Pair Programming: Under What Conditions Is It Advantageous for Middle School Students?

References

• Alice 2.X. (1999–2013). Alice: An educational software that teaches students computer programming in a 3D environment. Retrieved from http://www.alice.org
   Google Scholar
• Allen, V. L. (1976). Children as teachers: Theory and research on tutoring. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Azmitia, M., & Montgomery, R. (1993). Friendship, transactive dialogues, and the development of scientific reasoning. Social Development, 2(3), 202–221.
   Google Scholar
• Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, K. (2000). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Biddle, B. J., & Thomas, E. J. (1966). Role theory: Concepts and research. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Bishop-Clark, K., Courte, J., & Howard, E. (2006). Programming in pairs with Alice to improve confidence, enjoyment, and achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 213–228.
   Google Scholar
• Chan, C. K. K. (2013). Collaborative knowledge building: Towards a knowledge creation perspective. In C.E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 437–461). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chase, C. C., Chin, D. B., Oppezzo, M. A., & Schwartz, D. L. (2009). Teachable agents and the protégé effect: Increasing the effort towards learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 334–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinn, C. A. (2013). Learning through collaborative argumentation. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 314–332). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chong, J., & Hurlbutt, T. (2007). The social dynamics of pair programming. In ICSE 2007: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 354–363). Washington, DC: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
   Google Scholar
• Cockburn, A., & Williams, L. (2000). The costs and benefits of pair programming. In Extreme Programming Examined (pp. 223–247). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulick, C. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237–248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornelius, L. L., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2004). Power to the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students’ relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 467–498.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dann, W., Cooper, S., & Pausch, R. (2006). Learning to program with Alice. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Denner, J., & Werner, L. (2007). Computer programming in middle school: How pairs respond to challenges. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(2), 131–150.
   Google Scholar
• Denner, J., Werner, L., & Ortiz, E. (2012). Computer games created by middle school girls: Can they be used to measure understanding of computer science concepts? Computers & Education, 58(1), 240–249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(2), 193–223.
   Google Scholar
• Hafen, C. A., Laursen, B., & DeLay, D. (2012). Transformations in friend relationships across the transition into adolescence. In. B. Laursen & W. A. Collins (Eds.), Relationship pathways: From adolescence to young adulthood (pp. 69–90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hanks, B., Fitzgerald, S., McCauley, R., Murphy, L., & Zander, C. (2011). Pair programming in education: A literature review. Computer Science Education, 21(2), 135–173.
   Google Scholar
• Hanks, B., McDowell, C., Draper, D., & Krnjajic, M. (2004). Program quality with pair programming in CS1. In ITiCSE '04: Proceedings of the 9th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 176–180). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Hartl, A., DeLay, D., Laursen, B., Denner, J., Werner, L., Campe, S., & Ortiz, E. (2013). Learning from friends: Measuring influence in a dyadic computer instructional setting. International Journal of Research & Method in Education. doi:10.1080/1743727X.2013.784961
   Google Scholar
• Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 48–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & DeSimone, C. (2013). Problem-based learning: An instructional model of collaborative learning. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 370–386). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1988). Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 413–424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howe, C., & Tolmie, A. (1999). Productive interaction in the context of computer-supported collaborative learning in science. In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with computers (pp. 24–45). London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Thurston, A., Topping, K., Christie, D., Livingston, K., & Donaldson, C. (2007). Group work in elementary science: Towards organizational principles for supporting pupil learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 549–563.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inkpen, K., Booth, K. S., Klawe, M., & Upitis, R. (1995). Playing together beats playing apart, especially for girls. In The First International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 177–181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2004). Cooperation and the use of technology. In Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 785–811). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Katira, N., Williams, L., & Osborne, J. (2005). Towards increasing the compatibility of student pair programmers. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on software engineering (pp. 625–626). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Kera, Z. B., & Watkins, M. J. (2009). Towards minimizing pair incompatibilities to help retain under-represented groups in beginning programming course using pair programming. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 25(2), 221–227.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allen, W., Erickson, J., … Werner, L. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads, 2(1), 32–37.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, C. M. (2011). Is pair programming more effective than other forms of collaboration for young students? Computer Science Education, 21(2), 105–134.
   Google Scholar
• Liebenberg, J., Mentz, E., & Breed, B. (2012). Pair programming and secondary school girls’ enjoyment of programming and the subject information technology. Computer Science Education, 22, 219–236.
   Google Scholar
• Light, P., Littleton, K., Bale, S., Joiner, R., & Messer, D. (2000). Gender and social comparison effects in computer-based problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 10, 483–496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linn, M. C. (1985). The cognitive consequences of programming instruction in classrooms. Educational Researcher, 14(5), 14–16, 25–29.
   Google Scholar
• Littleton, K., & Light, P. (Eds.). (1999). Learning with computers: Analyzing productive interaction. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• MacDonald, R., & Miell, D. (2000). Musical conversations: Collaborating with a friend on creative tasks. In R. Joiner, K. Littleton, D. Faulkner, & D. Miell (Eds.), Rethinking collaborative learning (pp. 65–78). London, UK: Free Association Books.
   Google Scholar
• Matthias, M. M., & Padberg, F. (2004). An empirical study about the feel-good factor in pair programming. In Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Software Metrics (pp. 151–158). Washington, DC: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
   Google Scholar
• Matusov, E., Bell, N., & Rogoff, B. (2002). Schooling as cultural process: Working together and guidance by children from schools differing in collaborative practices. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 29, 129–160.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H., & Fernald, J. (2003). The impact of pair programming on student performance, perception and persistence. In ICSE 2003: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 602–607). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H., & Fernald, J. (2006). Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Communications of the ACM, 49(8), 90–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Messer, D. J., Joiner, R., Loveridge, N., Light, P., & Littleton, K. (1993). Influences on the effectiveness of peer interaction: Children's level of cognitive development and the relative ability of partners. Social Development, 2, 279–294.
   Google Scholar
• Pigott, H. E., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Clement, P. W. (1986). The effects of reciprocal peer tutoring and group contingencies on the academic performance of elementary school children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19(1), 93–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Cognition, perception and language [Vol. 2, Handbook of child psychology (5th ed.), W. Damon (Ed.)] (pp. 679–744). New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. (2004). The influence of the tutee in learning by peer tutoring. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1179–1184). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Salleh, N., Mendes, E., & Grundy, J. (2011). Empirical studies of pair programming for CS/SE teaching in higher education: A systematic literature review. Transactions on Software Engineering, 37(4), 509–525.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawyer, R. K., & Goldman, K. J. (2010). Collaborative learning of computer science concepts. In K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 323–345). London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Scanlon, E. (2000). How gender influences learners working collaboratively with science simulations. Learning and Instruction, 10(6), 463–481.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, B., & Hanks, B. (2008). First-year students’ impressions of pair programming in CS1. Journal of Educational Resources in Computing, 7, 1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Sivilotti, P. A. G., & Laugel, S. A. (2008). Scratching the surface of advanced topics in software engineering: A workshop module for middle school students. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 291–295.
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan, F., & Wilson, N. (2013). Playful talk: Negotiating opportunities to learn in collaborative groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.839945
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, L., Ratcliffe, M., & Robertson, A. (2003). Code warriors and code-a-phobes: A study in attitude and pair programming. SIGCSE. Reno, NV.
   Google Scholar
• Underwood, J., & Underwood, G. (1999). Task effects on co-operative and collaborative learning with computers. In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with computers: Analyzing productive interaction (pp. 10–23). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2003). The development of students’ learning in peer-directed small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 361–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., Chizhik, A. W., & Sugrue, B. (1998). Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 607–651.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Werner, L., & Denner, J. (2009). Pair programming in middle school: What does it look like? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(1), 29–49.
   Google Scholar
• Werner, L., Denner, J., & Bean, S. (2004). Pair programming strategies for middle school girls. In Proceedings of the 7th IASTED International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education (pp. 161–166). Kauai, HI: ACTA Press.
   Google Scholar
• Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., & Kawamoto, D. C. (2012). The fairy performance assessment: Measuring computational thinking in middle school. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '12) (pp. 215–220). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Werner, L., Hanks, B., & McDowell, C. (2004). Pair-programming helps female computer science students. ACM Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC), 4(1), 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, L., & Kessler, R. (2003). Pair programming illuminated. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, L., Kessler, R. R., Cunningham, W., & Jeffries, R. (2000). Strengthening the case for pair-programming. IEEE Software, 17(4), 19–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, L., Layman, L., Osborne, J., & Katira, N. (2006). Examining the compatibility of student pair programmers. In Agile Conference, 2006 (pp. 10–15). Washington, DC: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
   Google Scholar
• Wray, S. (2010). How pair programming really works. IEEE Software, 27(1), 50–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar