Eşli programlamanın problem çözme becerisi ve motivasyona etkisi

Abstract

This study primarily investigates the effects of solo and pair programming on students’ problem-solving skills and motivation. Additionally, it aims to identify key factors and tensions associated with pair programming based on students’ reflections. An embedded mixed-methods research design was employed. The sample consisted of 42 undergraduate students. Participants in the control group, comprising 19 students, worked individually on computational tasks, while those in the experimental group engaged in the same tasks in pairs. All participants took part in computational thinking activities over seven weeks, structured around game development projects. Data were collected through questionnaires and in-depth interviews. The results indicated no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of overall motivation and problem-solving scores. However, the experimental group scored higher in the sub-dimension related to conceptualizing problems through modeling. Student motivation was found to be high across both groups following the intervention, regardless of the programming mode. After analyzing the qualitative data obtained from five students, a total of 122 codes were identified and categorized under six themes: 'team dynamics', 'task and platform characteristics', 'affective domain', 'cognitive strategies and problem-solving', 'pedagogical framework', and 'roles'. The qualitative findings suggest that the pedagogical benefits of pair programming can only be fully realized through the effective management of pairing strategies, peer communication, task difficulty, and collaborative processes

Keywords

• Eşli programlama
• Motivasyon
• Öğrenci yansımaları
• Problem-çözme becerisi
• Tekli programlama.

The Impact of Solo and Pair Programming Modes on Problem-solving Skills and Motivation: Students' Reflections on Pair Programming

Abstract

This study primarily investigates the effects of solo and pair programming on students’ problem-solving skills and motivation. Additionally, it aims to identify key factors and tensions associated with pair programming based on students’ reflections. An embedded mixed-methods research design was employed. The sample consisted of 42 undergraduate students. Participants in the control group, comprising 19 students, worked individually on computational tasks, while those in the experimental group engaged in the same tasks in pairs. All participants took part in computational thinking activities over seven weeks, structured around game development projects. Data were collected through questionnaires and in-depth interviews. The results indicated no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of overall motivation and problem-solving scores. However, the experimental group scored higher in the sub-dimension related to conceptualizing problems through modeling. Student motivation was found to be high across both groups following the intervention, regardless of the programming mode. After analyzing the qualitative data obtained from five students, a total of 122 codes were identified and categorized under six themes: 'team dynamics', 'task and platform characteristics', 'affective domain', 'cognitive strategies and problem-solving', 'pedagogical framework', and 'roles'. The qualitative findings suggest that the pedagogical benefits of pair programming can only be fully realized through the effective management of pairing strategies, peer communication, task difficulty, and collaborative processes

Keywords

• Motivation
• Pair programming
• Problem-solving skill
• Solo programming
• Student reflections

References

1. Alammary, A. (2019). Blended learning models for introductory programming courses: A systematic review. PLOS ONE, 14(9), e0221765. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221765
2. Alturki, R. A. (2016). Measuring and improving student performance in an introductory programming course. Informatics in Education, 15(2), 183-204. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2016.10
3. Baheti, P., Gehringer, E., & Stotts, D. (2002). Exploring the efficacy of distributed pair programming. In D. Wells & L. Williams (Eds.), Extreme programming and agile methods–XP/agile universe 2002 (pp. 208-220). Springer Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45672-4_20
4. Balijepally, V., Mahapatra, R., Nerur, S., & Price, K. H. (2009). Are two heads better than one for software development? The productivity paradox of pair programming. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 91-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20650280
5. Bishop-Clark, C., Courte, J., & Howard, E. V. (2006). Programming in pairs with Alice to improve confidence, enjoyment, and achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 213-228.
6. 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
7. Bowman, N. A., Jarratt, L., Culver, K. C., & Segre, A. M. (2020). Pair programming in perspective: Effects on persistence, achievement, and equity in computer science. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(4), 731-758. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2020.1799464
8. Chorfi, A., Hedjazi, D., Aouag, S., & Boubiche, D. (2020). Problem-based collaborative learning groupware to improve computer programming skills. Behaviour & Information Technology, 41(1), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1795263

9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum Press.
10. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Press.
11. Çal, H., & Can, G. (2020). The influence of pair programming on secondary school students’ confidence and achievement in computer programming. Trakya Journal of Education, 10(1), 221-237. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.575098
12. Çınar, M., & Tüzün, H. (2021). Comparison of object-oriented and robot programming activities: The effects of programming modality on student achievement, abstraction, problem solving, and motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(2), 370-386. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12495
13. Çiftci, S., & Bildiren, A. (2020). The effect of coding courses on the cognitive abilities and problem-solving skills of preschool children. Computer Science Education, 30(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1696169
14. Demir, Ö., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2017, October 11-13). Examination of pair programming as a reflection of cooperative problem solving on teaching programming [Paper presentation]. ITTES 2017, İzmir, Türkiye.
15. Demir, Ö., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2021a). A comparison of solo and pair programming in terms of flow experience, coding quality, and coding achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(8), 1448-1466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120949788
16. Demir, Ö., & Seferoglu, S. S. (2021b). The effect of determining pair programming groups according to various individual difference variables on group compatibility, flow, and coding performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(1), 41-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120949787
17. Demirkıran, M. C., & Hocanin, F. T. (2021). An investigation on primary school students’ dispositions towards programming with game-based learning. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 3871-3892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10430-5
18. Denner, J., Green, E., & Campe, S. (2021). Learning to program in middle school: How pair programming helps and hinders intrepid exploration. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 30(4-5), 611-645. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2021.1939028
19. 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
20. Dybå, T., Arisholm, E., Sjoberg, D. I. K., Hannay, J. E., & Shull, F. (2007). Are two heads better than one? On the effectiveness of pair programming. IEEE Software, 24(6), 12-15. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2007.158
21. Fanchamps, N., Slangen, L., Hennissen, P., & Specht, M. (2021). The influence of SRA programming on algorithmic thinking and self-efficacy using Lego robotics in two types of instruction. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(2), 203-222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09559-9
22. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). The McGraw-Hill Press.
23. Groothuijsen, S., van den Beemt, A., Remmers, J. C., & van Meeuwen, L. W. (2024). AI chatbots in programming education: Students’ use in a scientific computing course and consequences for learning. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, Article e100290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100290
24. Hahn, J. H., Mentz, E., & Meyer, L. (2009). Assessment strategies for pair programming. Journal of Information Technology Education-Research, 8, 273-284.
25. Hanks, B., Fitzgerald, S., McCauley, R., Murphy, L., & Zander, C. (2011). Pair programming in education: A literature review. Computer Science Education, 21(2), 135-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2011.579808
26. Harsley, R., Fossati, D., Di Eugenio, B., Green, N. (2017, March 8). Interactions of individual and pair programmers with an intelligent tutoring system for computer science [Paper presentation]. 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Seattle, Washington, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017786
27. Hawlitschek, A., Berndt, S., & Schulz, S. (2023). Empirical research on pair programming in higher education: A literature review. Computer Science Education, 33(3), 400-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2022.2039504
28. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300500
29. Kalelioglu, F., & Gülbahar, Y. (2014). The effects of teaching programming via Scratch on problem solving skills: A discussion from learners' perspective. Informatics in Education, 13(1), 33-50.
30. Kazimoglu, C., Kiernan, M., Bacon, L., & Mackinnon, L. (2012). A serious game for developing computational thinking and learning introductory computer programming. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1991-1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.938
31. Keller, J. M. (1987). IMMS: Instructional materials motivation survey. Florida State University Press.
32. Krizsan, T., & Lambic, D. (2024). Examining the impact of pair programming on efficiency, motivation, and stress among students of different skills and abilities in lower grades in elementary schools. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12859-w
33. Kutu, H., & Sözbilir, M. (2011). Adaptation of instructional materials motivation survey to Turkish: A validity and reliability study. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 5(1), 292-312
34. Lai, X. Y., & Wong, G. K. W. (2022). Collaborative versus individual problem solving in computational thinking through programming: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(1), 150-170. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13157
35. Liu, J., & Li, S. (2024). Toward artificial intelligence-human paired programming: A review of the educational applications and research on artificial intelligence code-generation tools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(5), 1385-1415. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241240460
36. Lubarda, M. V., Phan, A. M., Schurgers, C., Delson, N., Ghazinejad, M., Baghdadchi, S., . . . Qi, H. (2024). Virtual pair programming and online oral exams: effects on social interaction, performance, and academic integrity in a remote computer programming course. Computer Science Education, 1-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2024.2344401
37. Lussier, R. N. (1996). Human relations in organizations: A skill-building approach. Irwin Press.
38. Mazman, S. G. (2013). Modeling the influence of cognitive based individual differences on programming performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hacettepe University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara, Türkiye.
39. Mehta, K., & Sood, V. M. (2023). Agile software development in the digital world – Trends and challenges. In S. Hooda, V. M. Sood, Y. Singh, S. Dalal, & M. Sood (Eds.), Agile software development (pp. 1-22). Scrivener Publishing-Wiley Press.
40. Navarro-Cota, C., Molina, A. I., Redondo, M. A., & Lacave, C. (2025). Individual differences in computer programming: a systematic review. Behaviour & Information Technology, 44(2), 357-375. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2317377
41. Noone, M., & Mooney, A. (2018). Visual and textual programming languages: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Computers in Education, 5(2), 149-174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-018-0101-5
42. Pilkington, C. (2018). A playful approach to fostering motivation in a distance education computer programming course: Behaviour change and student perceptions. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3), 282-298. http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3664
43. Plonka, L., Sharp, H., & van der Linden, J. (2012). Disengagement in pair programming: Does it matter? In M. Glinz, G. Murphy, & M. Pezze (Eds.), 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 496-506). IEEE Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2012.6227166
44. 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
45. Ramalingam, V., & Wiedenbeck, S. (1998). Development and validation of scores on a computer programming self-efficacy scale and group analyses of novice programmer self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19(4) 365-379. https://doi.org/10.2190%2FC670-Y3C8-LTJ1-CT3P
46. Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330-348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429
47. Smith, M. O., Giugliano, A., & DeOrio, A. (2018). Long term effects of pair programming. IEEE Transactions on Education, 61(3), 187-194. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2017.2773024
48. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage Press.
49. Tan, J. B., Wu, L., & Ma, S. S. (2024). Collaborative dialogue patterns of pair programming and their impact on programming self-efficacy and coding performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13412
50. Tsai, C. Y. (2019). Improving students' understanding of basic programming concepts through visual programming language: The role of self-efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 224-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.038
51. Tsompanoudi, D., Satratzemi, M., & Xinogalos, S. (2015). Distributed pair programming using collaboration scripts: An educational system and initial results. Informatics in Education, 14(2), 291-314. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2015.17
52. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
53. Xu, F., & Correia, A. -P. (2024). Adopting distributed pair programming as an effective team learning activity: a systematic review. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 36(2), 320-349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-023-09356-3
54. Xu, W., Wu, Y., & Ouyang, F. (2023). Multimodal learning analytics of collaborative patterns during pair programming in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00377-z
55. Yaman, S., & Dede, Y. (2008). A scale for adults’ problem solving skills. Journal of Educational Sciences & Practices, 7(14), 251-269
56. Yang, Y. F., Lee, C. I., & Chang, C. K. (2016). Learning motivation and retention effects of pair programming in data structures courses. Education for Information, 32(3), 249-267. https://doi.org/10.3233/efi-160976
57. Zarb, M., & Hughes, J. (2015). Breaking the communication barrier: Guidelines to aid communication within pair programming. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 120-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1033125
58. Zhong, B., & Wang, J. (2021). Exploring the non-significant difference on students’ cognitive load imposed by robotics tasks in pair learning. International Journal of Social Robotics, 14, 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00764-y
59. Zhong, B. C., & Li, T. T. (2020). Can pair learning improve students' troubleshooting performance in robotics education? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(1), 220-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119829191