A Comparison of Solo and Pair Programming in Terms of Flow Experience, Coding Quality, and Coding Achievement

Abstract

Cooperative learning manifests itself as pair programming in coding education. There is a limited number of studies experimentally demonstrating that pair programming is effective in the educational context. Therefore, in this study, solo and pair programming were compared in terms of flow experience, coding quality, and coding achievement. The method used in this study is a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design. The study group consists of 42 volunteer senior university students (28 males, 14 females). While solo programming was performed in the control group, pair programming was performed in the experimental group. It was concluded that the flow experience of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group in four weeks of the six-week implementation, whereas the coding quality of the experimental group was higher in three weeks. No difference was found in the other weeks in terms of both flow experience and coding quality. Although the coding achievement of both the control and experimental groups increased in the study, the experimental group did not exhibit better performance in terms of coding achievement. In conclusion, since it was revealed in this study that pair programming is effective, it is recommended to use pair programming more frequently in educational settings.

Which way of design programming activities is more effective to promote K‐12 students' computational thinking skills? A meta‐analysis

“…Judging from the research results, the effect of collaborative programming activities on students' CT skills was higher than that of solo programming activities, but the difference not reached a significant level. Demir and Seferoglu (2020) have found that in terms of process and coding quality, pair programming was a more effective coding education method than solo programming. Similarly, Wei et al (2020) suggested that teachers could use partial pair programming (PPP) as an effective approach to improve students' CT skills in K‐12 classrooms.…”

Collaborative versus individual problem solving in computational thinking through programming: A meta‐analysis

“…• Designed better visual programming artefacts (Wei et al, 2021) • Delivered higher program quality with lower compilation errors (Bravo et al, 2013) • No statistically significant difference in coding quality was obtained for three weeks (Demir & Seferoglu, 2021) • Detrimental effect on programming quality (Salge & Berente, 2016) Programming performance been inconsistent findings regarding program quality (Demir & Seferoglu, 2021), programming performance (Zhong & Li, 2019) and motivation (Velasco et al, 2012). The questions remain of (1) whether and how collaboration is beneficial to student learning, ( 2) what CT skills might be affected in collaborative learning and (3) whether group size can moderate the effects of collaboration on learning outcomes.…”

“…Among 30 studies, 26 studies found statistically significant results that favoured collaborative problem-solving scenarios, yet four studies reported nonsignificant cognitive benefits of collaborative programming in terms of performance tests (Maguire et al, 2014), program quality (Demir & Seferoglu, 2021) and troubleshooting tasks (Zhong & Li, 2019), which are inconsistent learning effects of collaborative versus individual programming. Regarding productivity, all six studies reported significant differences between collaborative and individual groups.…”

Three Contrasting Pairs’ Collaborative Programming Processes in China’s Secondary Education

“…Although computer programming has potential to improve CT, empirical studies show that novice programmers easily become frustrated and bored when encountering challenges during the programming process (Falloon, 2016;Garc ıa-Zub ıa et al, 2018;Liebenberg et al, 2012). Compared to solo programming, pair programming, as a collaborative learning mode, is a pragmatical strategy for students to solve challenging problems, generate creative ideas, and promote their learning experiences (Demir & Seferoglu, 2020a;Plonka et al, 2015;Umapathy & Ritzhaupt, 2017).…”