Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3304221.3319782acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiticseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

A Large-Scale Experimental Study of Gender and Pair Composition in Pair Programming

Published: 02 July 2019 Publication History

Abstract

The proportion of women in computer science majors is currently lower than in any other STEM major. Various studies have sought to explain---and ultimately find ways to reduce---gender disparities in computer science participation and persistence. Pair programming has been proposed as a practice that may not only promote outcomes overall within college and workplace environments, but also help diminish isolation and boost the confidence of women in computer science. Some promising results have been obtained for women in pair programming, but the findings are not consistent across studies, and the limitations of previous research make it difficult to draw strong conclusions. The present study examined 969 undergraduates in several introductory computer science courses who engaged in three different pairings throughout the semester. All pairings were randomly assigned, so the findings reflect the causal influence of the gender pair characteristics on a variety of student outcomes. Overall, having a female partner led to several positive outcomes relative to having a male partner; these included greater lab section attendance as well as greater confidence in the finished product and confidence in the solution for the pair programming assignment. The advantages of having a female partner were occasionally greater for female students than for male students. Overall, the significant findings were most pronounced in the course intended for computer science majors. These results offer evidence for the educational benefits of pair programming for promoting women's participation in computer science, as well as the need for careful consideration of pair composition.

References

[1]
K. Beck, M. Beedle, A. van Bennekum, A. Cockburn, W. Cunningham, M. Fowler, J. Grenning, J Highsmith, A. Hunt, R. Jeffries, J. Kern, B. Marick, R.C. Martin, S. Mellor, K. Schwaber, J. Sutherland, and D. Thomas. 2001. Manifesto for agile software development. http://www.agilemanifesto.org
[2]
A. Begel and N. Nagappan. 2008. Pair programming: What's in it for me?. In Proceedings of the second ACM-IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement ESEM08. ACM Press, Kaiserslautern, Germany, 120--128.
[3]
S.B. Berenson, K.M. Slaten, L. Williams, and C-W. Ho. 2004. Voices of women in a software engineering course: Reflections on collaboration. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC), Vol. 4, 1 (2004), 3.
[4]
S. Beyer. 2014. Why are women underrepresented in computer science? Gender differences in stereotypes, self-efficacy, values, and interests and predictors of future CS course-taking and grades. Computer Science Education, Vol. 24, 2--3 (July 2014), 153--192.
[5]
S. Beyer, K. Rynes, J. Perrault, K. Hay, and S. Haller. 2003. Gender differences in computer science students. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 35, 1 (2003), 49--53.
[6]
N.A. Bowman, L. Jarratt, K.C. Culver, and A.M. Segre. 2019. How Prior Programming Experience Affects Students' Pair Programming Experiences and Outcomes. In ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE19). ACM, New York, NY.
[7]
S. Bryant, P. Romero, and B. du Boulay. 2008. Pair programming and the mysterious role of the navigator. International journal of human-computer studies, Vol. 66, 7 (July 2008), 519--529.
[8]
G. Canfora, A. Cimitile, G.A. Di Lucca, and C.A. Visaggio. 2006. How distribution affects the success of pair programming. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 16, 02 (April 2006), 293--313.
[9]
E.A. Chaparro, A. Yuksel, P. Romero, and S. Bryant. 2005. Factors affecting the perceived effectiveness of pair programming in higher education. In Proceedings of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group (Brighton, UH). 5--18.
[10]
S. Cheryan, S.A. Ziegler, A.K. Montoya, and L. Jiang. 2017. Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 143, 1 (Jan. 2017), 1--35.
[11]
K.S. Choi. 2015. A comparative analysis of different gender pair combinations in pair programming. Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 34, 8 (Aug. 2015), 825--837.
[12]
K.S. Choi, F.P. Deek, and I. Im. 2009. Pair dynamics in team collaboration. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 25, 4 (July 2009), 844--852.
[13]
J. Chong and T. Hurlbutt. 2007. The social dynamics of pair programming. In 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'07). IEEE, Minneapolis, MN, 354--363.
[14]
T.H. DeClue. 2003. Pair programming and pair trading: Effects on learning and motivation in a CS2 course. Journal of computing sciences in colleges, Vol. 18, 5 (May 2003), 49--56. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=771832.771843
[15]
J. Dempsey, R.T. Snodgrass, I. Kishi, and A. Titcomb. 2015. The emerging role of self-perception in student intentions. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM technical symposium on computer science education - SIGCSE15. ACM Press, Kansas City, MO, 108--113.
[16]
N. Ding, R.J. Bosker, and E.G. Harskamp. 2011. Exploring gender and gender pairing in the knowledge elaboration processes of students using computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, Vol. 56, 2 (Feb. 2011), 325--336.
[17]
A. Fielding and H. Goldstein. 2006. Cross-classified and multiple membership structures in multilevel models: An introduction and review . Technical Report Research Report no. 791. University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
[18]
B. Hanks, C. McDowell, D. Draper, and M. Krnjajic. 2004. Program quality with pair programming in CS. In Proceedings of the 9th annual SIGCSE conference on innovation and technology computer science education . Leeds, UK, 176--180.
[19]
S. Heiberg, U. Puus, P. Salumaa, and A. Seeba. 2003. Pair-programming effect on developers productivity. In Extreme programming and agile processes in software engineering., M Marchesi and G Succi (Eds.). XP 2003. Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 2675. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 215--224.
[20]
C-W. Ho, K. Slaten, L. Williams, and S. Berenson. 2004. Examining the impact of pair programming on female students . Technical Report NCSU CSC Technical Report 2004--20. North Carolina State University.
[21]
E.V. Howard. 2006. Attitudes on using pair-programming. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, Vol. 35, 1 (Sept. 2006), 89--103.
[22]
N. Katira, L. Williams, and J. Osborne. 2005. Towards increasing the compatibility of student pair programmers. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on software engineering. IEEE, St. Louis, MO, 625--626.
[23]
N. Katira, L. Williams, E. Wiebe, C. Miller, S. Balik, and E. Gehringer. 2004. On understanding compatibility of student pair programmers. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education . Norfolk, VA, 7--11.
[24]
S. Krieger, M. Allen, and C. Rawn. 2015. Are females disinclined to tinker in computer science?. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - SIGCSE '15 . ACM Press, Kansas City, MO, 102--107.
[25]
K.J. Lehman, L.J. Sax, and H.B. Zimmerman. 2016. Women planning to major in computer science: Who are they and what makes them unique? Computer Science Education, Vol. 26, 4 (Dec. 2016), 277--298.
[26]
C. McDowell, L. Werner, H.E. Bullock, and J. Fernald. 2006. Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Commun. ACM, Vol. 49, 8 (Aug. 2006), 90--95.
[27]
E. Mendes, L. Al-Fakhri, and A. Luxton-Reilly. 2006. A replicated experiment of pair-programming in a 2nd--year software development and design computer science course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 38, 3 (2006), 108--112.
[28]
N. Nagappan, L. Williams, M. Ferzli, E. Wiebe, K. Yang, C. Miller, and S. Balik. 2003. Improving the CS1 experience with pair programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 35, 1 (2003), 359--362.
[29]
F.R. Prinsen, M.L.L. Volman, and J. Terwel. 2007. Gender-related differences in computer-mediated communication and computer-supported collaborative learning: Gender-related differences in CMC and CSCL . Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 23, 5 (Feb. 2007), 393--409.
[30]
S.W. Raudenbush and A.S. Bryk. 2002. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods 2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
[31]
L.J. Sax, K.J. Lehman, J.A. Jacobs, M.A. Kanny, G. Lim, L. Monje-Paulson, and H.B. Zimmerman. 2017. Anatomy of an enduring gender gap: The evolution of women's participation in computer science. The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 88, 2 (March 2017), 258--293.
[32]
S. Schiller, F. Nah, B. Mennecke, and K. Siau. 2011. Gender differences in virtual collaboration on a creative design task. In ICIS 2011 Proceedings.
[33]
J. Sinclair and S. Kalvala. 2015. Exploring societal factors affecting the experience and engagement of first year female computer science undergraduates. In Proceedings of the 15th Koli Calling Conference on Computing Education Research - Koli Calling '15 . ACM Press, Koli, Finland, 107--116.
[34]
L. Thomas, M. Ratcliffe, and A. Robertson. 2003. Code warriors and code-a-phobes: A study in attitude and pair programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 35, 1 (2003), 363--367.
[35]
J. Underwood, G. Underwood, and D. Wood. 2000. When does gender matter? Interactions during computer-based problem solving. Learning and Instruction, Vol. 10, 5 (2000), 447--462.
[36]
A. Vitores and A. Gil-Juarez. 2016. The trouble with 'women in computing': A critical examination of the deployment of research on the gender gap in computer science. Journal of Gender Studies, Vol. 25, 6 (Nov. 2016), 666--680.
[37]
L.L. Werner, B. Hanks, and C. McDowell. 2004. Pair-programming helps female computer science students. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, Vol. 4, 1 (March 2004), 1--8.
[38]
E.N. Wiebe, L. Williams, J. Petlick, N. Nagappan, S. Balik, C. Miller, and M. Ferzli. 2003. Pair programming in introductory programming labs. In Proceedings Submitted to the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition (Washington, DC).
[39]
L. Williams and R. Kessler. 2002. Pair programming illuminated .Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.
[40]
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. IEEE Comput. Soc, Rome, Italy, 143--152.

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Assessing gender bias in the software used in computer science and software engineering educationJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2024.112225219:COnline publication date: 1-Jan-2025
  • (2024)Exploring Gender Pairing in Programming Education: Impact on Programming Self-Efficacy and Collaboration Attitudes in a Developing Country’s Rural Primary SchoolACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/3698110Online publication date: 27-Sep-2024
  • (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
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. A Large-Scale Experimental Study of Gender and Pair Composition in Pair Programming

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ITiCSE '19: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education
July 2019
583 pages
ISBN:9781450368957
DOI:10.1145/3304221
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

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 02 July 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. collaborative learning
  2. college students
  3. computer science
  4. experimental research
  5. gender
  6. pair characteristics
  7. pair incompatibility
  8. pair programming
  9. randomized controlled trial
  10. student outcomes
  11. university students
  12. women in computing

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

ITiCSE '19
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 552 of 1,613 submissions, 34%

Upcoming Conference

ITiCSE '25
Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education
June 27 - July 2, 2025
Nijmegen , Netherlands

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)178
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)26
Reflects downloads up to 14 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Assessing gender bias in the software used in computer science and software engineering educationJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2024.112225219:COnline publication date: 1-Jan-2025
  • (2024)Exploring Gender Pairing in Programming Education: Impact on Programming Self-Efficacy and Collaboration Attitudes in a Developing Country’s Rural Primary SchoolACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/3698110Online publication date: 27-Sep-2024
  • (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
  • (2024)Exploring Gender Bias In Remote Pair Programming Among Software Engineering Students: The twincode Original Study And First External ReplicationEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-023-10416-629:2Online publication date: 1-Feb-2024
  • (2023)Women and Gender Disparities in Computer Science: A Case Study at the University of PaduaProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Information Technology for Social Good10.1145/3582515.3609521(82-91)Online publication date: 6-Sep-2023
  • (2023)Structuring Collaboration in Programming Through Personal-SpacesExtended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544549.3585630(1-7)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
  • (2023)The ABC of Pair Programming: Gender-dependent Attitude, Behavior and Code of Young Learners2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training (ICSE-SEET)10.1109/ICSE-SEET58685.2023.00018(115-127)Online publication date: May-2023
  • (2022)Gender and pair programming–Effects of the gender composition of pairs on collaboration in a robotics workshopFrontiers in Education10.3389/feduc.2022.9736747Online publication date: 8-Aug-2022
  • (2022)AN ANALYSIS OF URM STEM STUDENTS' GPAs RELATIVE TO GOOD TEACHING PRACTICESJournal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.202103354628:5(1-24)Online publication date: 2022
  • (2022)Why Students Drop Computing Science: Using Models of Motivation to Understand Student Attrition and RetentionProceedings of the 22nd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3564721.3564733(1-6)Online publication date: 17-Nov-2022
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media