Eşli Programlamanın Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Bilgisayar Programlama Özgüven ve Başarısına Etkisi

Abstract

Bu araştırmada iç içe geçmiş durum çalışması yapılarak eşli programlamanın ortaokul öğrencilerinin bilgisayar programlama özgüven ve başarısına etkisi araştırılmıştır.  Beşinci sınıf seviyesinde 35 öğrenci bireysel (n=13) ve eşli (n=22) programlama gruplarına ayrılmış, Scratch programlama etkinlikleri kullanılarak sekiz haftalık bir uygulama yürütülmüştür. Araştırmada nitel veri görüşmelerle, nicel veri ise özgüven anketi ve rubriklerle toplanmıştır. Veri analizi için bağımsız örneklemler t testi ve içerik analizi kullanılmıştır. Uygulama sonunda eşli programlama öğrencilerinin özgüven ve başarısının, bireysel programlama öğrencilerinden daha yüksek olduğu bulunmuştur. Bu çalışma, ortaokul seviyesinde bilgisayar programlama özgüveni ve başarısını artırmak için eşli programlama yönteminin kullanımını desteklemekte, özellikle bilgisayar sayısı yetersiz olan okullara, rekabetçi öğrencilere ve programlamayı yeni öğrenenlere bu yöntemi önermektedir.

Keywords

• Eşli programlama,bilgisayar programlama,özgüven,başarı,ortaokul

The Influence of Pair Programming on Secondary School Students’ Confidence and Achievement in Computer Programming

Abstract

The purpose of this embedded case study is to explore the possible influence of pair programming on secondary school students’ confidence and achievement in computer programming. A total of 35 students in a fifth-grade class were divided into individual (n=13) and pair programmers (n=22), who then used Scratch programming activities during an eight week implementation. Qualitative data were collected with interviews and quantitative data were collected with a confidence questionnaire and rubrics. Content analysis and independent-samples t tests were conducted for data analysis. The results showed that pair programmers’ confidence and achievement for computer programming was higher compared to individual programmers after the implementation. The study supports the use of pair programming in secondary schools, especially where there are limited numbers of computers, competitive students, and novice programmers to increase the confidence and achievement in computer programming.

Keywords

• Pair programming,computer programming,confidence,achievement,secondary school

References

1. Akpinar, Y., & Aslan, U. (2015). Supporting children’s learning of probability through video game programming. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(2), 228-259. doi:10.1177/0735633115598492
2. Bailey, R., & Mentz, E. (2017). The value of pair programming in the IT classroom. Independent Journal of Teaching and Learning, 12(1), 90-103.
3. Beck, K. (1999). Embracing change with extreme programming. Computer, 32(10), 70-77. doi:10.1109/2.796139
4. DeClue, T. H. (2003). Pair programming and pair trading: Effects on learning and motivation in a CS2 course. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 18(5), 49-56.
5. Demir, Ö., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2017, October). İşbirlikli problem çözmenin kodlama öğretimine yansıması olarak eşli kodlamanın incelenmesi. Paper presented at the International Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education Symposium (ITTES 2017), İzmir, Turkey. Abstract retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321824838_Isbirlikli_Problem_Cozmenin_Kodlama_Ogretimine_Yansimasi_Olarak_Esli_Kodlamanin_Incelenmesi
6. Denner, J., Werner, L., & Ortiz, E. (2012). Computer games created by middle school girls: Can they be used to measure understanding of computer science concepts? Computers & Education, 58(1), 240-249. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.006
7. Dongo, T., Reed, A. H., & O’Hara, M. (2016). Exploring pair programming benefits for MIS majors. Journal of Information Technology Education-Innovations in Practice, 15, 223-239. doi:10.28945/3625
8. Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5-6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education, 63, 87-97. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.016

9. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43. doi:10.3102/0013189x12463051
10. Isong, B., Moemi, T., Dladlu, N., Motlhabane, N., Ifeoma, O., & Gasela, N. (2016). Empirical confirmation of pair programming effectiveness in the teaching of computer programming. In H. R. Arabnia, L. Deligiannidis, & M. Yang (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI) (pp. 276-281). IEEE/ Conference Publishing Services (CPS). doi:10.1109/csci.2016.59
11. Kalelioğlu, 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.
12. Lewis, C. M. (2011). Is pair programming more effective than other forms of collaboration for young students? Computer Science Education, 21(2), 105-134.
13. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury, CA: Sage.
14. Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The Scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(4), 16. doi:10.1145/1868358.1868363
15. Martin, M. O., & Mullis, I. V. S. E. (2012). Methods and procedures in TIMSS and PIRLS 2011: The TIMSS 2011 students confident in mathematics scale, eighth grade. Retrieved from https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/methods/pdf/T11_G8_M_Scales_SCM.pdf
16. McChesney, I. (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) (pp. 84-89). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2839509.2844565
17. McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H. E., & Fernald, J. (2006). Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Communications of the ACM, 49(8), 90-95. doi:10.1145/1145287.1145293
18. Mentz, E., van der Walt, J. L., & Goosen, L. (2008). The effect of incorporating cooperative learning principles in pair programming for student teachers. Computer Science Education, 18(4), 247-260. doi:10.1080/08993400802461396
19. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2018). Bilişim teknolojileri ve yazılım dersi öğretim programı. Ankara: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=374
20. Nagappan, N., Williams, L., Ferzli, M., Wiebe, E., Yang, K., Miller, C., & Balik, S. (2003). Improving the CS1 experience with pair programming. SIGCSE Bulletin, 35, 359-362. doi:10.1145/792548.612006
21. Nančovska, I., Kaučič, B., & Rugelj, J. (2008). Pair programming as a modern method of teaching computer science. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 3(S2), 45-49.
22. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books. doi:10.1007/978-3-0348-5357-6
23. Salge, C. A. L., & Berente, N. (2016). Pair programming vs. solo programming: What do we know after 15 years of research? In T. X. Bui & R. H. Sprague, Jr (Eds.), Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 5398-5406). IEEE. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2016.667
24. Swamidurai, R., & Umphress, D. (2015). Inverted pair programming. In IEEE SoutheastCon-Proceedings. IEEE. doi:10.1109/SECON.2015.7133010
25. Umapathy, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2017). A meta-analysis of pair-programming in computer programming courses: Implications for educational practice. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 17(4), Article 16. doi:10.1145/2996201
26. Werner, L., & Denning, J. (2009). Pair programming in middle school: What does it look like? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(1), 29-49. doi:10.1080/15391523.2009.10782540
27. Wiebe, E., Williams, L., Yang, K., & Miller, C. (2003). Computer science attitude survey (Report No. TR-2003-01). Raleigh, NC: NC State University.
28. Williams, L., & Upchurch, R. L. (2001). In support of student pair-programming. SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(1), 327-331. doi:10.1145/364447.364614
29. Williams, L., Wiebe, E., Yang, K., Ferzli, M., & Miller, C. (2002). In support of pair programming in the introductory computer science course. Computer Science Education, 12(3), 197-212. doi:10.1076/csed.12.3.197.8618
30. Wilson, A., & Moffat, D. C. (2010). Evaluating Scratch to introduce younger schoolchildren to programming. In J. Lawrance & R. Bellamy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd annual workshop of the psychology of programming interest group – PPIG2010, 64-74. Retrieved from http://scratched.media.mit.edu/sites/default/files/wilson-moffat-ppig2010-final.pdf
31. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (10th ed.). Ankara, Turkey: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
32. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research, design and methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
33. Yünkül, E., Durak, G., Çankaya, S., & Mısırlı, Z. A. (2017). Scratch yazılımının öğrencilerin bilgisayarca düşünme becerilerine etkisi. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 11(2), 502-517.
34. Zhong, B., Wang, Q., Chen, J., & Li, Y. (2017). Investigating the period of switching roles in pair programming in a primary school. Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 220-233.