[2]
L., Porter D., Zingaro C., Lee C., Taylor K. C. Webb, and M. Clancy, Developing course-level learning goals for basic data structures in CS2, in Proc. 49th ACM Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Baltimore, ML, USA, 2018, pp. 858-863.
[3]
B. R. Snyder, The Hidden Curriculum. New York, NY, USA: Knopf, 1970.
[4]
R. E. Bennett, Formative assessment: A critical review, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 5-25, 2011.
[5]
H. L. Roediger and J. D. Karpicke, The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice, Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 181-210, 2006.
[6]
S., Freeman S. L., Eddy M., McDonough M. K., Smith N., Okoroafor H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth, Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, vol. 111, no. 23, pp. 8410-8415, 2014.
[7]
H. H., Hu C., Kussmaul B., Knaeble C. Mayfield, and A. Yadav, Results from a survey of faculty adoption of process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL) in computer science, in Proc. 2016 ACM Conf. Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Arequipa, Peru, 2016, pp. 186-191.
[8]
L., Porter C. B., Lee B. Simon, and D. Zingaro, Peer instruction: Do students really learn from peer discussion in computing? in Proc. 7th Int. Workshop on Computing Education Research, Providence, RI, USA, 2011, pp. 45-52.
[9]
R. N., Cortright H. L., Collins D. W. Rodenbaugh, and S. E. DiCarlo, Student retention of course content is improved by collaborative-group testing, Advances in Physiology Education, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 102-108, 2003.
[10]
Ö. Dahlström, Learning during a collaborative final exam, Educational Research and Evaluation, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 321-332, 2012.
[11]
B. H. Gilley and B. Clarkston, Collaborative testing: Evidence of learning in a controlled in-class study of undergraduate students, Journal of College Science Teaching, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 83-91, 2014.
[12]
J. Ives, Measuring the learning from two-stage collaborative group exams, arXiv preprint arXiv: 1407.6442, 2014.
[13]
G. L., Macpherson Y. J. Lee, and D. Steeples, Group-examination improves learning for low-achieving students, Journal of Geoscience Education, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 41-45, 2011.
[14]
G. W. Rieger and C. E. Heiner, Examinations that support collaborative learning: The students’ perspective, Journal of College Science Teaching, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 41-47, 2014.
[15]
R. F., Yuretich S. A., Khan R. M. Leckie, and J. J. Clement, Active-learning methods to improve student performance and scientific interest in a large introductory oceanography course, Journal of Geoscience Education, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 111-119, 2001.
[16]
J. F. Zipp, Learning by exams: The impact of two-stage cooperative tests, Teaching Sociology, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 62-76, 2007.
[17]
M., Craig D., Horton D. Zingaro, and D. Heap, Introducing and evaluating exam wrappers in CS2, in Proc. 47th ACM Technical Symp. Computing Science Education, Memphis, TN, USA, 2016, pp. 285-290.
[18]
B., Yu G. Tsiknis, and M. Allen, Turning exams into a learning experience, in Proc. 41st ACM Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Milwaukee, WI, USA, 2010, pp. 336-340.
[19]
Y. J. Cao and L. Porter, Evaluating student learning from collaborative group tests in introductory computing, in Proc. 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Seattle, WA, USA, 2017, pp. 99-104.
[20]
Y. J. Cao and L. Porter, Impact of performance level and group composition on student learning during collaborative exams, in Proc. 2017 ACM Conf. Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Bologna, Italy, 2017, pp. 152-157.
[22]
A. Cockburn and L. Williams, The costs and benefits of pair programming, in Extreme Programming Examined. Boston, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 2001, pp. 223-243.
[23]
B. C. Wilson and S. Shrock, Contributing to success in an introductory computer science course: A study of twelve factors, in Proc. 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Charlotte, NC, USA, 2001, pp. 184-188.
[24]
B. Simon and B. Hanks, First-year students’ impressions of pair programming in CS1, J. Educ. Resour. Comput., vol. 7, no. 4, p. 5, 2008.
[25]
J. C., Carver L., Henderson L. L., He J. Hodges, and D. Reese, Increased retention of early computer science and software engineering students using pair programming, in Proc. 20th Conf. Software Engineering Education & Training, Dublin, Ireland, 2007, pp. 115-122.
[26]
C., McDowell L., Werner H. Bullock, and J. Fernald, The effects of pair-programming on performance in an introductory programming course, in Proc. 33rd SIGCSE Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Cincinnati, KY, USA, 2002, pp. 38-42.
[27]
C., McDowell B. Hanks, and L. Werner, Experimenting with pair programming in the classroom, in Proc. 8th Annual Conf. Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2003, pp. 60-64.
[28]
C., McDowell L., Werner H. E. Bullock, and J. Fernald, Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality, Communications of the ACM, vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 90-95, 2006.
[29]
N., Katira L., Williams E., Wiebe C., Miller S. Balik, and E. Gehringer, On understanding compatibility of student pair programmers, in Proc. 35th SIGCSE Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Norfolk, VA, USA, 2004, pp. 7-11.
[30]
N., Salleh E. Mendes, and J. Grundy, Empirical studies of pair programming for CS/SE teaching in higher education: A systematic literature review, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 509-525, 2011.
[31]
N., Nagappan L., Williams M., Ferzli E., Wiebe K., Yang C. Miller, and S. Balik, Improving the CS1 experience with pair programming, ACM SIGCSE Bull., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 359-362, 2003.
[32]
A., Tafliovich J. Campbell, and A. Petersen, A student perspective on prior experience in CS1, in Proc. 44th ACM Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Denver, CO, USA, 2013, pp. 239-244.
[33]
S. D’Angelo and A. Begel, Improving communication between pair programmers using shared gaze awareness, in Proc. 2017 CHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA, 2017, pp. 6245-6290.
[34]
J. Sennett and M. Sherriff, Compatibility of partnered students in computer science education, in Proc. 41st ACM Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Milwaukee, WI, USA, 2010, pp. 244-248.
[35]
M. Celepkolu and K. E. Boyer, Thematic analysis of students’ reflections on pair programming in CS1, in Proc. 49th ACM Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Baltimore, ML, USA, 2018, pp. 771-776.
[36]
C., McDowell L., Werner H. E. Bullock, and J. Fernald, The impact of pair programming on student performance, perception and persistence, in Proc. 25th Int. Conf. Software Engineering, Portland, OR, USA, 2003, pp. 602-607.
[37]
O., Aarne P., Peltola J. Leinonen, and A. Hellas, A study of pair programming enjoyment and attendance using study motivation and strategy metrics, in Proc. 49th ACM Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Baltimore, ML, USA, 2018, pp. 759-764.
[38]
O., Ruvalcaba L. Werner, and J. Denner, Observations of pair programming: Variations in collaboration across demographic groups, in Proc. 47th ACM Technical Symp. Computing Science Education, Memphis, TN, USA, 2016, pp. 90-95.
[39]
G., Braught J. MacCormick, and T. Wahls, The benefits of pairing by ability, in Proc. 41st ACM Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Milwaukee, WI, USA, 2010, pp. 249-253.
[40]
G., Braught L. M. Eby, and T. Wahls, The effects of pair-programming on individual programming skill, in Proc. 39th SIGCSE Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Portland, OR, USA, 2008, pp. 200-204.
[41]
C., O’Donnell J., Buckley A., Mahdi J. Nelson, and M. English, Evaluating pair-programming for non-computer science major students, in Proc. 46th ACM Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Kansas City, MO, USA, 2015, pp. 569-574.
[42]
G., Braught T. Wahls, and L. M. Eby, The case for pair programming in the computer science classroom, Trans. Comput. Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, p. 2, 2011.
[43]
M. M. Muller and F. Padberg, An empirical study about the feelgood factor in pair programming, in Proc. 10th Int. Symp. Software Metrics, Chicago, IL, USA, 2004, pp. 151-158.
[44]
L. Porter and B. Simon, Retaining nearly one-third more majors with a trio of instructional best practices in CS1, in Proc. 44th ACM Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Denver, CO, USA, 2013, pp. 165-170.
[45]
M. Celepkolu and K. E. Boyer, The importance of producing shared code through pair programming, in Proc. 49th ACM Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Baltimore, ML, USA, 2018, pp. 765-770.
[46]
J. Warner and P. J. Guo, CodePilot: Scaffolding end-to-end collaborative software development for novice programmers, in Proc. 2017 CHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA, 2017, pp. 1136-1141.
[47]
J., Tsan F. J., Rodríguez K. E. Boyer, and C. Lynch, "I think we should… " : Analyzing elementary students’ collaborative processes for giving and taking suggestions, in Proc. 49th ACM Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Baltimore, ML, USA, 2018, pp. 622-627.
[48]
L., Werner J., Denner S., Campe E., Ortiz D., DeLay A. C. Hartl, and B. Laursen, Pair programming for middle school students: Does friendship influence academic outcomes? in Proc. 44th ACM Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Denver, CO, USA, 2013, pp. 421-426.
[49]
C. M. Lewis and N. Shah, How equity and inequity can emerge in pair programming, in Proc. 11th Annu. Int. Conf. Inter. Computing Education Research, Omaha, NE, USA, 2015, pp. 41-50.
[50]
M. Seyam and D. S. McCrickard, Teaching mobile development with pair programming, in Proc. 47th ACM Technical Symp. Computing Science Education, Memphis, TN, USA, 2016, pp. 96-101.
[51]
F. J., Rodríguez K. M. Price, and K. E. Boyer, Exploring the pair programming process: Characteristics of effective collaboration, in Proc. 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Seattle, WA, USA, 2017, pp. 507-512.
[52]
P. J. Guo, Online python tutor: Embeddable web-based program visualization for CS education, in Proc. 44th ACM Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Denver, CO, USA, 2013, pp. 579-584.
[53]
R., Harsley D., Fossati B. Di Eugenio, and N. Green, Interactions of individual and pair programmers with an intelligent tutoring system for computer science, in Proc. 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Seattle, WA, USA, 2017, pp. 285-290.
[54]
L., Battestilli A. Awasthi, and Y. J. Cao, Two-stage programming projects: Individual work followed by peer collaboration, in Proc. 49th ACM Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Baltimore, ML, USA, 2018, pp. 479-484.
[55]
A., Radermacher G. Walia, and R. Rummelt, Improving student learning outcomes with pair programming, in Proc. 9th Annu. Int. Conf. Int. Computing Education Research, Auckland, New Zealand, 2012, pp. 87-92.
[56]
A., Radermacher G. Walia, and R. Rummelt, Assigning student programming pairs based on their mental model consistency: An initial investigation, in Proc. 43rd ACM Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Raleigh, NC, USA, 2012, pp. 325-330.
[57]
B. J., Fraser H. J., Walberg W. W. Welch, and J. A. Hattie, Syntheses of educational productivity research, International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 147-252, 1987.
[58]
P. Black, Formative assessment: Raising standards inside the classroom, School Science Review, vol. 80, no. 291, pp. 39-46, 1998.
[59]
G. Gibbs and C. Simpson, Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning, Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3-31, 2004.
[60]
A. Cain and M. Ali Babar, Reflections on applying constructive alignment with formative feedback for teaching introductory programming and software architecture, in 2016 IEEE/ACM 38th Int. Conf. Software Engineering Companion, Austin, TX, USA, 2016, pp. 336-345.
[61]
M. L., Epstein A. D., Lazarus T. B., Calvano K. A., Matthews R. A., Hendel B. B. Epstein, and G. M. Brosvic, Immediate feedback assessment technique promotes learning and corrects inaccurate first responses, The Psychological Record, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 187-201, 2002.
[62]
J. A. Stone, Using reflective blogs for pedagogical feedback in CS1, in Proc. 43rd ACM Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Raleigh, NC, USA, 2012, pp. 259-264.
[63]
P., Heller R. Keith, and S. Anderson, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping, Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving, American Journal of Physics, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 627-636, 1992.
[64]
S. A. Stearns, Collaborative exams as learning tools, College Teaching, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 111-112, 1996.
[65]
D. Cohen and J. Henle, The pyramid exam, UME Trends, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 15-16, 1995.
[66]
K., Knierim H. Turner, and R. K. Davis, Two-stage exams improve student learning in an introductory geology course: Logistics, attendance, and grades, Journal of Geoscience Education, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 157-164, 2015.
[67]
M. Fengler and P. M. Ostafichuk, Successes with two-stage exams in mechanical engineering, in Proc. Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) Conf., 2015, pp. 1-5.
[68]
I. D. Beatty, Collaboration or copying? Student behavior during two-phase exams with individual and team phases, in Physics Education Research Conf. 2015, College Park, MD, USA, 2015, pp. 59-62.
[69]
L., Barker C. L. Hovey, and L. D. Thompson, Results of a large-scale, multi-institutional study of undergraduate retention in computing, in 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conf. (FIE) Proc., Madrid, Spain, 2014, pp. 1-8.
[70]
S., Beyer M., DeKeuster K., Walter M. Colar, and C. Holcomb, Changes in CS students’ attitudes towards CS over time: An examination of gender differences, ACM SIGCSE Bull., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 392-396, 2005.
[71]
C., Alvarado Y. J. Cao, and M. Minnes, Gender differences in students’ behaviors in CS classes throughout the CS major, in Proc. 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Seattle, WA, USA, 2017, pp. 27-32.
[72]
D., Petkovic G. Thompson, and R. Todtenhoefer, Teaching practical software engineering and global software engineering: Evaluation and comparison, in Proc. 11th Annual SIGCSE Conf. Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Bologna, Italy, 2006, pp. 294-298.
[73]
B., Hartfield T. Winograd, and J. Bennett, Learning HCI design: Mentoring project groups in a course on human-computer interaction, in Proc. 23rd SIGCSE Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, Kansas City, MO, USA, 1992, pp. 246-251.
[74]
D. Coppit and J. M. Haddox-Schatz, Large team projects in software engineering courses, in Proc. 36th SIGCSE Technical Symp. Computer Science Education, St. Louis, MO, USA, 2005, pp. 137-141.
[75]
H. Koppelman and B. van Dijk, Creating a realistic context for team projects in HCI, in Proc. 11th Annual SIGCSE Conf. Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Bologna, Italy, 2006, pp. 58-62.
[76]
M. Bratton, Global TIES: Ten years of engineering for humanity, International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, vol. 9, pp. 205-221, 2014.
