TODO: we are working on this section. For now here are some of our recent favourites
- 61 papers reviewed, most used quantitative questionnaires
- Key outcomes included programming performance, students’ perceptions (motivation, satisfaction, compatibility), learning outcomes, learning behaviour (communication, support, attendance)
- Looked at how pairs were generated (e.g. matching by skill level, personality, etc)
- Looked at the type of task and instructional design (e.g. instruction on how to pair program)
- Key messages:
- most effects were positive (i.e. pair programming resulted in better outcomes)
- very little qualitative work on this subject
- pair programming seemed to work best for beginner students, and for women
- Limitations:
- the review gives no indication of the quality of the included studies (e.g. design, sample size), and there is no attempt at meta-analysis
- little detail provided on effect sizes (only direction of effect is reported)
Ambrose, S., Bridges, M., Lovett, M., DiPietro, M., & Norman, M (2010). How Learning Works: 7 Research – Based Principles for Smart Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bono, G., Mangan, S., Fauteux, M., & Sender, J. (2020). A new approach to gratitude interventions in high schools that supports student wellbeing. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(5), 657-665.
Llewellyn, C., Orzechowski, P. & Alex, B. (2020) ‘Teaching a Text Mining Bootcamp in Lockdown’ Edinburgh, pp. 1-7.
Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines (pp. 412-424). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Short and snappy article about the practicalities of pair programming. Could be use as a reading for students, to introduce them to this concept.
Teaching Rooms:
TODO: Rooms we’ve used, and what worked