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.
- 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 Scholar
- Author. 2018. (2018).Google Scholar
- Brigid Barron. 2003. When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 12, 3 (2003), 307--359.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Miriam H Beauchamp and Vicki Anderson. 2010. SOCIAL: an integrative framework for the development of social skills. Psychological bulletin 136, 1 (2010), 39.Google Scholar
- Kent Beck. 1998. Extreme Programming: A Humanistic Discipline of Software Development. In International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering. Springer, 1--6.Google Scholar
- Kent Beck. 1999. Embracing Change with Extreme Programming. Computer 32, 10 (1999), 70--77.Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Courtney B Cazden and Sarah W Beck. 2003. Classroom discourse. Handbook of Discourse Processes (2003), 165--197.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- Charles Crook. 1998. Children as computer users: The case of collaborative learning. Computers & Education 30, 3--4 (1998), 237--247.Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- Jonathan Ginzburg. 1996. Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. Seligman, Jerry, & Westerst ahl, Dag (eds), Logic, language and computation 1 (1996).Google Scholar
- Arthur C Graesser, Cathy L McMahen, and Brenda K Johnson. 1994. Question asking and answering. (1994).Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Karen A Jehn. 1997. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative science quarterly (1997), 530--557.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- J Richard Landis and Gary G Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 1 (1977), 159--174.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Andrew Phuong and Judy Nguyen. 2019. Evaluating an Adaptive Equity-Oriented Pedagogy on Student Collaboration Outcomes Through Randomized Controlled Trials. (2019).Google Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- Jeffrey Z Rubin, Dean G Pruitt, and Sung Hee Kim. 1994. Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- Jonathan R. H. Tudge. 1992. Processes and Consequences of Peer Collaboration: a Vygotskian Analysis. Child Development 63, 6 (1992), 1364--1379.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- Laurie Williams and Richard L Upchurch. 2001. In support of student pair-programming. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 33. ACM, 327--331.Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Collaborative Dialogue and Types of Conflict: An Analysis of Pair Programming Interactions between Upper Elementary Students
Recommendations
A Comparison of Two Pair Programming Configurations for Upper Elementary Students
SIGCSE '20: Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science EducationAs computer science education opportunities for elementary students (grades K-5) are expanding, there is growing interest in using pair programming with these students. However, previous research findings do not fully support its use with younger ...
An Investigation of Conflicts Between Upper-Elementary Pair Programmers
SIGCSE '19: Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science EducationExtensive prior research suggests that pair programming holds many benefits for novices. Pair programming has been well studied at the undergraduate level, and recently, the CS education research community has started to realize that younger learners ...
Recording multimodal pair-programming dialogue for reference resolution by conversational agents
ICMI '23: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Multimodal InteractionPair programming is a collaborative technique which has proven highly beneficial in terms of the code produced and the learning gains for programmers. With recent advances in Programming Language Processing (PLP), numerous tools have been created that ...
Comments