research-article

A Meta-Analysis of Pair-Programming in Computer Programming Courses: Implications for Educational Practice

Authors:

Karthikeyan Umapathy,

Albert D. RitzhauptAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), Volume 17, Issue 4

Article No.: 16, Pages 1 - 13

https://doi.org/10.1145/2996201

Published: 24 August 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Several experiments on the effects of pair programming versus solo programming in the context of education have been reported in the research literature. We present a meta-analysis of these studies that accounted for 18 manuscripts with 28 independent effect sizes in the domains of programming assignments, exams, passing rates, and affective measures. In total, our sample accounts for N = 3,308 students either using pair programming as a treatment variable or using traditional solo programming in the context of a computing course. Our findings suggest positive results in favor of pair programming in three of four domains with exception to affective measures. We provide a comprehensive review of our results and discuss our findings.

Supplementary Material

a16-umapathy-apndx.pdf (umapathy.zip)

Supplemental movie, appendix, image and software files for, A Meta-Analysis of Pair-Programming in Computer Programming Courses: Implications for Educational Practice

Download
62.05 KB

References

[1]

Kent Beck. 2000. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, MA.

Digital Library

[2]

Kent Beck and Cynthia Andres. 2004. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.

Digital Library

[3]

Catherine Beise, Lewis Vanbrackle, Martha Myers, and Neela Chevli-Saroq. 2003. An examination of age, race, and sex as predictors of success in the first programming course. J. Informat. Edu. Res. 5, 51--64.

[4]

Bls. 2014. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014--15 Edition, Computer Programmers. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-programmers.htm.

[5]

Michael Borenstein, Larry V. Hedges, Julian P. T. Higgins, and Hannah R. Rothstein. 2009. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. JohnWiley 8 Sons, Ltd, West Sussex, UK.

[6]

Jacob Cohen. 1992. A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 112, 155--116.

[7]

Tore Dybå, Erik Arisholm, Dag I. K. Sjøberg, Jo E. Hannay, and Forrest Shull. 2007. Are two heads better than one? on the effectiveness of pair programming. IEEE Softw. 24, 12--15.

Digital Library

[8]

Brian W. Fitzpatrick and Ben Collins-Sussman. 2012. Team Geek: A Software Developer's Guide to Working Well with Others. O'Reilly Media, Sebastopol, CA.

[9]

Denae Ford and Chris Parnin. 2015. Exploring causes of frustration for software developers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 8th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE’15), Andrew Begel, Rafael Prikladnicki, Yvonne Dittrich, Cleidson De Souza, Anita Sarma and Sandeep Athavale, Eds. IEEE, 115--116.

Digital Library

[10]

Sallyann Freudenberg, Pablo Romero, and Benedict Du Boulay. 2007. “Talking the talk”: Is intermediate-level conversation the key to the pair programming success story? In Proceedings of the Agile Conference (AGILE’07), Washington, DC, Jutta Eckstein and Frank Maurer, Eds. IEEE Computer Society, 84--91.

Digital Library

[11]

Edward F. Gehringer. 2003. A pair-programming experiment in a non-programming course. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, Anaheim, CA, Ron Crocker, Jr. Guy L. Steele and Richard P. Gabriel, Eds. ACM, 949397, 187--190.

Digital Library

[12]

Desmond W. Govender and T. P. Govender. 2014. Using a collaborative learning technique as a pedagogic intervention for the effective teaching and learning of a programming course. Mediterran. J. Soc. Sci. 5, 1077--1086.

[13]

Jo E. Hannay, Tore Dybå, Erik Arisholm, and Dag I. K. Sjøberg. 2009. The effectiveness of pair programming: A meta-analysis. Info. Softw. Technol. 51, 1110--1122.

Digital Library

[14]

Christopher D. Hundhausen, Adam S. Carter, and Olusola Adesope. 2015. Supporting programming assignments with activity streams: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Kansas City, MO, Adrienne Decker and Kurt Eiselt, Eds. ACM, 2677276, 320--325.

Digital Library

[15]

Sema A. Kalaian and Rafa M. Kasim. 2014. Small-group vs. competitive learning in computer science classrooms: a meta-analytic review. In Innovative Teaching Strategies and New Learning Paradigms in Computer Programming, Ricardo Queirós, Ed. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, 46--64.

[16]

Theodora Koulouri, Stanislao Lauria, and Robert D. Macredie. 2015. Teaching introductory programming: A quantitative evaluation of different approaches. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE’15), 14, 1--28.

[17]

Marcia C. Linn and John Dalbey. 1989. Cognitive consequences of programming instruction. In Studying the Novice Programmer, Elliot Soloway and James C. Spohrer, Eds. Psychology Press, East Sussex, NJ.

[18]

James Noble, Stuart Marshall, Stephen Marshall, and Robert Biddle. 2004. Less extreme programming. In Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Computing Education, Dunedin, New Zealand, Raymond Lister and Alison Young, Eds. Australian Computer Society, Inc., 979997, 217--226.

[19]

Laura Plonka, Judith Segal, Helen Sharp, and Janet Van Der Linden. 2011. Collaboration in pair programming: Driving and switching. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming (XP’11), Alberto Sillitti, Orit Hazzan, Emily Bache, and Xavier Albaladejo, Eds. Springer, Berlin, 43--59.

[20]

Winston W. Royce. 1970. Managing the development of large software systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE WESCON, Los Alamitos, CA, IEEE, 1--9.

[21]

Carolina Alves De Lima Salge and Nicholas Berente. 2016. Pair programming vs. solo programming: What do we know after 15 years of research? In Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’16), Tung X. Bui and Ralph H. Sprague, Eds. IEEE, 5398--5406.

Digital Library

[22]

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. 37, 509--525.

Digital Library

[23]

Christopher Watson and Frederick W. B. Li. 2014. Failure rates in introductory programming revisited. In Proceedings of the Conference on Innovation 8 Technology in Computer Science Education, Åsa Cajander, Mats Daniels, Tony Clear, and Arnold Pears, Eds. ACM, 2591749, 39--44.

Digital Library

[24]

Laurie Williams and Robert Kessler. 2002. Pair Programming Illuminated. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA.

Digital Library

[25]

Laurie Williams, D. Scott Mccrickard, Lucas Layman, and Khaled Hussein. 2008. Eleven guidelines for implementing pair programming in the classroom. In Proceedings of the Agile Conference, Grigori Melnik and Mary Poppendieck, Eds. IEEE, 445--452.

Digital Library

[26]

Laurie Williams, Eric Wiebe, Kai Yang, Miriam Ferzli, and Carol Miller. 2002. In support of pair programming in the introductory computer science course. Comput. Sci. Edu. 12, 197--212.

[27]

Amy B. Woszczynski, Tracy C. Guthrie, and Sherri Shade. 2005. Personality and programming. J. Info. Syst. Edu. 16, 293--299.

Cited By

Garcia RCsizmadia APearce JAlshaigy BGlebova OHarrington BLiaskos KLunn SMackellar BNasir UPettit RSchulz SStewart CZavaleta Bernuy AMonga MLonati VBarendsen ESheard JPaterson J(2025)An International Examination of Non-Technical Skills and Professional Dispositions in Computing -- Identifying the Present Day Academia-Industry Gap2024 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education10.1145/3689187.3709610(124-174)Online publication date: 22-Jan-2025
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689187.3709610
Malkoc SSteinmaurer AGütl CLuttenberger SPaechter M(2024)Coding Decoded: Exploring Course Achievement and Gender Disparities in an Online Flipped Classroom Programming CourseEducation Sciences10.3390/educsci1406063414:6(634)Online publication date: 12-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060634
Sun DXu F(2024)Real-Time Collaborative Programming in Undergraduate Education: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis of Its Impact on Knowledge, Behaviors, and AttitudesJournal of Educational Computing Research10.1177/07356331241295739Online publication date: 27-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241295739
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

A Meta-Analysis of Pair-Programming in Computer Programming Courses: Implications for Educational Practice
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
2. Software and its engineering
  1. Software creation and management
    1. Software verification and validation
      1. Process validation
        Pair programming

Recommendations

The effectiveness of pair programming: A meta-analysis

Several experiments on the effects of pair versus solo programming have been reported in the literature. We present a meta-analysis of these studies. The analysis shows a small significant positive overall effect of pair programming on quality, a medium ...
Comparing novice programing environments for use in secondary education: App Inventor for Android vs. Alice

Coding is part of logical thinking and is one of the basic skills which are known as '21st-century skills'. Coding acquisition is necessary as it is used in a wide range of occupations. However, computer programing is difficult to learn and programing ...
Meta-analysis to study the impact of learning engagement strategies in introductory computer programming courses: a multi-institutional study
ACMSE '21: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Southeast Conference

Various Learning Engagement Strategies (LESs) have been used in CS education to motivate students and facilitate learning. More recently, LESs are being used to support programming pedagogy. Therefore, investigating the influence that the multiple ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education

ACM Transactions on Computing Education Volume 17, Issue 4

December 2017

123 pages

EISSN:1946-6226

DOI:10.1145/3134765

Editor:
Chris Hundhausen
Washington State University, USA

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2017 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 ACM 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]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Accepted: 01 October 2017

Published: 24 August 2017

Revised: 01 September 2016

Received: 01 December 2015

Published in TOCE Volume 17, Issue 4

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

63
Total Citations
View Citations
1,550
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)158
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5

Reflects downloads up to 13 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Garcia RCsizmadia APearce JAlshaigy BGlebova OHarrington BLiaskos KLunn SMackellar BNasir UPettit RSchulz SStewart CZavaleta Bernuy AMonga MLonati VBarendsen ESheard JPaterson J(2025)An International Examination of Non-Technical Skills and Professional Dispositions in Computing -- Identifying the Present Day Academia-Industry Gap2024 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education10.1145/3689187.3709610(124-174)Online publication date: 22-Jan-2025
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689187.3709610
Malkoc SSteinmaurer AGütl CLuttenberger SPaechter M(2024)Coding Decoded: Exploring Course Achievement and Gender Disparities in an Online Flipped Classroom Programming CourseEducation Sciences10.3390/educsci1406063414:6(634)Online publication date: 12-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060634
Sun DXu F(2024)Real-Time Collaborative Programming in Undergraduate Education: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis of Its Impact on Knowledge, Behaviors, and AttitudesJournal of Educational Computing Research10.1177/07356331241295739Online publication date: 27-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241295739
Sun LZhou L(2024)Does Generative Artificial Intelligence Improve the Academic Achievement of College Students? A Meta-AnalysisJournal of Educational Computing Research10.1177/0735633124127793762:7(1896-1933)Online publication date: 27-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241277937
Zhou RXie CHe XLi YFan QYu YYan Z(2024)Effect of Different Flow Design Approaches on Undergraduates' Computational Thinking During Pair ProgrammingJournal of Educational Computing Research10.1177/0735633124126847462:7(1865-1895)Online publication date: 26-Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241268474
Piscitelli ACostagliola GDe Rosa MFuccella V(2024)Influence of Large Language Models on Programming Assignments – A user studyProceedings of the 2024 the 16th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers10.1145/3702163.3702168(33-38)Online publication date: 18-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3702163.3702168
Tang XWong SPu KChen XYang YChen Y(2024)VizGroup: An AI-assisted Event-driven System for Collaborative Programming Learning AnalyticsProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology10.1145/3654777.3676347(1-22)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3654777.3676347
Hug SPearson TStrickland CIsrael M(2024)A Shift To Praxis- Towards a More Inclusive Research Agenda about Belonging in Computer ScienceProceedings of the 2024 on RESPECT Annual Conference10.1145/3653666.3656070(302-306)Online publication date: 16-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3653666.3656070
Graßl IFraser GRoychoudhury APaiva AAbreu RStorey MGama KSiegmund J(2024)Equitable Student Collaboration in Pair ProgrammingProceedings of the 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training10.1145/3639474.3640086(274-285)Online publication date: 14-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3639474.3640086
Fong MHuang SAlawini ASilva MHerman GStephenson BStone JBattestilli LRebelsky SShoop L(2024)Exploring Computing Students' Sense of Belonging Before and After a Collaborative Learning CourseProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3626252.3630850(359-365)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626252.3630850
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents