Abstract
Pair programming is a technique in which two students collaborate on programming tasks. This study aimed to investigate attitudes, toward pair programming with a focus on anxiety, motivation, stress, and efficiency. The sample population consisted of 168 students from three primary schools in Vojvodina (Serbia). The students were aged 6.5–11 years and used a visual programming language for programming at school. In the classrooms the students were randomly divided into two groups; one group worked individually while the other group practiced pair programming. Traditional teaching methods were applied to the control group, while the experimental group used the pair programming method. The control group consisted of 82 students, whereas the experimental group included 86 students. The experimental group comprised 15–15 good students, 14 good − 14 weaker students, and 14 weaker − 14 lowest-skilled students To assess stress and motivation levels, a scaled questionnaire based on a five-point Likert scale was administered. Additionally, observations were made to evaluate effectiveness. Our results confirmed that pair programming increases efficiency but did not reveal a significant difference in the level of anxiety, stress, and motivation between individual programmers and those working in pairs. It seems that variations in efficiency are unrelated to individual students’ abilities. This finding could have implications for promoting and adopting pair programming, in systems. Given that the emotional impact of pair programming may vary among students, it is crucial to research to gain a comprehensive understanding of its outcomes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The corresponding author confirms that all data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1H5_OojdFfqUDJfazFR0x7qVarZKSRiLW?usp=sharing.
References
Abiodun, T. O., Asanre, A. A., Ogundeji, M. A., Odupe, T. A., & Rasaki, M. G. (2022). Effect of think-pair-share strategy on student achievement in senior secondary school mathematics. Faculty of Natural and Applied Sciences Journal of Mathematics, and Science Education, 3(2), 20–25. Retrieved from https://fnasjournals.com/index.php/FNAS-JMSE/article/view/53 (2023.04.01.).
Asad, K., Tibi, M., & Raiyn, J. (2016). Primary School pupils’ attitudes toward Learning Programming through Visual interactive environments. World Journal of Education, 6(5), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v6n5p20.
Ayebale, L., Habaasa, G., & Tweheyo, S. (2020). Factors affecting students’ achievement in mathematics in secondary schools in develo** countries: A rapid systematic review. Statistical Journal of the IAOS, 36(S1), 73–76. https://doi.org/10.3233/SJI-200713.
Banović, J., & Pavlović, D. (2021). Information and Communication Technology Skills among the Working Population of Serbia. Institute of Economic Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia. 118–127. https://doi.org/10.28934/ea.21.54.2.pp118-127.
Bartlett, R., Wright, T., Olarinde, T., Holmes, T., Beamon, E. R., & Wallace, D. (2017). Schools as sites for recruiting participants and implementing research. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 34(2), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370016.2017.1304146.
Benton, L., Hoyles, C., Kalas, I., & Noss, R. (2016). Mathematical Knowledge with Programming: Insights from the ScratchMaths Project. In Constructionism in Action 2016: Conference Proceedings; Suksapattana Foundation: Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 26–33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295912532_Building_mathematical_knowledge_with_programming_insights_from_the_ScratchMaths_project (2023.03.10.).
Benton, L., Saunders, P., Kalas, I., Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2018). Designing for learning mathematics through programming: A case study of pupils engaging with place value. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 16, 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.12.004.
Beszédes, V. (2018). Közösségek a művelődés és képzés világában - Képesítési keretrendszer szerbiában – egy állomás az európai integráció folyamatában. Acta Andragogiae et Culturae sorozat 28. kötet. 0209–9608, 15–34. https://mek.oszk.hu/20900/20909/20909.pdf (2024.04.27.).
Bodaker, L., & Rosenberg-Kima, R. B. (2023). Online pair-programming: Elementary school children learning scratch together online. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 55(5), 799–816. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2022.2036653.
Botella, C., Rueda, S., López-Iñesta, E., & Marzal, P. (2019). Gender Diversity in STEM Disciplines: A Multiple Factor Problem. Entropy 2019, 21(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/e21010030.
Brereton, P., Turner, M., & Kaur, R. (2009). Pair programming as a teaching tool: A student review of empirical studies. Proceedings – 22nd Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, CSEET 2009, 240–247. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSEET.2009.11.
Buabbas, A. J., Hasan, H., & Buabbas, M. A. (2021). The associations between smart device use and psychological distress among secondary and highschool students in Kuwait. PLoSONE16(6): e0251479https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251479.
Cakıroglu, U., & Mumcu, S. (2020). Focus-Fight-finalize (3F): Problem-solving steps extracted from behavioral patterns in Block based programming. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(7), 1279–1310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120930673.
Calder, N. (2010). Using Scratch: An Integrated Problem- Solving Approach to Mathematical Thinking. APMC, 15(4), 9–14. https://primarystandards.aamt.edu.au/Journals (2023.04.06.).
Campe, S., Denner, J., Green, E., & Torres, D. (2020). Pair programming in middle school: Variations in interactions and behaviors. Computer Science Education, 30(1), 22–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1648119.
Chand, S., Chaudhary, K. C., Prasad, A., & Chand, V. (2021). Perceived causes of students’ poor performance in mathematics: A Case Study at Ba and Tavua secondary schools. Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 7, NA. https://doi.org/10.3389/fams.2021.614408.
Cliburn, D. C. (2003). Experiences with pair programming at a small college. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 19(1), 20–29. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/948737.948741 (2023.03.11.).
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (2010). Flow-Az áramlat. A tökéletes élmény pszichológiája. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
Denner, J., Werner, L., Campe, S., & Ortiz, E. (2014). Pair programming: Under what conditions is it advantageous for middle school students? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(3), 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2014.888272.
Dicke, T., Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W., Kunter, M., Schmeck, A., & Leutner, D. (2014). Self-efficacy in classroom management, classroom disturbances, and emotional exhaustion: A moderated mediation analysis of teacher candidates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 569–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035504.
Domino, M. A., Collins, R. W., & Hevner, A. R. (2007). Controlled experimentation on adaptations of pair programming. Information Technology and Management, 8(4), 297–312. https://springer.longhoe.net/article/10.1007/s10799-007-0016-8 (2023.02.28.).
Dongo, T. A., Reed, A. H., & O’Hara, M. T. (2016). Exploring pair programming benefits for MIS majors. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 15, 223–239. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1126070 (2023.05.02.).
Fagerlund, J., Vesisenaho, M., & Häkkinen, P. (2022). Fourth grade students’ computational thinking in pair programming with scratch: A holistic case analysis. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 33(2022), 100511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100511.
Foerster, K. T. (2016). Integrating Programming into the Mathematics Curriculum: Combining Scratch and Geometry in Grades 6 and 7. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education (SIGITE’ 16), edited by D. Boisvert and S. Zilora, 91–96. New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2978192.2978222.
García, V. (2023). Analysis of the Learning Process of Computer Programming Logic in an 8-Year-old Elementary School Student at Home through the scratch program. Digital, 4(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.3390/digital4010002.
García-Perales, R., & Palomares-Ruiz, A. (2020). Education in Programming and Mathematical Learning: Functionality of a Programming Language in Educational Processes. Sustainability, 12 23, p10129 15p. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310129.
Goel, S., & Kathuria, V. (2010). A novel approach for collaborative pair programming. Journal of Information Technology Education, 9, 183–196. https://doi.org/10.28945/1290.
Helminen, E. C., Zhang, X., Clawson, A. J., Morton, M. L., Cary, E. L., Sinegar, S. E., Janack, P., & Felver, J. C. (2022). Stress-buffering effects of Mindfulness Programming for adolescents in Schools during periods of High- and low-stress. ECNU Review of Education, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311221100563.
Hsu, T. C., Chang, S. C., & Hung, Y. T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126(1), 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004.
Huang, F., Huang, Z., Li, Z., & Zhang, M. (2021). Relationship between parental involvement and mathematics achievement of Chinese early adolescents: Multiple mediating roles of Mental Health and mathematics self-efficacy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(18), 9565. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189565.
Iskrenović-Momčilović, O. (2019). Pair programming with scratch. Education and Information Technologies, 24(5), 2943–2952. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09905-3.
Israel, M., Pearson, J. N., Tapia, T., Wherfel, Q. M., & Reese, G. (2015). Supporting all learners in school-wide computational thinking: A cross-case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education. 2015, 82:263–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.022.
Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2015). Constructionist gaming: Understanding the benefits of making games for Learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1124022.
Kong, S. C., Chiu, M. M., & Lai, M. (2018). A study of primary school students’ interest, collaboration attitude, and programming empowerment in computational thinking education. Computers & Education, 127, 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.026.
Lambić, D., Đorić, B., & Ivakić, S. (2021). Investigating the effect of the use of code.org on younger elementary school students’ attitudes towards programming. Behaviour & Information Technology, 40(16), p1784–1795. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1781931. 3 Charts.
Lee, J. Y., Oh, S. Y., & Kim, S. B. (2016). A pair programming scheme for an educational programming language. Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 137, 139–143. https://doi.org/10.14257/astl.2016.137.26.
Liebenberg, J., Mentz, E., & Breed, B. (2012). Pair programming and secondary school girls’ enjoyment of programming and the subject information technology (IT). Computer Science Education, 22(3), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2012.713180.
Lindberg, R. S. N., Laine, T. H., & Haaranen, L. (2019). Gamifying programming education in K-12: A review of programming curricula in seven countries and programming games. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4), 1979–1995. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12685.
Lockwood, J., & Mooney, A. (2017). Computational thinking in education: Where does it fit? A systematic literary review. Computer Science - Computers and Society. https://doi.org/10.48550/ar**v.1703.07659.
Lui, K. M., & Chan, K. C. C. (2006). Pair programming productivity: Novice–novice vs. expert–expert. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(9), 915–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.04.010.
Maamin, M., Maat, S. M., & Iksan, Z. H. (2021). Analysis of the factors that influence mathematics achievement in the ASEAN countries. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 16(1), 371–388. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v16i1.5535.
Mabena, N., Mokgosi, P. N., & Ramapela, S. S. (2021). Factors contributing to poor Learner Performance in mathematics: A case of selected schools in Mpumalanga Province. South Africa. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 79(3), 451–466. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/21.79.451.
Mizala, A., Martínez, F., & Martínez, S. (2015). Pre-service Elementary School teachers’ expectations about Student Performance: How their beliefs are affected by their Mathematics anxiety and Student’s gender. Teaching and Teacher Education, 50, 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.04.006.
Montiel-Cabello, H., & Gomez-Zermeño, M. G. (2021). Educational challenges for Computational thinking in K–12 education: A systematic literature review of scratch as an innovative programming Tool. Computers, 10, 669. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10060069.
Mueller, M., Yankelewitz, D., & Maher, C. (2011). Sense making as motivation in doing mathematics: Results from two studies. The Mathematics Educator, 20(2), 33–43. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ923723 (2023.04.12.).
NCWIT (2013). Pair programming-in-a-box: The power of collaborative learning. Retrieved November 2013, from National Center for Women & Information Technology: www.ncwit.org/pairprogramming.
Odogwu, A., & Aliogo, U. B. (2015). Attitude as correlate of student academic achievement in Mathematics at the Senior Secondary School Level in Delta State. Journal for Studies in Management and Planning, 1, 153–160.
P´erez-Marín, D., Hijon-Neira, R., Bacelo, A., & Pizarro, C. (2020). Can computational thinking be improved by using a methodology based on metaphors and scratch to teach computer programming to children? Computers in Human Behavior, 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.027.
Papavlasopoulou, S., Sharma, K., & Giannakos, M. N. (2018). How do you feel about learning to Code? Investigating the effect of children’s attitudes towards coding using Eye-Tracking. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 17, 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.01.004.
Preston, D. (2005). Pair programming as a model of collaborative learning: A review of the research. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 20(4), 39–45. https://repository.nie.edu.sg/bitstream/10497/23207/1/APSCE-2021-2.pdf (2023.03.21.).
Psycharis, S., & Kallia, M. (2017). The effects of computer programming on high school students’ reasoning skills and mathematical self-efficacy and problem solving. Instructional Science, 45(5), 583–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9421-5.
Salleh, N., Mendes, E., & Grundy, J. (2014). Investigating the effects of personality traits on pair programming in a higher education setting through a family of experiments. Empirical Software Engineering, 19(3), 714–752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-012-9238-4. Cited 42 times.
Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Sánchez Viveros, B. (2020). A meta-analysis of teaching and learning computer programming: Effective instructional approaches and conditions. Computers in Human Behavior, 109, 106349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106349.
Shute, V. J., Utami, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003.
Sun, D., Ouyang, F., Li, Y., & Chen, H. (2021). Three contrasting pairs’ collaborative programming processes in China’s secondary education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(4), 740–762. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120973430.
Tkalich, A., Moe, N. B., Andersen, N. H., Stray, V., & Barbala, A. M. (2023). PP in Hybrid Work—Data and Research Materials. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.8087197.
Ukobizaba, F., Nizeyimana, G., & Mukuka, A. (2021). Assessment Strategies for Enhancing Students’ Mathematical Problem-solving skills: A review of literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 17(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9728.
Upreti, K., Kushwah, V. S., Vats, P., Alam, M. S., Singhai, R., Jain, D., & Tiwari, A. (2024). A SWOT analysis of integrating cognitive and non-cognitive learning strategies in education. European Journal of Education, e12614. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12614.
Utami, S., & Ghufron, A. (2024). A critical Appraisal: Elementary School Coding Education Effectiveness with scratch in alignment with Cognitive Development, analyzed through Piagetian Lens. Journal of Electrical Systems, 20(5s), 1180–1187. https://doi.org/10.52783/jes.2432.
Wastiau, P., Blamire, R., Kearney, C., Quittre, V., Gaer, E., & Monseur, C. (2013). The Use of ICT in Education: A survey of schools in Europe. European Journal of Education, 48, 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12020.
Wei, X., Lin, L., Meng, N., Tan, W., Kong, S-C., & Kinshuk (2021). The effectiveness of partial pair programming on elementary school students’ computational thinking skills and self-efficacy. Computers & Education, 160, 104023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104023.
Werner, L., & Denning, J. (2009). Pair programming in Middle School. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782540.
Williams, L., Kessler, R. R., Cunningham, W., & Jeffries, R. (2000). Strengthening the Case for Pair Programming. IEEE SOFTWARE, 17(4): 19–25. https://collaboration.csc.ncsu.edu/laurie/Papers/ieeeSoftware.PDF. (2023.03.10.).
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communication ACM 2006, 49:3, 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215.
Xu, F., & Correia, A. P. (2023). Adopting distributed pair programming as an effective team learning activity: A systematic review. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-023-09356-3.
Yadav, A., Mayfield, C., Zhou, N., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2014). Computational thinking in Elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Trans Comput Educ, 14(5), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/2576872.
Yatab, R. S., & Shahrill, M. (2014). The differing views in using the common assessment tasks in secondary school science. International Journal of Science and Research, 3(7), 685–693. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Masitah-Shahrill-2/publication/266145367_The_Differing_Views_in_using_the_Common_Assessment_Tasks_in_Secondary_School_Science/links/542831600cf238c6ea7cd28d/The-Differing-Views-in-using-the-Common-Assessment-Tasks-in-Secondary-School-Science.pdf (2023.04.10.).
Yildiz Durak, H. (2018). Digital story design activities used for teaching programming effect on learning of programming concepts, programming self-efficacy, and participation and analysis of student experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(6), 740–752. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12281.
Zhong, B., Wang, Q., & Chen, J. (2016). The impact of social factors on pair programming in a primary school. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 423–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.017.
Zhong, B., Wang, Q., Chen, J., & Li, Y. (2017). Investigating the period of switching roles in pair programming in a primary school. Educational Technology and Society, 20, 220–233. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26196132 (2023.04.18.).
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grants from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Krizsan, T., Lambic, D. Examining the impact of pair programming on efficiency, motivation, and stress among students of different skills and abilities in lower grades in elementary schools. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12859-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12859-w