A Meta-Analysis of Pair-Programming in Computer Programming Courses
Umapathy, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. · 2017
grade Cmeta-analysisindependentunclear
Sample
18 manuscripts, 28 independent effect sizes, N = 3,308 students
Population
Undergraduate computing courses, mostly US.
Design
Aggregates a mix of randomised and non-randomised course-level comparisons. The outcomes are course-graded assignments and exams — and on assignments the work is produced BY THE PAIR, which mechanically favours the pair condition and makes that estimate the least trustworthy of the three. Heterogeneity is high; the authors report effects varying significantly across studies. Read at abstract depth, so the per-domain estimates and confidence intervals were not obtained.
Key findings
Pair programming beat solo programming on programming assignments, exams and passing rates, with effect sizes in the 0.41-0.64 range, and showed no advantage on affective measures. The exam and pass-rate effects are the informative ones because they are individually produced; the assignment effect is partly an artefact of joint submission.
Genetic confound
Low-to-medium. Some pooled studies randomise pairing; others compare self-selected sections.
Replication notes
The pooled primaries are largely small single-institution course studies, and no registered replication of the pooled estimate was located.
DOI / URL
10.1145/2996201
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Programming assignments, exams and passing rates | effect size (mixed d/g) | 0.41-0.64 across the three domains | researcher-designed | end of course | active-alternative | end-of-treatment | domain-skill |
| Affective measures (satisfaction, confidence) | effect size | no advantage for pair programming | researcher-designed | end of course | active-alternative | end-of-treatment | non-cognitive |
Cited by
- Does teaching programming actually teach programming — and does the method matter?moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low