本研究旨在探討初學者使用配對方式進行程式設計的學習成效及態度。研究方法採用準實驗研究法，自變項為使用配對程式設計或個別程式設計，依變項為學生的學習成就及態度。研究參與者為台北市某高中一年級學生四班共145人，其中兩班學生共76人為配對組，採隨機分派方式兩人一組進行配對程式設計；另外兩班學生共69人為個別組，採個人單機方式進行程式設計。資料蒐集與分析包括學生的成就測驗、配對程式設計問卷、程式設計態度問卷、課堂觀察、對話錄音及焦點訪談。研究結果發現：（1）使用配對程式設計學習其學生的成就優於以傳統方式學習的學生；（2）使用配對程式設計的學生其學習態度並未優於使用傳統方式的學生；（3）配對程式設計傾向於產生有利學習的行為；（4）學生對配對角色的責任有正確的認知，但操作者常擔任較重的解題責任；（5）配對程式設計中學生常發生的互動行為依序為指導式對話、除錯式對話及討論式對話三種。

This study explored the effects of using pair-programming strategy to help high school students learning programming concepts. In a pair-programming duo, one serves as the driver, who types at the computer or writes down a design; the other partner serves as the navigator, who looks for defects in the work of the driver with an objective point of view. A quasi-experiment design was implemented in this study. Four classes of high school students, totaling 145 students, participated in this study. Two classes of 76 students paired in the computer lab to learn programming (the pair group), whereas the other two classes of 69 students learned programming individually (the control group). Students’ post-experiment achievement test scores, replies on questionnaires, and conversations during lab activities as well as researcher’s class observations and focus group interview data were collected and analyzed. The findings of the study were: (1) the pair-programming group performed significant better than the control group in the post-experiment achievement test, (2) no significant difference was found on students’ attitudes toward learning programming between the pair group and control group, (3) the drivers usually took more responsibility on problem-solving process than the navigators, (4) the dialog patterns exhibited in the pair group, in order of frequency, were didactic, debugging, and debating, and (5) pair-programming tended to lead students toward productive learning behaviors.

參考文獻
黃世隆 (2005)：應用電腦樂高輔助高中生程式設計學習之行動研究。未出版碩士論文，國立台灣師範大學資訊教育研究所，台北市。

黃建庭 (2003)：配對程式設計的學習成效評估—應用演算法模擬軟體於迴圈的學習。未出版碩士論文，國立台灣師範大學資訊教育研究所，台北市。

曾義智 (2007)：應用機器人於程式設計教學—實體機器人與模擬軟體使用成效比較。未出版碩士論文，國立台灣師範大學資訊教育研究所，台北市。

教育部（2008）：普通高級中學「資訊科技概論」課程綱要. http://icerc.tnssh.tn.edu.tw/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?cid=1&lid=5

劉洲 (2005)：應用Lego Mindstorms 在高中程式設計教學的成效探討。未出版碩士論文，國立台灣師範大學資訊教育研究所，台北市。

Anabela, G. & Mendes, A., J. (2007) Learning to program - difficulties and solutions. 10th International Conference on Engineering Education, 283-287.

Barnes, B. J. (2002). Teaching introductory Java through LEGO MINDSTORMS models. Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 147-151.

Beck, K. (1999). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.

Braught, N., L., Marlin Edy, & Wahls, T. (2008). The effects of pair-programming on individual programming skill. Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 200-204.

Cao, L. & Xu, P. (2005). Activity patterns of pair programming. Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3, 1-10.

Choi, K. S., Deek, F. P., & Im, I.l. (2008). Exploring the underlying aspects of pair programming: The impact of personality. Information and Software Technology, 50(11), 1114-1126.

Chong, J., Plummer, R., Leifer, L., Klemmer, S. R., Eris, O., & Toye, P. (2005). Pair programming: when and why it works. The 17th Workshop of the Psychology of Programming In-terest Group PPIG17, 43-48.

Chong, J., & Hurlbutt, T. (2007). The social dynamics of pair programming. Proceedings of the 29th international conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'07).

Cockburn, A., & Williams, L. (2001). The costs and benefits of pair programming. Extreme Programming Examined, 223-243.

Fagin, B. S., & Merkle, L. (2002). Quantitative analysis of the effects of robots on introductory computer science education. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, 2(4), 1-17.

Flor, V. N. (1998). Side-by-side collaboration: a case study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 49(3), 201-222.

Grandell, L., Peltomäki, M., Back,R. J., & Salakoski, T. (2006). Why complicate things? introducing programming in high school using python. Eighth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE2006), 52, 71-80.

Howard, E. V. (2006). Attutudes on using pair-programming. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(1), 89-103.

Jacobson, N., & Schaefer, S. K. (2008). Pair programming in CS1: overcoming objections to its adoption. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(2), 93-96.

Jenkins, T. (2002). On the difficulty of learning to program. Proceedings of 3rd LTSN-ICS Conference, 53-58.

Kelleher, C., & P, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: a survey of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys, 37(2), 83-137.

KLASSNER, F. A. (2002). Case study of LEGO MindStorms suitability for artificial intelligence and robotics courses at the college level. In Proceedings of 33rd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Educational Researcher, 8-12.
Linn, M. C. (1985). The cognitive consequences of programming instruction in classrooms. Educational Researcher, 14(5), 14-29.

Mannaro, K., Melis, M., & Marchesi, M. (2003) Empirical analysis on the satisfaction
of it employees comparing xp practices with other software development ethodologies. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on eXtreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering, 6275, 166-174.

Mayer, R. E., Dyck, J. L., & Vilberg, W. (1986). Learning to program and learning to think: what's the connection? Communications of the ACM, 29(7), 605-610.

McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H., & Fernald, J. (2002). The effects of pair-programming on performance in an introductory programming course. Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 38-42.

McDowell, C., Hanks, B., & Werner, L. (2003). Experimenting with pair programming in the classroom. Proceedings of the 8th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, 60-64.

Miglion, O., Lund, H. H., & Cardaci, M. (1999). Robotics as an educational tool. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10(1), 25-47.

Müller, M. M., & Tichy, W. F. (2001). Case study: extreme programming in a university environment. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, 537-544.

Preston, D. (2005). Pair programming as a model of collaborative learning: a review of the research. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 20(4), 39-45.

Rumpe, B., & Schröder, A. (2002). Quantitative survey of extreme programming projects. Third international conference on Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering, 95-100.

Simon, B., & Hanks, B. (2008). First-year students' impressions of pair programming in CS1. ACM Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, 7(4), 5:1-5:28.

Vanhanen, J., & Lassenius, C. (2005). Effects of pair programming at the development team level: an experiment. International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, 336-345.

Werner, L. L., Hanks, B., & McDowell, C. (2004). Pair-programming helps female computer science students. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC), 4(1), 1-8.

Williams, L., Kessler, R. R., Cunningham, W., & Jeffries, R. (2000). Strengthening the case for pair programming. IEEE Software, 17(4), 19-25.

Williams, L., Wiebe, E., Yang, K., Ferzli, M., & Miller, C. (2002). In support of pair programming in the introductory computer science course. Computer Science Education, 12(3), 197-212.

Williams, L., Layman, L., Osborne, J., & Katira, N. (2006). Examining the compatibility of student pair programmers. Proceedings of the conference on AGILE 2006, 411-420.

Wong, K. W. (2001). Teaching programming with LEGO RCX robots. Proceedings of ISECON, 18, 1-3.