More Effective Contextualization of CS Education Research: A Pair-Programming Example
Authors: 
Briana Bettin, 
Linda Ott, Leo UreelAuthors Info & Claims
Briana Bettin, Linda Ott, Leo UreelAuthors Info & ClaimsPages 182 - 188
Abstract
This position paper discusses the need for greater inclusion of context in papers describing computer science education research. This inspiration arose from our efforts to compare our experiences with pair programming in an introductory computer science course with experiences described in the literature. We quickly observed that the behaviors associated with the term "pair programming" and the contexts can differ greatly between universities and yet the phrase pair programming is often used with no further explanation.
A brief literature survey is used to demonstrate differences in the implementation of pair programming and the context that might impact the results. We identify attributes that are likely appropriate for much CS education research, as well as specifically consider relevant attributes for research involving pair programming. This anchors our paper and demonstrates specific attributes that require consideration beyond the general computer science classroom.
Our goal is to foster conversations on providing appropriate context in computer science education research. We argue that by providing such context, studies can be more easily replicated or distinguished, a greater understanding of attributes influencing the research can be gained, and other educators can more easily determine the relevance of the research to their classroom environment.
References
[1]
Kent Beck. 2000. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison- Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA.
[2]
Briana. Bettin, Jamie L. Berger, Sarah. Larkin, and Leo. Ureel. 2018. Enforcing Positive Pair Programming by Shattering Student Perceptions. Poster presentation at the 2018 Grace Hopper Celebration for Women in Computing.
[3]
Maura Borrego, Stephanie Cutler, Michael Prince, Charles Henderson, and Jeffrey E. Froyd. 2013. Fidelity of Implementation of Research-Based Instructional Strategies (RBIS) in Engineering Science Courses. Journal of Engineering Education 102, 3 (2013), 394--425.
[4]
Sallyann Bryant. 2005. Rating expertise in collaborative software development. In in Proc. PPIG. PPIG, University of Sussex, Brighton, 19--29.
[5]
Jan Chong and Tom Hurlbutt. 2007. The Social Dynamics of Pair Programming. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE '07). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 354--363.
[6]
Katelyn M. Cooper and Sara E. Brownell. 2016. Coming Out in Class: Challenges and Benefits of Active Learning in a Biology Classroom for LGBTQIA Students. CBE-Life Sciences Education 15, 3 (2016), ar37. 27543636.
[7]
Brian Hanks. 2005. Student Performance in CS1 with Distributed Pair Programming. SIGCSE Bull. 37, 3 (June 2005), 316--320.
[8]
Lucas Layman. 2006. Changing Students' Perceptions: An Analysis of the Supplementary Benefits of Collaborative Software Development. In Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training (CSEET '06). IEEE Computer Society,Washington, DC, USA, 159--166.
[9]
Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Simon, Ibrahim Albluwi, Brett A. Becker, Michail Giannakos, Amruth N. Kumar, Linda Ott, James Paterson, Michael James Scott, Judy Sheard, and Claudia Szabo. 2018. A Review of Introductory Programming Research 2003--2017. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2018). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 342--343.
[10]
Ian McChesney. 2016. Three Years of Student Pair Programming: Action Research Insights and Outcomes. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 84--89.
[11]
Charlie McDowell, Linda Werner, Heather E. Bullock, and Julian Fernald. 2006. Pair Programming Improves Student Retention, Confidence, and Program Quality. Commun. ACM 49, 8 (Aug. 2006), 90--95.
[12]
Scott A. Myers. 2012. Students' Perceptions of Classroom Group Work as a Function of Group Member Selection. Communication Teacher 26, 1 (2012), 50--64.
[13]
Leo Porter, Mark Guzdial, Charlie McDowell, and Beth Simon. 2013. Success in Introductory Programming: What Works? Commun. ACM 56, 8 (Aug. 2013), 34--36.
[14]
N. Salleh, E. Mendes, J. Grundy, and G. S. J. Burch. 2009. An empirical study of the effects of personality in pair programming using the five-factor model. In 2009 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. IEEE Computer Society,Washington, DC, USA, 214--225.
[15]
Allison Scott, Alexis Martin, Frieda McAlear, and Sonia Koshy. 2017. Broadening Participation in Computing: Examining Experiences of Girls of Color. ACM Inroads 8, 4 (Oct. 2017), 48--52.
[16]
Beth Simon and Brian Hanks. 2008. First-year Students' Impressions of Pair Programming in CS1. J. Educ. Resour. Comput. 7, 4, Article 5 (Jan. 2008), 28 pages.
[17]
Marilyne Stains and Trisha Vickrey. 2017. Fidelity of Implementation: An Overlooked Yet Critical Construct to Establish Effectiveness of Evidence-Based Instructional Practices. CBE life sciences education 16 (02 2017), rm1.
[18]
Elli J. Theobald, Sarah L. Eddy, Daniel Z. Grunspan, Benjamin L. Wiggins, and Alison J. Crowe. 2017. Student perception of group dynamics predicts individual performance: Comfort and equity matter. PLOS ONE 12, 7 (07 2017), 1--16.
[19]
Lynda Thomas, Mark Ratcliffe, and Ann Robertson. 2003. Code Warriors and Code-a-phobes: A Study in Attitude and Pair Programming. In Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 363--367.
[20]
Chandra Turpen, Melissa Dancy, and Charles Henderson. 2016. Perceived affordances and constraints regarding instructors' use of Peer Instruction: Implications for promoting instructional change. Physical Review Physics Education Research 12 (02 2016).
[21]
Nanette Veilleux, Rebecca Bates, Cheryl Allendoerfer, Diane Jones, Joyous Crawford, and Tamara Floyd Smith. 2013. The Relationship Between Belonging and Ability in Computer Science. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 65--70.
[22]
Emily M. Walter, Charles R. Henderson, Andrea L. Beach, and Cody T. Williams. 2016. Introducing the Postsecondary Instructional Practices Survey (PIPS): A Concise, Interdisciplinary, and Easy-to-Score Survey. CBE-Life Sciences Education 15, 4 (2016), ar53. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-09-0193 27810868.
[23]
Linda L. Werner, Brian Hanks, and Charlie McDowell. 2004. Pair-programming Helps Female Computer Science Students. J. Educ. Resour. Comput. 4, 1, Article 4 (March 2004), 8 pages.
[24]
Laurie Williams. 2007. Lessons Learned from Seven Years of Pair Programming at North Carolina State University. SIGCSE Bull. 39, 4 (Dec. 2007), 79--83.
[25]
Laurie Williams and Robert Kessler. 2000. Experiments with Industry's "Pair- Programming" Model in the Computer Science Classroom. IEEE Software - SOFTWARE 11 (01 2000), 11.
[26]
Laurie Williams, Lucas Layman, Jason Osborne, and Neha Katira. 2006. Examining the Compatibility of Student Pair Programmers. In Proceedings of the Conference on AGILE 2006 (AGILE '06). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 411-- 420.
[27]
Krissi Wood, Dale Parsons, Joy Gasson, and Patricia Haden. 2013. It's Never Too Early: Pair Programming in CS1. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference - Volume 136 (ACE '13). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 13--21. http://dl.acm.org/citation. cfm?id=2667199.2667201
[28]
Murat Yilmaz, Rory V. OConnor, Ricardo Colomo-Palacios, and Paul Clarke. 2017. An Examination of Personality Traits and How They Impact on Software Development Teams. Inf. Softw. Technol. 86, C (June 2017), 101--122.
Index Terms
- More Effective Contextualization of CS Education Research: A Pair-Programming Example
Recommendations
Computer Science Education in North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany—A Case Study
Special Issue II on Computer Science Education in K-12 SchoolsIn North-Rhine Westphalia, the most populated state in Germany, Computer Science (CS) has been taught in secondary schools since the early 1970s. This article provides an overview of the past and current situation of CS education in North-Rhine ...
Two Teachers, Two Perspectives on CS Principles
SIGCSE '16: Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science EducationThis paper reports on an investigative, qualitative case study of the teaching practices of two public high school Computer Science teachers as they teach courses that are fully or partially aligned with the CS Principles framework. One teaches at an ...
Program quality with pair programming in CS1
Prior research on pair programming has found that compared to students who work alone, students who pair have shown increased confidence in their work, greater success in CS1, and greater retention in computer-related majors. In these earlier studies, ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
July 2019
583 pages
ISBN:9781450368957
DOI:10.1145/3304221
- General Chairs:
- Bruce Scharlau,
- Roger McDermott,
- Program Chairs:
- Arnold Pears,
- Mihaela Sabin
Copyright © 2019 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]
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 02 July 2019
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
ITiCSE '19
Sponsor:
ITiCSE '19: Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education
July 15 - 17, 2019
Aberdeen, Scotland Uk
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 552 of 1,613 submissions, 34%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 173Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)14
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 23 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in