skip to main content
10.1145/3545945.3569804acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Accurate Estimation of Time-on-Task While Programming

Published: 03 March 2023 Publication History

Abstract

In a recent study, students were periodically prompted to self-report engagement while working on computer programming assignments in a CS1 course. A regression model predicting time-on-task was proposed. While it was a significant improvement over ad-hoc estimation techniques, the study nevertheless suffered from lack of error analysis, lack of comparison with existing methods, subtle complications in prompting students, and small sample size. In this paper we report results from a study with an increased number of student participants and modified prompting scheme intended to better capture natural student behavior. Furthermore, we perform a cross-validation analysis on our refined regression model and present the resulting error bounds. We compare with threshold approaches and find that, in at least one context, a simple 5-minute threshold of inactivity is a reasonable estimate for whether a student is on-task or not. We show that our approach to modeling student engagement while programming is robust and suitable for identification of students in need of intervention, understanding engagement behavior, and estimating time taken on programming assignments.

References

[1]
John Edwards, Kaden Hart, and Christopher Warren. 2022. A practical model of student engagement while programming. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education.
[2]
Judith P Frankmann and Jack A Adams. 1962. Theories of vigilance. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 59, 4 (1962), 257.
[3]
Terry Judd. 2014. Making sense of multitasking: The role of Facebook. Computers & Education, Vol. 70 (2014), 194--202.
[4]
William A Kahn. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of management journal, Vol. 33, 4 (1990), 692--724.
[5]
Ayaan M Kazerouni, Stephen H Edwards, and Clifford A Shaffer. 2017. Quantifying incremental development practices and their relationship to procrastination. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. 191--199.
[6]
Vitomir Kovanovic, Dragan Gavs ević, Shane Dawson, Srećko Joksimovic, and Ryan Baker. 2015. Does time-on-task estimation matter? Implications on validity of learning analytics findings. Journal of Learning Analytics, Vol. 2, 3 (2015), 81--110.
[7]
Antti Leinonen, Henrik Nygren, Nea Pirttinen, Arto Hellas, and Juho Leinonen. 2019. Exploring the applicability of simple syntax writing practice for learning programming. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 84--90.
[8]
Juho Leinonen, Francisco Enrique Vicente Castro, and Arto Hellas. 2022. Time-on-Task Metrics for Predicting Performance. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 871--877.
[9]
Juho Leinonen, Francisco Enrique Vicente Castro, Arto Hellas, et al. 2021. Fine-Grained Versus Coarse-Grained Data for Estimating Time-on-Task in Learning Programming. In Proceedings of The 14th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM 2021). The International Educational Data Mining Society.
[10]
Juho Leinonen, Leo Leppänen, Petri Ihantola, and Arto Hellas. 2017. Comparison of time metrics in programming. In Proceedings of the 2017 acm conference on international computing education research. 200--208.
[11]
Kenneth Levenberg. 1944. A method for the solution of certain non-linear problems in least squares. Quarterly of applied mathematics, Vol. 2, 2 (1944), 164--168.
[12]
Norman H Mackworth. 1948. The breakdown of vigilance during prolonged visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 1, 1 (1948), 6--21.
[13]
Jonathan P Munson. 2017. Metrics for timely assessment of novice programmers. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, Vol. 32, 3 (2017), 136--148.
[14]
Christian Murphy, Gail Kaiser, Kristin Loveland, and Sahar Hasan. 2009. Retina: helping students and instructors based on observed programming activities. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education. 178--182.
[15]
Daniel W Newton, Jeffery A LePine, Ji Koung Kim, Ned Wellman, and John T Bush. 2020. Taking engagement to task: The nature and functioning of task engagement across transitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 105, 1 (2020), 1.
[16]
Raja Parasuraman. 1979. Memory load and event rate control sensitivity decrements in sustained attention. Science, Vol. 205, 4409 (1979), 924--927.
[17]
H Mcllvane Parsons. 1974. What Happened at Hawthorne?: New evidence suggests the Hawthorne effect resulted from operant reinforcement contingencies. Science, Vol. 183, 4128 (1974), 922--932.
[18]
Thomas W Price, Neil CC Brown, Dragan Lipovac, Tiffany Barnes, and Michael Kölling. 2016. Evaluation of a frame-based programming editor. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International computing education research. 33--42.
[19]
David R Thomson, Derek Besner, and Daniel Smilek. 2015. A resource-control account of sustained attention: Evidence from mind-wandering and vigilance paradigms. Perspectives on psychological science, Vol. 10, 1 (2015), 82--96.
[20]
Daniel Toll, Tobias Olsson, Morgan Ericsson, and Anna Wingkvist. 2016. Fine-grained recording of student programming sessions to improve teaching and time estimations. In International journal of engineering education, Vol. 32. Tempus Publications, 1069--1077.

Cited By

View all

Index Terms

  1. Accurate Estimation of Time-on-Task While Programming

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SIGCSE 2023: Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1
    March 2023
    1481 pages
    ISBN:9781450394314
    DOI:10.1145/3545945
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 03 March 2023

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. cs1, keystrokes, engagement
    2. vigilance

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    SIGCSE 2023
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,595 of 4,542 submissions, 35%

    Upcoming Conference

    SIGCSE TS 2025
    The 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
    February 26 - March 1, 2025
    Pittsburgh , PA , USA

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)176
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)21
    Reflects downloads up to 28 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Login options

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media