Advertisement

Pair programming with scratch

  • Olivera Iskrenovic-MomcilovicEmail author
Article
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

This paper examines the effectiveness of programming in pairs in the Scratch environment in primary school. The motivation for tackling this issue is based on the successful use of Scratch as a learning environment for any students of programming. The analysis has shown that that programming in pairs produces better results for beginners in comparison to programming as an individual student. The obtained results are in a positive correlation with the students’ general school success and show that there are no differences in achievement between boys and girls. The Scratch environment has allowed learning to become more interesting, more challenging and more creative.

Keywords

In pair Individually Primary education Programming Scratch Students 

Notes

References

  1. Baytak, A., & Land, S. M. (2011). An investigation of the artifacts and process of constructing computers games about environmental science in a fifth grade classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 765–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, Q., Mongan, W., Kusic, D., Garbarine, E., Fromm, E., & Fontecchio, A. (2013). Computer aided instruction as a vehicle for problem solving: Scratch programming environment in the middle years classroom. Proceedings of the Annual Conference and Exposition, Pittsburg, Pensilvania USA.Google Scholar
  3. Golmez, I., & Ozdner, N. (2015). Academic achievem in computer programming instruction and effects of the use of visualization tools at the elementary school level. British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 11(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hannay, J. E., Dyba, T., Arisholm, E., & Sjøberg, D. I. (2009). The effectiveness of pair programming: A meta-analysis. Information and Software Technology, 51(7), 1110–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hsu, H.M.J. (2014). Gender differences in scratch game design. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information, Business and Education Technology (ICIBET 2014). Beijing, China.Google Scholar
  6. Ismail, M. N., Ngah, N. A., & Umar, I. N. (2010). Instructional strategy in the teaching of computer programming: A need assessment analyses. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 125–131.Google Scholar
  7. Kalelioglu, F., & Gulbahar, Z. (2014). The effects of teaching programming via scratch on problem solving skills: A discussion from learners’ perspective. Informatics in Education, 13(1), 33–50.Google Scholar
  8. Kaucic, B., & Asic, T. (2011). Improving introductory programming with scratch? Proceedings of the 34th International Convention (MIPRO), Osijek, Croatia, pp. 1095–1100.Google Scholar
  9. Koorsse, M., Cilliers, C., & Calitz, A. (2015). Programming assistance tools to support the learning of IT programming in South African secondary schools. Computers & Education, 82, 162–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory and Practice, 41(4), 212–218.Google Scholar
  11. Lai, A., & Yang, S. (2011). The learning effect of visualized programming learning on 6th graders’ problem solving and logical reasoning abilities. Proceedings of the International Conference on Electrical and Control Engineering (ICECE), Yichang, China, 6940–6944.Google Scholar
  12. Lee, J. Y., Oh, S. Y., & Kim, S. B. (2016). A pair programming scheme for an educational programming language. Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 137, 139–143.Google Scholar
  13. Lewis, C. M. (2011). Is pair programming more effective than other forms of collaboration for young students? Computer Science Education, 21(2), 105–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lewis, C. M. and Shah, N. (2012). Building upon and enriching grade four mathematics standards with programming curriculum, Proccedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Raleigh, USA, 57-62.Google Scholar
  15. Lister, R., & Leaney, J. (2003). Introductory programming, criterion-referencing, and bloom. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(1), 143–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2013). Learning computer science concepts with scratch. Computer Science Education, 23(3), 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ouahbi, I., Kaddari, F., Darhmaoui, H., Elachqar, A., & Lahmine, S. (2015). Learning basic programming concepts by creating games with scratch programming environment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1479–1482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pajares-Pescador, R., Hernandez-Díez, C., & Cardenoso-Payo, V. (2014). Study of the educational impact of activities using Scratch in first-year students in secondary education. Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 3138–3144.Google Scholar
  19. Saez-Lopez, J. M., Román-González, M., & Vázquez-Cano, E. (2016). Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two year case study using scratch in five schools. Computers & Education, 97, 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shin, S., Park, P., & Bae, Y. (2013). The effects of an information-technology gifted program on friendship using scratch programming language and clutter. International Journal of Computer and Communication Engineering, 2(3), 246–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Su, A., Yang, S. J., Hwang, W. Y., Huang, C. S., & Tern, M. Y. (2014). Investigating the role of computer-supported annotation in problem solving based teaching: An empirical study of a scratch programming pedagogy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(4), 647–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tekerek, M., & Altan, T. (2014). The effect of scratch environment on student’s achievement in teaching algorithm. World Journal on Educational Technology, 6(2), 132–138.Google Scholar
  23. Vieira, C., & Magana, A. (2013). Columbian elementary students’ perfomance and perceptions of computing learning activities with scratch. 12th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilson, A., & Moffat, D.C. (2010). Evaluating scratch to introduce younger schoolchildren to programming. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Psychology of Programming Interest Group Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Leganés, Spain.Google Scholar
  26. Zhong, B., Wang, Q., & Chen, J. (2016). The impact of social factors on pair programming in a primary school. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 423–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of Novi SadSomborSerbia

Personalised recommendations