General description of research questions, objectives and theoretical framework 

In a recent report from the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2022) on inclusive digital education, it is highlighted that learners’ digital competences play an important role in the context of inclusive digital education. All students require digital competences to thrive and learn in inclusive learning environments. From this perspective, inclusion in subject areas, such as computational thinking and digital empowerment, may play a key role in digital-inclusive education, offering digital competencies to all learners. In the inclusive classroom, diversity is embraced – diversity understood as intersective and performative within a complex and intra-active classroom (Cerna et al., 2021; Barad, 2003).

The purpose of this paper is to present a design experiment on pair programming in a Danish classroom implemented in grade 5 with diverse learners. The design was inspired by Universal Design for Learning (cast.org) with the aim of fostering computational thinking and engagement with programming for all learners.

Computational thinking (CT) has been implemented in numerous curricula over the last decade. While various definitions of CT exist, it is often described as ‘learning to think like a computer’ – a mode of thinking and problem-solving similar to practices in computer science and thus closely connected to programming (Bocconi et al., 2022; Wing, 2006). In a Danish educational context, CT is part of the subject ‘technology comprehension’, which consists of four competency areas: computational thinking, computational practice, design and digital empowerment.

Although CT can be taught in many ways, it is often introduced through programming. However, this approach poses challenges for many educators. While students tend to show interest in programming, their learning prerequisites vary based on factors such as gender, class and race. Meanwhile, teachers often face difficulties in scaffolding, instructional approaches and teaching methods (Herro et al., 2022; Zapata-Cáceres et al., 2021).

Several studies have investigated pair programming as a method that teachers can employ to scaffold students’ learning processes and enhance participation opportunities. For example, Ferina et al. (2019) tested a driver–navigator structure in which one student codes while the other provides feedback. Wei et al. (2021) examined a modified form of pair programming in which two students collaborate but work on individual computers towards a shared goal. Zapata-Cáceres et al. (2021) explored pair programming, in which students took turns coding different parts of a solution. Herro et al. (2022) studied pair programming in which students self-organized into pairs and directed their learning processes. Collectively, these studies suggest that pair programming can help teachers scaffold learning processes and facilitate the development of CT. However, the optimal organization of pair programming to ensure participation opportunities for all students remains uncertain.

Based on these considerations, our research question is as follows:

How can pair programming be developed in the classroom to enhance participation and foster CT for all learners?

To explore how pair programming can be designed to support learning and participation for all, we understand learning as situated within a concrete environment and unfolding through participation. Wenger (2008) emphasizes that participation can be legitimate yet peripheral, with peripheral participation being either inwardly or outwardly oriented. Building on Lave and Wenger’s social theory of learning, we also adopt a socio-material perspective, viewing digital and non-digital materials in the classroom as active participants in the learning process (Schrøder et al., 2022). This framework allows us to analyse the social, design and technical aspects of learning spaces, capturing the complexity and messiness of classrooms through Fawns’ concept of entangled pedagogy (Fawns, 2022).

Methods This pair programming and participation experiment is part of a larger research project conducted by the Research Center for Technology Comprehension in K-12 Education (https://cctd.au.dk/projects/research-center-for-technology-comprehension-in-k-12-education). The methodological approach builds on design-based research, combining knowledge generation with educational experimentation to develop new, applicable instructional designs (Barab & Squire, 2004). This experiment, informed by state-of-the-art research on pair programming and inclusive participation, was developed through collaborative workshops with two classroom teachers, two developers and two researchers from the Research Center (McKenney & Reeves, 2019). It involved three teaching sessions, each consisting of two to three lessons and five workshops, with the final workshop evaluating the experiment’s outcomes. Workshops conducted between teaching sessions focused on mapping and analysing human and nonhuman actors to refine the experiment (Clarke, 2011). The experiment, conducted in a 5th-grade classroom during September and October 2024, included 12 boys, several of whom had special needs. It was based on UDL guidelines (cast.org), which emphasize creating inclusive learning environments by accommodating students’ diverse needs, abilities and preferences. The framework incorporates three principles: providing multiple means of engagement, representation and action and expression. Students worked in pairs to design and programme a ‘chair of the future’ using cardboard and LEGO Spike, a learning tool combining LEGO bricks, coding software and intelligent hardware, such as a codable hub with different hardware parts, such as sensors and motors. The activities were organized into three entry points: a coding entry, a design entry and an aesthetic entry. The teacher team formed pairs, which independently selected their preferred entry point. The pair programming followed a classic model in which two students collaborated on one computer. Students’ pair programming and collaboration were documented through interviews, videos, photographs and screen recordings, inspired by ethnographic methods and with a focus on student perspectives (Gulløv & Højlund, 2003). The findings revealed that students developed new forms of participation in pair programming. The UDL’s emphasis on autonomy and self-determination had significant implications for the experimental designs.

Results The analyses showed that the classroom was complex and messy (Fawns, 2022), with new modes of participation emerging in this context. These findings led to novel understandings of what constitutes a ‘pair’ and how pairs function. The analyses highlight the importance of teachers cultivating sensitivity and openness to new forms of participation that students develop through interactions with peers, tasks, programs and materiality. As a consequence of the UDL guidelines, it became evident that the traditional model of ‘two students, one computer’ required substantial flexibility. Multiple legitimate approaches to pair programming need to coexist, creating more opportunities for participation and inclusion (Wenger, 2008). The project developed and experimented with five types of pair programming: 1. Pair programming with one computer: One student coded while the other provided feedback, with roles switching throughout. 2. Pair programming by function: One student designed a function (e.g., making the chair recline), while the other coded it. Roles switched with each new function. 3. Individual parallel pair programming: Students worked separately on their own computers, designing and programming individual chairs while helping each other by sharing code and observations. 4. Parallel co-creative pair programming: Students worked closely together with individual computers, coding and designing in parallel. 5. Peripheral legitimate pair programming: One student took the lead in programming and design, while the other observed and occasionally contributed suggestions that were incorporated into the final product. Collectively, these approaches expand the repertoire of methods that teachers can use to ensure participation and inclusion in technology comprehension.

Barab, S. A. & Squire D. (2004). Design-based Research: putting a Stake in the Ground. The Journal of the Learning Science, 13(1). Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831. Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Kampylis, P., Dagienė, V., Wastiau, P., Engelhardt, K., Earp, J., Horvath, M. A., Jasutė, E., Malagoli, C., Masiulionytė-Dagienė, V. & Stupurienė, G. (2022). Reviewing Computational Thinking in Compulsory Education. In: A. I. dos Santos, R. Cachia, N. Giannoutsou & Y. Punie (Eds), Publications Office of the European Union. CAST. Universal Design for Learning. https://www.cast.org/ Cerna, L., Mezzanotte, C., Rutigliano, A., Brussino, O., Santiago, P., Borgonovi, F. & Guthrie, C. (2021). Promoting inclusive education for diverse societies: A conceptual framework. OECD Education Working Paper No. 260. Clarke, A. E. (2011). Situational Analyses: Grounded Theory Mapping After the Postmodern Turn. Symbolic Interaction, 26(4), 553–576. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2022). Inclusive Digital Education. (H. Weber, A. Elsner, D. Wolf, M. Rohs & M. Turner-Cmuchal, eds.). Odense, Denmark. Fawns, T. (2022). An Entangled Pedagogy: Looking Beyond the Pedagogy-Technology Dichotomy. Postdigital Science and Education, 4, 711–728. Freina, L., Bottino, R. & Ferlino, L. (2019). Fostering Computational Thinking Skills in the Last Years of Primary School. International Journal of Serious Games, V6/3, p. 101–115. Gulløv, E. & Højlund, S. (2003). Feltarbejde blandt børn: metodologi og etik i etnografisk børneforskning. Gyldendal Uddannelse. Herro, D., Quigley,C., Plank, H. & Abimbade, O. (2021). Understanding students’ social interactions during making activities designed to promote computational thinking. The Journal of Educational Research, 114(2), P. 183–195. Mckenney, S. & Reeves, T. C. (2019). Conducting Educational Design Research. 2nd Edition. Routledge. Schrøder, V., Jørgensen, H. H. & Skovbjerg, H. M. (2022). Socio-materielle sammenfiltringer med legekvaliteter i playlab. Læring og Medier, 15(26), 1–25. Wei, X., Lin, L., Meng, N., Tan, W., Kong, S. & Kinshuk (2021).The effectiveness of partial pair programming on elementary school students’ Computational Thinking skills and self-efficacy. Computers & Education, Volume 160, 104023. Wenger, E. (2008). Communities of Practice. Cambridge University Press. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.Zapata-Cáceres, M., Martín-Barroso, E. & Román-González, M. (2021). Collaborative Game-Based Environment and Assessment Tool for Learning Computational Thinking in Primary School: A Case Study. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 576–589.