Accurate Estimation of Time-on-Task While Programming

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.

[1]  Christopher Warren,et al.  A Practical Model of Student Engagement While Programming , 2022, SIGCSE.

[2]  Juho Leinonen,et al.  Time-on-Task Metrics for Predicting Performance , 2022, SIGCSE.

[3]  Ned Wellman,et al.  Taking engagement to task: The nature and functioning of task engagement across transitions. , 2020, The Journal of applied psychology.

[4]  Nea Pirttinen,et al.  Exploring the Applicability of Simple Syntax Writing Practice for Learning Programming , 2019, SIGCSE.

[5]  Stephen H. Edwards,et al.  Quantifying Incremental Development Practices and Their Relationship to Procrastination , 2017, ICER.

[6]  Juho Leinonen,et al.  Comparison of Time Metrics in Programming , 2017, ICER.

[7]  Neil Brown,et al.  Evaluation of a Frame-based Programming Editor , 2016, ICER.

[8]  Marek Hatala,et al.  Does Time-on-task Estimation Matter? Implications on Validity of Learning Analytics Findings , 2016, J. Learn. Anal..

[9]  D. Besner,et al.  A Resource-Control Account of Sustained Attention , 2015, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[10]  Gail E. Kaiser,et al.  Retina: helping students and instructors based on observed programming activities , 2009, SIGCSE '09.

[11]  William A. Kahn Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work , 1990 .

[12]  R. Parasuraman Memory load and event rate control sensitivity decrements in sustained attention. , 1979, Science.

[13]  N. Mackworth The Breakdown of Vigilance during Prolonged Visual Search 1 , 1948 .

[14]  Kenneth Levenberg A METHOD FOR THE SOLUTION OF CERTAIN NON – LINEAR PROBLEMS IN LEAST SQUARES , 1944 .

[15]  Juho Leinonen,et al.  Fine-Grained Versus Coarse-Grained Data for Estimating Time-on-Task in Learning Programming , 2021, EDM.

[16]  Jonathan P. Munson,et al.  Metrics for timely assessment of novice programmers , 2017 .

[17]  Morgan Ericsson,et al.  Fine-Grained Recording of Student Programming Sessions to Improve Teaching and Time Estimations , 2015 .

[18]  Terry S. Judd,et al.  Making sense of multitasking: The role of Facebook , 2014, Comput. Educ..

[19]  J. P. Frankmann,et al.  Theories of vigilance. , 1962 .