Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3626252.3630837acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Effect of Deadlines on Student Submission Timelines and Success in a Fully-Online Self-Paced Course

Published: 07 March 2024 Publication History

Abstract

We analyze the impact of deadline policies on student submission timeliness and success in a self-paced online programming course. The course is for learning a second language (C) after Java or Python and assumes some knowledge of data structures. It targets under- graduates in a four-year computer science degree program. We measure changes in student submission timeliness, assess pass rates, and analyze the effects of a hard mid-term deadline across various submission policies. One analysis measures the percent of time through the term when students submit their assignments. This measure highlights student procrastination. Another metric examines the fraction of students who turn in assignments on time or within specific time frames (within one week, etc.) of a stated or suggested deadline. This offers insights into the impact of deadline policies on submission timeliness. For course offerings without deadlines, we used notional deadlines corresponding to what we would have suggested, for comparison. The deadline policies in this study were: no deadlines, suggested deadlines, deadlines with minor penalties (sometimes allowing one low score to be dropped), and deadlines with minor penalties plus a hard mid-term deadline. We assess the impact of each deadline policy on student procrastina- tion and course completion rates, including effects on withdrawals and incompletes. Defining the pass rate and accounting for student attrition is crucial to accurate assessment of deadline policies. Our findings contribute to understanding effective instructional design in self-paced online learning environments. A key result is that judiciously chosen deadline policies can improve student timeliness and pass rates.

References

[1]
John O. Aikin. 1981. A self-paced first course in computer science. In Proceedings of the Twelfth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 78--85.
[2]
Dan Ariely and Klaus Wertenbroch. 2002. Procrastination, deadlines, and performance: Self-control by precommitment. Psychological Science, Vol. 13, 3 (2002), 219--224.
[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. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 81--86.
[4]
Alberto Bisin and Kyle Hyndman. 2020. Present-bias, procrastination and deadlines in a field experiment. Games and Economic Behavior, Vol. 119 (2020), 339--357.
[5]
Nicholas Burger, Gary Charness, and John Lynham. 2011. Field and online experiments on self-control. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 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. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 955--961.
[7]
Francisco Enrique Vicente Castro, Juho Leinonen, and Arto Hellas. 2022. Experiences With and Lessons Learned on Deadlines and Submission Behavior. In Proceedings of the 22nd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1--13.
[8]
Rubén Comas-Forgas and Jaume Sureda-Negre. 2010. Academic plagiarism: Explanatory factors from students' perspective. Journal of Academic Ethics, Vol. 8, 3 (2010), 217--232.
[9]
Curtis R. Cook. 1976. A self-paced introductory FORTRAN programming course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 8, 3 (1976), 78--79.
[10]
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. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4--9.
[11]
Paul Denny, Jacqueline Whalley, and Juho Leinonen. 2021. Promoting early engagement with programming assignments using scheduled automated feedback. In Proceedings of the 23rd Australasian Computing Education Conference. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 88--95.
[12]
John Dunlosky and Keith W. Thiede. 1998. What Makes People Study More? An Evaluation of Factors that Affect Self-Paced Study. Acta Psychologica, Vol. 98, 1 (1998), 37--56.
[13]
Stephen H. Edwards, Jason Snyder, Manuel A. Pérez-Qui nones, 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. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3--14.
[14]
Joseph R. Ferrari and Catherine A. Roster. 2018. Delaying disposing: Examining the relationship between procrastination and clutter across generations. Current Psychology, Vol. 37 (2018), 426--431.
[15]
Dan Garcia, Connor McMahon, Yuan Garcia, Matthew West, and Craig Zilles. 2022. Achieving" A's for All (as Time and Interest Allow)". In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 255--258.
[16]
Grandon Gill and Carolyn F. Holton. 2006. A self-paced introductory programming course. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, Vol. 5, 1 (2006), 95--105.
[17]
Douglas L. Hintzman. 1974. Theoretical implications of the spacing effect. In Theories in cognitive psychology: The Loyola Symposium, R. L. Solso (Ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, USA.
[18]
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, New York, NY, USA, 1--9.
[19]
Ayaan M. Kazerouni, Stephen H. Edwards, T. Simin Hall, and Clifford A. Shaffer. 2017b. 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. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 104--109.
[20]
Ayaan M. Kazerouni, Stephen H. Edwards, and Clifford A. Shaffer. 2017a. Quantifying incremental development practices and their relationship to procrastination. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 191--199.
[21]
Nate Kornell and Robert A. Bjork. 2007. The Promise and Perils of Self-regulated Study. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, Vol. 14, 2 (2007), 219--224.
[22]
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. ACM, New York, NY, USA, Volume 1, 373--379.
[23]
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. ACM, New York, NY, USA, Volume 1, 885--891.
[24]
Juho Leinonen, Leo Lepp"anen, Petri Ihantola, and Arto Hellas. 2017. Comparison of time metrics in programming. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 200--208.
[25]
Leo Lepp"anen, 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. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 41--50.
[26]
Krista Longi. 2016. Exploring factors that affect performance on introductory programming courses. Master's thesis. Helsingfors Universitet (Univ. of Helsinki).
[27]
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, Vol. 82, 4 (1990), 760.
[28]
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. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3--11.
[29]
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, Vol. 16, 1 (2000), 41.
[30]
Thomas O. Nelson and R. Jacob Leonesio. 1988. Allocation of Self-Paced Study Time and the “Labor-in-Vain Effect”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 14, 4 (1988), 676.
[31]
D. Parson and Allison Seidel. 2014. Mining Student Time Management Patterns in Programming Projects. In Proceedings of FECS'14: 2014 International Conference on Frontiers in CS & CE Education. IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 21--24.
[32]
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. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 907--913.
[33]
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. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 789--795.
[34]
William G. Sommer. 1990. Procrastination and cramming: How adept students ace the system. Journal of American College Health, Vol. 39, 1 (1990), 5--10.
[35]
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. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 18--23.
[36]
Jonathan G. Tullis and Aaron S. Benjamin. 2011. On the Effectiveness of Self-Paced Learning. Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 64, 2 (2011), 109--118.
[37]
Christopher Watson, Frederick W. B. 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. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 469--474.
[38]
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, Vol. 55, 2 (2018), 170--181.
[39]
Keith J. Whittington, Dianne P. Bills, and Lawrence W. Hill. 2003. Implementation of alternative pacing in an introductory programming sequence. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Information Technology Curriculum. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 47--53.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)The Impact of Homework Deadline Times on College Student Performance and Stress: A Quasi-Experiment in Business StatisticsJournal of Statistics and Data Science Education10.1080/26939169.2024.2441692(1-14)Online publication date: 13-Dec-2024
  • (2024)A Student Performance Prediction Model Based on Feature Factor TransferKnowledge Science, Engineering and Management10.1007/978-981-97-5495-3_29(384-394)Online publication date: 26-Jul-2024

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
SIGCSE 2024: Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1
March 2024
1583 pages
ISBN:9798400704239
DOI:10.1145/3626252
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 07 March 2024

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. deadline placement
  2. deadlines
  3. procrastination
  4. self-paced
  5. submission behavior
  6. time management

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

SIGCSE 2024
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)667
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)104
Reflects downloads up to 01 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)The Impact of Homework Deadline Times on College Student Performance and Stress: A Quasi-Experiment in Business StatisticsJournal of Statistics and Data Science Education10.1080/26939169.2024.2441692(1-14)Online publication date: 13-Dec-2024
  • (2024)A Student Performance Prediction Model Based on Feature Factor TransferKnowledge Science, Engineering and Management10.1007/978-981-97-5495-3_29(384-394)Online publication date: 26-Jul-2024

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