Pair programming in middle school: What does it look like?

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 29-49

  Werner, Linda ^a   Denning, Jill ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Education Training Research Associates   (United States)

Author keywords

Collaborative learning; Gender; Pair programming; Problem solving

Indexed keywords

EID: 85008814893     PISSN: 15391523     EISSN: 19450818     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2009.10782540     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. American Association of University Women Educational Foundation Com-mission on Technology, Gender, and Teacher Education. (2000). Tech savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women (AAUW) Educational Foundation.
2. Azmitia, M., & Montgomery, R. (1993). Friendship, transactive dialogues, and the development of scientific reasoning. Social Development, 2(3), 202-221.
3. Barker, L. J., & Aspray, W. (2006). The state of research on girls and IT. In J. M. Cohoon & W. Aspray (Eds.), Women and information technology: Research on underrepresentation (pp. 3-54). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Barker, L. & Cohoon, J.M. (2007-2008). The National Center for Women & Information Technology Promising Practices: Pair programming (case study 1): Retaining women through collaborative learning. Retrieved on February 1, 2009, from http://www.ncwit.org/images/practicefiles/PairProgramming_ RetainingWomenCollaborativeLearning_Practice.pdf
5. Barker, L. J., Snow, E., Garvin-Doxas, K., & Weston, T. (2006). Recruiting middle school girls into IT. In J. M. Cohoon & W. Aspray (Eds.), Women and information technology: Research on underrepresentation (pp. 115-136). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Barron, B. (2000). Problem solving in video-based microworlds: Collaborative and individual outcomes of high-achieving sixth-grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 391-398.
7. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
8. Clements, D. H., & Nastasi, B. K. (1999). Metacognition, learning, and educational computer environments. Information Technology in Childhood Education, 10, 5-38.
9. Cohoon, J. M., & Aspray, W (2006). A critical review of the research on womens participation in postsecondary computing education. In J. M. Cohoon & W. Aspray (Eds.), Women and information technology: Research on underrepresentation (pp. 137-180). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering. (2004). Broadening participation in America’s science and engineering 1994-2003 decennial &2004 biennial reports to Congress. Retrieved on February 1, 2009, from http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/activities/ceose/reports/ceose2004report.pdf
11. Committee on Information Technology Literacy, National Research Council (1999). Being fluent with information technology. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
12. Cooper, J., & Weaver, K. D. (2003). Gender and computers: Understanding the digital divide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
13. Denner, J. Bean, S., & Martinez, J. (2009). The Girl Game Company: Engaging Latina girls in information technology. Afterschool Matters, 8 (Spring 2009), 26-35.
14. Denner, J. & Werner, L. (2007). Computer programming in middle school: How pairs respond to challenges. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(2), 131-150.
15. Denner, J., Werner, L., Bean, S., & Campe, S. (2005). The Girls Creating Games program: Strategies for engaging middle-school girls in information technology. Frontiers: A fournal of Women Studies, 26(1), 90-98.
16. Dweck, C. (2006). Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence, (pp. 47-56). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
17. Fuson, K. C., Kalchman, M., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). Mathematical understanding: An introduction. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 217-256). Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
18. Goos, M., & Galbraith, P. (1996). Do it this way! Metacognitive strategies in collaborative mathematical problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30(3), 229-260.
19. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(2), 193-223.
20. Inkpen, K., Booth, K. S., Klawe, M., & Upitis, R. (1995). Playing together beats playing apart, especially for girls. In J. Schnase & E. Cunnius (Eds), Proceedings of computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 177-181). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for childrens learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Kafai, Y. B., Ching, C. C., & Marshall, S. (1997). Children as designers of educational multimedia software. Computers and Education, 29(213), 176-126.
23. Kekelis, L. S., Ancheta, R. W, Heber, E., & Countryman, J. (2005). Bridg-ing differences: How social relationships and racial diversity matter in a girls’ technology program. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 11, 231-246.
24. Light, P., Litdeton, K., & Bale, S. (2000). Gender and social comparison effects in computer-based problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 10, 483-496.
25. Littleton, K., & Light, P., & (1998). Getting IT together. In Learning with com-puters: Analyzing productive interaction (pp. 1-9). New York: Routledge.
26. Margolis, J., & Fisher, A. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
27. McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H., & Fernald, J. (2002). The effects of pair-programming on performance in an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Cincinnati, Kentucky, February 27—March 3, 2002). SIGCSE ’02. ACM, New York, 38-42.
28. 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.
29. Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (1998). Is “exploratory talk” productive talk? In K. Litdeton & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with computers: Analyzing productive interaction (pp. 79-101). New York: Routledge.
30. Miell, D., & MacDonald, R. (2000). Children’s creative collaborations: The importance of friendship when working together on a musical composition. Social Development, 9(3), 348-369.
31. National Research Council. (1999). Being fluent with information technology. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
32. Nelson, C. E. (1993). Valuing diversity in the educational process. In Proceedings of the National Science Foundation workshop on the role of'faculty from the scientific disciplines in the undergraduate education of future science and mathematics teachers (pp. 71-74). Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.
33. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
34. Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Perret, J.-F., & Bell, N. (1991). The social construction of meaning and cognitive activity in elementary school children. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 41-62). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
35. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
36. Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In D. Kuhn, R. S. Siegler, & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (pp. 679-744). New York: Wiley.
37. Roschelle, J. M., Pea, R. D., Hoadley, C. M., Gordin, D. N., & Means, B. M. (1999). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer- based technologies. The Future of Children, 10, 76-101.
38. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69-97). New York: Springer-Verlag.
39. Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 150-171). Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.
40. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
41. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(41), 475-522.
42. Strenta, A. C., Elliott, R., Adair, R., Matier, M., & Scott, J. (1994). Choosing and leaving science in highly selective institutions. Research in Higher Education, 35(5), 513-547.
43. Teasley, S. D. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In L. B. Resnick, R. Saljo, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 361-384). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
44. Wegerif, R., & Mercer, N. (1996). Computers and reasoning through talk in the classroom. Language and Education, 10(1), 47-64.
45. Werner, L., & Denner, J. (2006). Pair Programming Video. CSTA Voice, 2(2). Retrieved February 1, 2009, from http://csta.acm.org/Resources/sub/HighlightedResources.html.
46. Werner, L., Denner, J., & Bean, S. (2004). Pair programming strategies for middle school girls. In Proceedings of the 7th IASTED International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education (pp. 161-166). Kauai, Hawaii: ACTA Press.
47. Werner, L. L., Hanks, B., & McDowell, C. (2005). Pair-programming helps female computer science students, fournal of Educational Resources in Computing 4(1), 4. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from http://doi.acm. org/10.1145/1060071.1060075
48. Williams, L. A., & Kessler, R. R. (2000). All I really need to know about pair programming I learned in kindergarten. Communications of the ACM, 43(5), 108-114.
49. Wing, J.M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
50. Youth Learn Institute. (n2007). Model technology integration in afterschool: Girls Creating Games, Retrieved on February 4, 2009, from http://www.youth.leam.org/afterschool/materials/GCG.pdf