Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3564721.3564728acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pageskoli-callingConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Experiences With and Lessons Learned on Deadlines and Submission Behavior

Published: 17 November 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Course exercises are typically given so that the time it takes to finish them fits in the time constraints of the academic system. Exercises come with deadlines that are considered to help students plan their schedules and consequently help get the exercises done. Without deadlines, exercises that need to be done may easily slide away to make room for other tasks that are seemingly more important. Even with deadlines, however, some students procrastinate and leave their tasks without attention until the very last moment. In this article, we study computer science course exercise deadlines by analyzing data from a course that had different deadline placements over the years. The deadline placements of the course were varied to identify a deadline that would be suitable for the majority—if not all—of students. Our analyses from six different deadlines demonstrate that some deadlines seem to reduce last-minute work on exercises. Our findings highlight that not all deadlines are the same and serves as a call for more research into deadline placement and their potential impacts on student time management and performance.

References

[1]
Dan Ariely and Klaus Wertenbroch. 2002. Procrastination, deadlines, and performance: Self-control by precommitment. Psychological science 13, 3 (2002), 219–224.
[2]
Tapio Auvinen, Nickolas Falkner, Arto Hellas, Petri Ihantola, Ville Karavirta, and Otto Seppälä. 2020. Relation of Individual Time Management Practices and Time Management of Teams. In 2020 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, 1–9.
[3]
Susan Bergin, Ronan Reilly, and Desmond Traynor. 2005. Examining the role of self-regulated learning on introductory programming performance. In Proceedings of the first international workshop on Computing education research. 81–86.
[4]
Alberto Bisin and Kyle Hyndman. 2020. Present-bias, procrastination and deadlines in a field experiment. Games and economic behavior 119 (2020), 339–357.
[5]
Nicholas Burger, Gary Charness, and John Lynham. 2011. Field and online experiments on self-control. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 77, 3(2011), 393–404.
[6]
Jennifer Campbell, Andrew Petersen, and Jacqueline Smith. 2019. Self-paced Mastery Learning CS1. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 955–961.
[7]
Rubén Comas-Forgas and Jaume Sureda-Negre. 2010. Academic plagiarism: Explanatory factors from students’ perspective. Journal of Academic Ethics 8, 3 (2010), 217–232.
[8]
Paul Denny, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Michelle Craig, and Andrew Petersen. 2018. Improving Complex Task Performance Using a Sequence of Simple Practice Tasks. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Larnaca, Cyprus) (ITiCSE 2018). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3197091.3197141
[9]
Paul Denny, Jacqueline Whalley, and Juho Leinonen. 2021. Promoting Early Engagement with Programming Assignments Using Scheduled Automated Feedback. In Australasian Computing Education Conference. 88–95.
[10]
Hermann Ebbinghaus. 1885. Über das gedächtnis: untersuchungen zur experimentellen psychologie. Duncker & Humblot.
[11]
Stephen H Edwards, Jason Snyder, Manuel A Pérez-Quiñones, Anthony Allevato, Dongkwan Kim, and Betsy Tretola. 2009. Comparing effective and ineffective behaviors of student programmers. In Proceedings of the fifth international workshop on Computing education research workshop. 3–14.
[12]
Hans-Magne Eikeland. 1975. Epsilon-squared should be preferred to Eta-squared. (1975).
[13]
Jon Eyolfson, Lin Tan, and Patrick Lam. 2011. Do time of day and developer experience affect commit bugginess?. In Proceedings of the 8th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. 153–162.
[14]
Joseph R Ferrari and Catherine A Roster. 2018. Delaying disposing: examining the relationship between procrastination and clutter across generations. Current Psychology 37, 2 (2018), 426–431.
[15]
Joonas Häkkinen, Petri Ihantola, Matti Luukkainen, Antti Leinonen, and Juho Leinonen. 2021. Persistence of Time Management Behavior of Students and Its Relationship with Performance in Software Projects. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. 92–100.
[16]
Arto Hellas, Juho Leinonen, and Petri Ihantola. 2017. Plagiarism in take-home exams: help-seeking, collaboration, and systematic cheating. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education. 238–243.
[17]
Douglas L Hintzman. 1974. Theoretical implications of the spacing effect.(1974).
[18]
Andrew J. Howell, David C. Watson, Russell A. Powell, and Karen Buro. 2006. Academic procrastination: The pattern and correlates of behavioural postponement. Personality and Individual Differences 40, 8 (June 2006), 1519–1530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.023
[19]
Ni Huang, Jiayin Zhang, Gordon Burtch, Xitong Li, and Peiyu Chen. 2021. Combating Procrastination on Massive Online Open Courses via Optimal Calls to Action. Information Systems Research 32, 2 (June 2021), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2020.0974
[20]
Petri Ihantola, Ilenia Fronza, Tommi Mikkonen, Miska Noponen, and Arto Hellas. 2020. Deadlines and MOOCs: How Do Students Behave in MOOCs with and without Deadlines. In 2020 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, 1–9.
[21]
Kalle Ilves, Juho Leinonen, and Arto Hellas. 2018. Supporting self-regulated learning with visualizations in online learning environments. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 257–262.
[22]
Michael S Irwin and Stephen H Edwards. 2019. Can Mobile Gaming Psychology Be Used to Improve Time Management on Programming Assignments?. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Global Computing Education. 208–214.
[23]
David A. Kalmbach, Logan D. Schneider, Joseph Cheung, Sarah J. Bertrand, Thiruchelvam Kariharan, Allan I. Pack, and Philip R. Gehrman. 2016. Genetic Basis of Chronotype in Humans: Insights From Three Landmark GWAS. Sleep 40, 2 (Dec. 2016), zsw048. https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/zsw048
[24]
Ayaan M Kazerouni, Stephen H Edwards, T Simin Hall, and Clifford A Shaffer. 2017. DevEventTracker: Tracking development events to assess incremental development and procrastination. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 104–109.
[25]
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.
[26]
MG Kendall. 1975. Rank correlation methods. 2nd impression. Charles Griffin and Company Ltd. London and High Wycombe (1975).
[27]
Miikka Kuutila, Mika Mäntylä, Umar Farooq, and Maelick Claes. 2020. Time pressure in software engineering: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology 121 (2020), 106257.
[28]
Juho Leinonen, Francisco Enrique Vicente Castro, and Arto Hellas. 2021. Does the Early Bird Catch the Worm? Earliness of Students’ Work and its Relationship with Course Outcomes. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1. 373–379.
[29]
Juho Leinonen, Paul Denny, and Jacqueline Whalley. 2022. A Comparison of Immediate and Scheduled Feedback in Introductory Programming Projects. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 885–891.
[30]
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.
[31]
Leo Leppänen, Juho Leinonen, and Arto Hellas. 2016. Pauses and spacing in learning to program. In Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. 41–50.
[32]
George F Loewenstein and Dražen Prelec. 1993. Preferences for sequences of outcomes.Psychological review 100, 1 (1993), 91.
[33]
Krista Longi. 2016. Exploring factors that affect performance on introductory programming courses. Master’s thesis.
[34]
Therese H Macan, Comila Shahani, Robert L Dipboye, and Amanda P Phillips. 1990. College students’ time management: Correlations with academic performance and stress.Journal of educational psychology 82, 4 (1990), 760.
[35]
Henry B Mann. 1945. Nonparametric tests against trend. Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society (1945), 245–259.
[36]
Joshua Martin, Stephen H Edwards, and Clfford A Shaffer. 2015. The effects of procrastination interventions on programming project success. In Proceedings of the eleventh annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research. 3–11.
[37]
Ranjita Misra and Michelle McKean. 2000. College students’ academic stress and its relation to their anxiety, time management, and leisure satisfaction. American journal of Health studies 16, 1 (2000), 41.
[38]
D Parson and Allison Seidel. 2014. Mining Student Time Management Patterns in Programming Projects. In Proceedings of FECS’14: 2014 Intl. Conf. on Frontiers in CS & CE Education. 21–24.
[39]
Shih-Yu Pu, Nan-Ching Tai, and Kah-Hoe Ng. 2019. Development of Innovative Online Shopping Experience to Overcome Procrastination through Self-Rewarding. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics - Taiwan (ICCE-TW). 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCE-TW46550.2019.8991946
[40]
Arcady A. Putilov, Dmitry S. Sveshnikov, Alexandra N. Puchkova, Vladimir B. Dorokhov, Zarina B. Bakaeva, Elena B. Yakunina, Yuri P. Starshinov, Vladimir I. Torshin, Nikolay N. Alipov, Olga V. Sergeeva, Elena A. Trutneva, Michael M. Lapkin, Zhanna N. Lopatskaya, Roman O. Budkevich, Elena V. Budkevich, Marina P. Dyakovich, Olga G. Donskaya, Juri M. Plusnin, Bérénice Delwiche, Clara Colomb, Daniel Neu, and Olivier Mairesse. 2021. Single-Item Chronotyping (SIC), a method to self-assess diurnal types by using 6 simple charts. Personality and Individual Differences 168 (Jan. 2021), 110353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110353
[41]
Henri C Schouwenburg and JanTjeerd Groenewoud. 2001. Study motivation under social temptation; effects of trait procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences 30, 2 (Jan. 2001), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00034-9
[42]
Clifford A Shaffer and Ayaan M Kazerouni. 2021. The Impact of Programming Project Milestones on Procrastination, Project Outcomes, and Course Outcomes: A Quasi-Experimental Study in a Third-Year Data Structures Course. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 907–913.
[43]
Jaemarie Solyst, Trisha Thakur, Madhurima Dutta, Yuya Asano, Andrew Petersen, and Joseph Jay Williams. 2021. Procrastination and Gaming in an Online Homework System of an Inverted CS1. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 789–795.
[44]
William G Sommer. 1990. Procrastination and cramming: How adept students ace the system. Journal of American College Health 39, 1 (1990), 5–10.
[45]
Jaime Spacco, Paul Denny, Brad Richards, David Babcock, David Hovemeyer, James Moscola, and Robert Duvall. 2015. Analyzing student work patterns using programming exercise data. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 18–23.
[46]
Susan Spangler. 2020. Cinderella Deadlines: Reconsidering Timelines for Student Work. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/course-design-ideas/cinderella-deadlines-reconsidering-timelines-for-student-work/. Accessed: 2021-04-01.
[47]
Piers Steel. 2007. The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure.Psychological bulletin 133, 1 (2007), 65.
[48]
Piers Steel and Cornelius J König. 2006. Integrating theories of motivation. Academy of management review 31, 4 (2006), 889–913.
[49]
Piers Steel, Frode Svartdal, Tomas Thundiyil, and Thomas Brothen. 2018. Examining Procrastination Across Multiple Goal Stages: A Longitudinal Study of Temporal Motivation Theory. Frontiers in Psychology 9 (2018). https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00327
[50]
Dmitry Taubinsky. 2014. Essays in Behavioral and Experimental Economics. Ph.D. Dissertation.
[51]
Vincent van der Vinne, Giulia Zerbini, Anne Siersema, Amy Pieper, Martha Merrow, Roelof A Hut, Till Roenneberg, and Thomas Kantermann. 2015. Timing of examinations affects school performance differently in early and late chronotypes. Journal of biological rhythms 30, 1 (2015), 53–60.
[52]
Christopher Watson, Frederick WB Li, and Jamie L Godwin. 2014. No tests required: comparing traditional and dynamic predictors of programming success. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. 469–474.
[53]
William R Watson, Ji Hyun Yu, and Sunnie L Watson. 2018. Perceived attitudinal learning in a self-paced versus fixed-schedule MOOC. Educational Media International 55, 2 (2018), 170–181.
[54]
Albina Zavgorodniaia, Raj Shrestha, Juho Leinonen, Arto Hellas, and John Edwards. 2021. Morning or Evening? An Examination of Circadian Rhythms of CS1 Students. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training (ICSE-SEET). 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE-SEET52601.2021.00036

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Using Prompts to Encourage Quiz Engagement: The Relationship Between Engagement Profiles and Course SuccessTeaching of Psychology10.1177/00986283241300257Online publication date: 4-Dec-2024
  • (2023)Using Assignment Incentives to Reduce Student Procrastination and Encourage Code Review Interactions2023 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI)10.1109/CSCI62032.2023.00270(1628-1633)Online publication date: 13-Dec-2023

Index Terms

  1. Experiences With and Lessons Learned on Deadlines and Submission Behavior

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    Koli Calling '22: Proceedings of the 22nd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research
    November 2022
    282 pages
    ISBN:9781450396165
    DOI:10.1145/3564721
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 17 November 2022

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. deadline placement
    2. deadlines
    3. procrastination
    4. submission behavior
    5. time management

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Conference

    Koli 2022

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 80 of 182 submissions, 44%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)11,761
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1,009
    Reflects downloads up to 01 Feb 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Using Prompts to Encourage Quiz Engagement: The Relationship Between Engagement Profiles and Course SuccessTeaching of Psychology10.1177/00986283241300257Online publication date: 4-Dec-2024
    • (2023)Using Assignment Incentives to Reduce Student Procrastination and Encourage Code Review Interactions2023 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI)10.1109/CSCI62032.2023.00270(1628-1633)Online publication date: 13-Dec-2023

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Login options

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media