skip to main content
10.1145/3408877.3432406acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Collaborative Dialogue and Types of Conflict: An Analysis of Pair Programming Interactions between Upper Elementary Students

Published:05 March 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

In successful collaborative paradigms such as pair programming, students engage in productive dialogue and work to resolve conflicts as they arise. However, little is known about how elementary students engage in collaborative dialogue for computer science learning. Early findings indicate that these younger students may struggle to manage conflicts that arise during pair programming. To investigate collaborative dialogue that elementary learners use and the conflicts that they encounter, we analyzed videos of twelve pairs of fifth grade students completing pair programming activities. We developed a novel annotation scheme with a focus on collaborative dialogue and conflicts. We found that student pairs used best-practice dialogue moves such as self-explanation, question generation, uptake, and praise in less than 23% of their dialogue. High-conflict pairs antagonized their partner, whereas this behavior was not observed with low-conflict pairs. We also observed more praise (e.g., "We did it!") and uptake (e.g., "Yeah and...") in low-conflict pairs than high-conflict pairs. All pairs exhibited some conflicts about the task, but high-conflict pairs also engaged in conflicts about control of the computer and their partner's contributions. The results presented here provide insights into the collaborative process of young learners in CS problem solving, and also hold implications for educators as we move toward building learning environments that support students in this context.

References

  1. Allen C Amason. 1996. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of management journal 39, 1 (1996), 123--148.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Author. 2018. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Brigid Barron. 2003. When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 12, 3 (2003), 307--359.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Miriam H Beauchamp and Vicki Anderson. 2010. SOCIAL: an integrative framework for the development of social skills. Psychological bulletin 136, 1 (2010), 39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Kent Beck. 1998. Extreme Programming: A Humanistic Discipline of Software Development. In International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering. Springer, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Kent Beck. 1999. Embracing Change with Extreme Programming. Computer 32, 10 (1999), 70--77.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Andrew Begel and Nachiappan Nagappan. 2008. Pair programming: what's in it for me?. In Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement. ACM, 120--128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Brian Broll and Akos Ledeczi. 2017. Distributed Programming with NetsBlox is a Snap!. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 640--640.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Philip Sheridan Buffum. 2017. Design and Analysis of Virtual Learning Companions for Improving Equitable Collaboration in Game-based Learning. Ph.D. Dissertation. North Carolina State University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Shannon Campe, Jill Denner, Emily Green, and David Torres. 2020. Pair programming in middle school: variations in interactions and behaviors. Computer Science Education 30, 1 (2020), 22--46.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Shannon Campe, Jill Denner, Emily Green, and Linda Werner. 2018. Pair Programming Interactions in Middle School: Collaborative, Constructive, Dismissive, or Disengaged?. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 1093--1093.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Courtney B Cazden and Sarah W Beck. 2003. Classroom discourse. Handbook of Discourse Processes (2003), 165--197.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Michelene T.H. Chi, Nicholas Leeuw, Mei-Hung Chiu, and Christian LaVancher. 1994. Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science 18, 3 (1994), 439--477.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Michelene TH Chi and Ruth Wylie. 2014. The ICAP framework: linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist 49, 4 (2014), 219--243.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Michelene T. H. Chi. 2009. Active-Constructive-Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities. Topics in Cognitive Science 1, 1 (2009), 73--105.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Ann-Marie Clark, Richard C Anderson, Li-jen Kuo, Il-Hee Kim, Anthi Archodidou, and Kim Nguyen-Jahiel. 2003. Collaborative reasoning: Expanding ways for children to talk and think in school. Educational Psychology Review 15, 2 (2003), 181--198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Charles Crook. 1998. Children as computer users: The case of collaborative learning. Computers & Education 30, 3--4 (1998), 237--247.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Elise Deitrick, R Benjamin Shapiro, and Brian Gravel. 2016. How Do We Assess Equity in Programming Pairs? Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Elise Deitrick, Michelle Hoda Wilkerson, and Eric Simoneau. 2017. Understanding student collaboration in interdisciplinary computing activities. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM, 118--126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Lillian M Fawcett and Alison F Garton. 2005. The effect of peer collaboration on children?s problem-solving ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology 75, 2 (2005), 157--169.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Jonathan Ginzburg. 1996. Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. Seligman, Jerry, & Westerst ahl, Dag (eds), Logic, language and computation 1 (1996).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Arthur C Graesser, Cathy L McMahen, and Brenda K Johnson. 1994. Question asking and answering. (1994).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Willard W Hartup, Brett Laursen, Mark I Stewart, and Amy Eastenson. 1988. Conflict and the Friendship Relations of Young Children. Child development (1988), 1590--1600.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Maya Israel, Quentin M. Wherfel, Saadeddin Shehab, Oliver Melvin, and Todd Lash. 2017. Describing Elementary Students? Interactions in Puzzle-based Environments using the Collaborative Computing Observation Instrument (C-COI). In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM, 110--117.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Karen A Jehn. 1997. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative science quarterly (1997), 530--557.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Ann Cale Kruger. 1992. The effect of peer and adult-child transactive discussions on moral reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 38, 2 (1992), 191--211.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. J Richard Landis and Gary G Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 1 (1977), 159--174.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Dabae Lee, Yeol Huh, and Charles M Reigeluth. 2015. Collaboration, intragroup conflict, and social skills in project-based learning. Instructional Science 43, 5 (2015), 561--590.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Colleen M Lewis. 2011. Is pair programming more effective than other forms of collaboration for young students? Computer Science Education 21, 2 (2011), 105--134.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Colleen M Lewis and Niral Shah. 2015. How equity and inequity can emerge in pair programming. In Proceedings of the eleventh annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM, 41--50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Gabriel Mugny and Willem Doise. 1978. Socio-cognitive conflict and structure of individual and collective performances. European journal of social psychology 8, 2 (1978), 181--192.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Laurie Murphy, Sue Fitzgerald, Brian Hanks, and Renée McCauley. 2010. Pair de- bugging: a transactive discourse analysis. In Proceedings of the Sixth international workshop on Computing education research. ACM, 51--58.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Nachiappan Nagappan, Laurie Williams, Miriam Ferzli, Eric Wiebe, Kai Yang, Carol Miller, and Suzanne Balik. 2003. Improving the CS1 experience with pair programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 35, 1 (2003), 359--362.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Piia Näykki, Sanna Järvelä, Paul A Kirschner, and Hanna Järvenoja. 2014. Socio-emotional conflict in collaborative learning?A process-oriented case study in a higher education context. International Journal of Educational Research 68 (2014), 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Clem O'Donnell, Jim Buckley, Abdulhussain E. Mahdi, John Nelson, and Michael English. 2015. Evaluating Pair-Programming for Non-Computer Science Major Students. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '15). 569--574.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Andrew Phuong and Judy Nguyen. 2019. Evaluating an Adaptive Equity-Oriented Pedagogy on Student Collaboration Outcomes Through Randomized Controlled Trials. (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Fernando J Rodríguez, Kimberly Michelle Price, and Kristy Elizabeth Boyer. 2017. Exploring the pair programming process: Characteristics of effective collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 507--512.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Fernando J Rodríguez, Kimberly Michelle Price, and Kristy Elizabeth Boyer. 2017. Expressing and addressing Uncertainty: A study of collaborative Problem-solving dialogues. Philadelphia, PA: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Jeremy Roschelle and Stephanie D Teasley. 1995. The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In Computer supported collaborative learning. Springer, 69--97.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Jeffrey Z Rubin, Dean G Pruitt, and Sung Hee Kim. 1994. Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Omar Ruvalcaba, Linda Werner, and Jill Denner. 2016. Observations of Pair Programming: Variations in Collaboration Across Demographic Groups. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education. ACM, 90--95.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Niral Shah, Colleen Lewis, and Roxane Caires. 2014. Analyzing equity in collaborative learning situations: A comparative case study in elementary computer science. Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Niral Shah and Colleen M Lewis. 2019. Amplifying and attenuating inequity in collaborative learning: Toward an analytical framework. Cognition and Instruction 37, 4 (2019), 423--452.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Jonathan R. H. Tudge. 1992. Processes and Consequences of Peer Collaboration: a Vygotskian Analysis. Child Development 63, 6 (1992), 1364--1379.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Laurie Williams, Robert R Kessler, Ward Cunningham, and Ron Jeffries. 2000. Strengthening the case for pair programming. IEEE software 17, 4 (2000), 19--25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Laurie Williams, Charlie McDowell, Nachiappan Nagappan, Julian Fernald, and Linda Werner. 2003. Building Pair Programming Knowledge Through a Family of Experiments. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering. IEEE, 143--152.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Laurie Williams and Richard L Upchurch. 2001. In support of student pair-programming. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 33. ACM, 327--331.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Collaborative Dialogue and Types of Conflict: An Analysis of Pair Programming Interactions between Upper Elementary Students

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGCSE '21: Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
      March 2021
      1454 pages
      ISBN:9781450380621
      DOI:10.1145/3408877

      Copyright © 2021 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 5 March 2021

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,595of4,542submissions,35%

      Upcoming Conference

      SIGCSE Virtual 2024
      SIGCSE Virtual 2024: ACM Virtual Global Computing Education Conference
      November 30 - December 1, 2024
      Virtual Event , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader