Investigating the impact of introducing pair programming to primary computing education on female pupils’ attitudes towards computing

https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v7i1.218

Authors

Keywords:

K-12 computing education, pair programming, gender balance

Abstract

Gender balance in computing education is a decades-old issue that has been the focus of much previous research. In K-12, the introduction of mandatory computing education goes some way to giving all learners the opportunity to engage with computing throughout school, but a gender imbalance still persists when computer science becomes an elective subject. The study described in this paper investigates whether introducing pair programming would make a difference to primary-aged girls’ attitudes to computing and intent to study the subject in the future. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) was designed and implemented around a 12-week intervention with 785 female pupils between the ages of 8 and 10 years, alongside a qualitative evaluation investigating teachers’ and pupils' experience of the interventions and the development of materials and teacher preparation resources.  The results of the RCT showed no statistically significant changes in student attitudes towards computing or intent to study further, although the qualitative data indicated that both teachers and pupils found the interventions engaging and enjoyable. Themes emerging from the qualitative data point to the importance of collaboration in supporting a development in pupil confidence. Overall, these results emphasise the societal and systemic barriers around computer science and technology engagement across genders that persist despite many initiatives being implemented over many years.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Katharine Childs, Raspberry Pi Foundation

Katharine Childs works as a Researcher at the Raspberry Pi Foundation and is part of the Raspberry Pi Computing Education Centre. A former primary school computing teacher and network engineer, Katharine is involved in studies to broaden participation in computing for underrepresented groups. 

Sue Sentance, Raspberry Pi Computing Education Research Centre, University of Cambridge

Dr Sue Sentance is Principal Research Associate and Director of the Raspberry Pi Computing Education Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. An experienced educator, researcher and leader in computing education, Sue has published widely on the teaching of programming, teacher professional development, physical computing and curriculum change. 

References

Aivaloglou, E., & Hermans, F. (2019). Early programming education and career orientation: The effects of gender, self-efficacy, motivation and stereotypes. SIGCSE 2019 - Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 679–685. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287358

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191

Beyer, S., Rynes, K., Perrault, J., Hay, K., & Haller, S. (2003). Gender differences in computer science students. SIGCSE Bulletin (Association for Computing Machinery, Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education), 49–53. https://doi.org/10.1145/792548.611930

Butler, D. (2000). Gender, girls, and computer technology: What’s the status now? The Clearing House, 73(4), 225–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/0009865000960095

Camp, T. (1997). The incredible shrinking pipeline. COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, 40(10). https://doi.org/10.1145/262793.262813

Campe, S., Denner, J., Green, E., & Torres, D. (2020). Pair programming in middle school: Variations in interactions and behaviors. Computer Science Education, 30(1), 22–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1648119

Carlson, J., Daehler, K. R., Alonzo, A. C., Barendsen, E., Berry, A., Borowski, A., Carpendale, J., Kam Ho Chan, K., Cooper, R., Friedrichsen, P., Gess-Newsome, J., Henze-Rietveld, I., Hume, A., Kirschner, S., Liepertz, S., Loughran, J., Mavhunga, E., Neumann, K., Nilsson, P., … Wilson, C. D. (2019). The Refined Consensus Model of Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education. In A. Hume, R. Cooper, & A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Teachers’ Knowledge for Teaching Science (pp. 77–94). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5898-2_2

Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016239

Coldwell, M., & Moore, N. (2024). Learning from failure: A context‐informed perspective on RCTs. British Educational Research Journal, 50(3), 1043–1063. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3960

Denner, J., Werner, L., Campe, S., & Ortiz, E. (2014). Pair programming: Under what conditions is it advantageous for middle school students? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(3), 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2014.888272

Eccles, J. S. (2015). Gendered Socialization of STEM Interests in the Family. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 7(2), 116–132.

Faraon, M., Rönkkö, K., Wiberg, M., & Ramberg, R. (2020). Learning by coding: A sociocultural approach to teaching web development in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 25(3), 1759–1783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10037-x

Fisher, A., & Margolis, J. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: The Carnegie Mellon experience. SIGCSE Bull., 34(2), 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1145/543812.543836

Gale, N. K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S., & Redwood, S. (2013). Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-117

Global Education Monitoring Report Team. (2024). Global education monitoring report 2024, gender report: technology on her terms. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54676/WVCF2762

Graßl, I., & Fraser, G. Equitable Student Collaboration in Pair Programming 2024 IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training (ICSE-SEET), Lisbon, Portugal, 2024, pp. 274-285. https://doi.org/10.1145/3639474.364008

Guzdial, M., & Tew, A. E. (2006). Imagineering inauthentic legitimate peripheral participation: An instructional design approach for motivating computing education. ICER 2006 - Proceedings of the 2nd International Computing Education Research Workshop, 2006, 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1145/1151588.1151597

Haden, P. (2019). Inferential Statistics. In S. A. Fincher & A. V. E. Robins (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research (pp. 133–172). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108654555.007

Hanks, B., Fitzgerald, S., McCauley, R., Murphy, L., & Zander, C. (2011). Pair programming in education: A literature review. Comput. Sci. Educ., 21(2), 135–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2011.579808

Hariton, E., & Locascio, J. J. (2018). Randomised controlled trials—The gold standard for effectiveness research. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 125(13), 1716. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15199

Hamer, J. M. M., Kemp, P. E. J., Wong, B., & Copsey-Blake, M. (2023). Who wants to be a computer scientist? The computing aspirations of students in English secondary schools. International Journal of Science Education, 45(12), 990–1007. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2179379

Haynie, K. C., & Packman, S. (2017). AP CS Principles Phase II: Broadening Participation in Computer Science Final Evaluation Report. In Prepared for The College Board and the National Science Foundation. The College Board and National Science Foundation.

Hijzen, D., Boekaerts, M., & Vedder, P. (2006). The relationship between the quality of cooperative learning, students’ goal preferences, and perceptions of contextual factors in the classroom. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2006.00488.x

Humphrey, N., Lendrum, A., Ashworth, E., Frearson, K., & Buck, R. (2016). Implementation and process evaluation (IPE) for interventions in education settings: An introductory handbook. Education Endowment Foundation.

Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2013). The Social Turn in K-12 Programming: Moving from Computational Thinking to Computational Participation. Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 603–608. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445373

Kallia, M., & Sentance, S. (2018). Are Boys More Confident than Girls? The Role of Calibration and Students’ Self-Efficacy in Programming Tasks and Computer Science. Proceedings of the 13th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. https://doi.org/10.1145/3265757.3265773

Kelly, S., Ryle-Hodges, J., & Bisserbe, C. (2022). Evaluation of Teaching Approach: Pair Programming intervention. The Behavioural Insights Team. https://www.raspberrypi.org/app/uploads/2023/02/Gender-Balance-in-Computing-Evaluation-Report-Pair-Programming.pdf

Kemp, P. E. J., Wong, B., & Berry, M. G. (2019). Female Performance and Participation in Computer Science. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 20(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3366016

Korpershoek, H., King, R. B., McInerney, D. M., Nasser, R. N., Ganotice, F. A., & Watkins, D. A. (2021). Gender and cultural differences in school motivation. Research Papers in Education, 36(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1633557

Leonard, H. C., Quinlan, O., & Sentance, S. (2021, September). Female pupils’ attitudes to computing in early adolescence. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on United Kingdom & Ireland Computing Education Research (pp. 1-6). https://doi.org/10.1145/3481282.3481289

Lewis, C. M., & Shah, N. (2015). How Equity and Inequity Can Emerge in Pair Programming. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1145/2787622.2787716

Liebenberg, J., Mentz, E., & Breed, B. (2012). Pair programming and secondary school girls’ enjoyment of programming and the subject Information Technology (IT). Computer Science Education, 22(3), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2012.713180

Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (2002). Nature, Sources, and Development of Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Science Teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Vol. 6, pp. 95–132). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47217-1_4

McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H. E., & Fernald, J. (2006). Pair Programming Improves Student Retention, Confidence, and Program Quality. Commun. ACM, 49(8), 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1145/1145287.1145293

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised and Expanded from Case Study Research in Education. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Mishkin, A. (2019). Applying Self-Determination Theory towards Motivating Young Women in Computer Science. Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 1025–1031. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287389

Morrison, K. (2020). Taming randomized controlled trials in education: Exploring key claims, issues and debates. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003042112

Porter, L., Bailey-Lee, C., & Simon, B. (2013). Halving Fail Rates using Peer Instruction: A Study of Four Computer Science Courses. SIGCSE’13 : Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education : March 6-9, 2013, Denver, Colorado, USA, 778. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445250

Ritchie, J., Spencer, L., & O’Connor, W. (2003). Carrying out Qualitative Analysis. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers.

Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638

Torgerson, C. J., & Torgerson, D. J. (2001). The need for randomised controlled trials in educational research. British Journal of Educational Studies, 49(3), 316–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8527.t01-1-00178

Tsan, J., Boyer, K. E., & Lynch, C. F. (2016). How early does the CS gender gap emerge? A study of collaborative problem solving in 5th grade computer science. SIGCSE 2016 - Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education, 388–393. https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844605

Tsan, J., Vandenberg, J., Zakaria, Z., Wiggins, J. B., Webber, A. R., Bradbury, A., Lynch, C., Wiebe, E., & Boyer, K. E. (2020). A Comparison of Two Pair Programming Configurations for Upper Elementary Students. Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 346–352. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366941

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (n.d.). Goal 4: Quality Education. https://www.globalgoals.org/goals/4-quality-education/

Vandenberg, J., Lynch, C., Boyer, K. E., & Wiebe, E. (2023). “I remember how to do it”: Exploring upper elementary students’ collaborative regulation while pair programming using epistemic network analysis. Computer Science Education, 33(3), 429–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2022.2044672

Varma, R. (2009). Gender differences in factors influencing students towards computing. Computer Science Education, 19(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993400902819006

Vrieler, T., & Salminen-Karlsson, M. (2022). A Sociocultural Perspective on Computer Science Capital and Its Pedagogical Implications in Computer Science Education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 22(4), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3487052

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.

Werner, L., & Denning, J. (2009). Pair programming in middle school: What does it look like? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782540

Werner, L. L., McDowell, C., & Hanks, B. (2004). Pair-Programming Helps Female Computer Science Students. ACM Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, 4(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1145/1060071.1060075

Williams, L., McCrickard, D. S., Layman, L., & Hussein, K. (2008). Eleven guidelines for implementing pair programming in the classroom. Proceedings - Agile 2008 Conference, 445–452. https://doi.org/10.1109/Agile.2008.12

Xiao, Z., Hauser, O. P., Kirkwood, C., Li, D. Z., Jones, B., & Higgins, S. (2020). Uncovering Individualised Treatment Effect: Evidence from Educational Trials. IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc. ABI/INFORM Collection; Publicly Available Content Database. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/8nsw4

Yates, J., & Plagnol, A. C. (2022). Female computer science students: A qualitative exploration of women’s experiences studying computer science at university in the UK. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 3079–3105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10743-5

Ying, K. M., Pezzullo, L. G., Ahmed, M., Crompton, K., Blanchard, J., & Boyer, K. E. (2019). In Their Own Words: Gender Differences in Student Perceptions of Pair Programming. Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 1053–1059. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287380

Zhong, Baichang, Wang, Qiyun, Chen, Jie, & Li, Yi. (2017). Investigating the Period of Switching Roles in Pair Programming in a Primary School. Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 220–233. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26196132

Published

2024-11-19

How to Cite

Childs, K., & Sentance, S. (2024). Investigating the impact of introducing pair programming to primary computing education on female pupils’ attitudes towards computing. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v7i1.218

Issue

Vol. 7 No. 1 (2024): International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools

Section

Full Papers
Copyright & Licensing

Copyright (c) 2024 Katharine Childs, Sue Sentance

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
    2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
    3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).