The impact of AI-assisted pair programming on student motivation, programming anxiety, collaborative learning, and programming performance: a comparative study with traditional pair programming and individual approaches

Purpose This study investigates the impact of AI-assisted pair programming on undergraduate students' intrinsic motivation, programming anxiety, and performance, relative to both human-human pair programming and individual programming approaches. Methods A quasi-experimental design was conducted over two academic years (2023-2024) with 234 undergraduate students in a Java web application development course. Intact class sections were randomly assigned to AI-assisted pair programming (using GPT-3.5 Turbo in 2023 and Claude 3 Opus in 2024), human-human pair programming, or individual programming conditions. Data on intrinsic motivation, programming anxiety, collaborative perceptions, and programming performance were collected at three time points using validated instruments. Results Compared to individual programming, AI-assisted pair programming significantly increased intrinsic motivation (p < .001, d = 0.35) and reduced programming anxiety (p < .001), producing outcomes comparable to human-human pair programming. AI-assisted groups also outperformed both individual and human-human groups in programming tasks (p < .001). However, human-human pair programming fostered the highest perceptions of collaboration and social presence, surpassing both AI-assisted and individual conditions (p < .001). Mediation analysis revealed that perceived usefulness of the AI assistant significantly mediated the relationship between the programming approach and student outcomes, highlighting the importance of positive perceptions in leveraging AI tools for educational benefits. No significant differences emerged between the two AI models employed, indicating that both GPT-3.5 Turbo and Claude 3 Opus provided similar benefits. Conclusion While AI-assisted pair programming enhances motivation, reduces anxiety, and improves performance, it does not fully match the collaborative depth and social presence achieved through human-human pairing. These findings highlight the complementary strengths of AI and human interaction: AI support can bolster learning outcomes, yet human partners offer richer social engagement. As AI capabilities advance, educators should integrate such tools thoughtfully, ensuring that technology complements rather than replaces the interpersonal dynamics and skill development central to effective programming education.