, Personality and Individual Differences 27 (1999), 1113-1122.

28.

Silver

H.F.

, Strong

R.W.

and Perini

M.J.

, So each may learn: Integrating learning styles and multiple intelligences: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Alexandria, VA, 2000.

29.

Carver

, Howard

and Lane

W.D.

, Enhancing student learning through hypermedia courseware and incorporation of student learning styles, Education, IEEE Transactions on 42 (1999), 33-38.

30.

Reid

J.M.

, The learning style preferences of ESL students, TESOL Quarterly 21 (1987), 87-111.

31.

Kolb

D.A.

, Learning Style Inventory Technical Manual (Boston, Mcber and Company), KolbThe Learning Style Inventory: Technical Manual 1976, 1976.

32.

Kolb

D.A.

, Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development vol. 1: Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984.

33.

Kolb

A.Y.

, The Kolb learning style inventory - version 3.1 2005 technical specifications, Boston, MA: Hay Resource Direct 200 (2005).

34.

Kolb

A.Y.

and Kolb

D.A.

, Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education, Academy of Management Learning & Education 4 (2005), 193-212.

35.

Carver, Jr.

C.A.

, Howard

R.A.

and Lane

W.D.

, Enhancing student learning through hypermedia courseware and incorporation of student learning styles, Education, IEEE Transactions on 42 (1999), 33-38.

36.

Silver

, Strong

and Perini

, Integrating learning styles and multiple intelligences, Educational Leadership 55 (1997), 22-29.

37.

Sims

R.R.

and Sims

S.J.

, Learning styles and learning: A key to meeting the accountability demands in education: Nova Science Publishers New York, 2006.

38.

Weinberger

and Fischer

, A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning, Computers & Education 46 (2006), 71-95.

39.

Hannay

J.E.

, Dybå

, Arisholm

and Sjøberg

D.I.

, The effectiveness of pair programming: A meta-analysis, Information and Software Technology 51 (2009), 1110-1122.

40.

Preston

, Pair programming as a model of collaborative learning: A review of the research, Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 20 (2005), 39-45.

Learning motivation and retention effects of pair programming in data structures courses

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References