Empirical research on pair programming in higher education: a literature review

Facilitating Group Learning Using an Apprenticeship Model: Which Master is More Effective in Programming Instruction?

“…It also confirms the assertion of Morgenroth et al (2015) that the ideal role model for students is slightly older and more advanced in the field. Therefore, although PP is better than solo programming (Hawlitschek et al, 2022), it is not the best option when it comes to group learning pedagogies. According to (Garcia et al, 2022b).…”

“…The first week was allotted for the course and experiment orientations and review of the prerequisite course with individual programming activities while the last week was allocated for the group project presentations and final examination. Following the guidelines from previous studies (e.g., Hawlitschek et al, 2022; Wilson & Varma-Nelson, 2016), three custom instructional guides were prepared to outline the delivery of each group learning strategy. In terms of group size, the ratio of master to student is 1:2 for PP ( n = 25 pairs), 1:5 for PLTL ( n = 10 groups), and 1:10 for PAGL ( n = 5 groups).…”

“…In that case, the higher-skilled partner would tend to overlook the suggestions by the lower-skilled partner and the lower-skilled partner would simply concur with any approach proposed by the higher-skilled partner (Hanks et al, 2011). Thus, Hawlitschek et al (2022) recommend that teachers should monitor collaborative work to ensure equal participation and meaningful interaction, especially if students are novices. Following the fundamental reason for active learning hesitancy (i.e., laborious work for monitoring several groups simultaneously), this recommendation warrants further investigation of other group learning strategies in which each group receives equal attention and guided instruction from someone knowledgeable on the topic.…”

“…In educational settings, PP is frequently used in teaching a wide range of programming courses and languages from basic to advanced levels making it a subject of considerable investigation (e.g., Bodaker & Rosenberg-Kima, 2022; Demir & Seferoglu, 2020). Hawlitschek et al (2022) analyzed empirical studies ( n = 61) on the implementation of PP in higher education published between 2010 and 2020 and reported positive effects in comparison with solo programming. In addition, students under PP arrangements exhibited more confidence in their skills, better performance in assessments, and a higher probability of course completion.…”

Multimodal learning analytics of collaborative patterns during pair programming in higher education

“…Pair programming (PP), as a mode of CPS in computer programming education, requires two students engage in a coordinated way to solve programming problems and complete complex programming tasks (Bryant et al, 2006;Denner et al, 2021). Recently, PP has been widely used as a learning approach in higher education to promote active learning (Hawlitschek et al, 2022). PP emphasizes that knowledge is not considered as predefined and structural information delivered from instructors but is explored and constructed by students during the collaborative process of programming and debugging (Sun et al, 2020).…”