skip to main content
10.1145/3017680.3017732acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Getting Students to Earnestly Do Reading, Studying, and Homework in an Introductory Programming Class

Published: 08 March 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Getting students to read and study before class, to be better prepared for lecture, or to enable a flipped classroom is a long-standing difficulty for teachers of introductory programming classes. Furthermore, getting students to do homework, consisting of small practice problems and questions, is also a long-standing difficulty without massive grading resources. And even then, preventing students from copying others' solutions is difficult as well. Today, the web enables new interactive learning material that is replacing past forms of textbooks and homework assignments, and students today commonly have access to needed devices and the internet. This paper provides data on student reading and homework completion rates for web-based interactive learning material we created that automatically records reading and homework activity by students. The data is for several thousand students at over 10 universities, for introductory programming classes in Java, Python, and C++. The data shows that, with an appropriate amount of awarded points, required-reading completion rate was 84%, and auto-graded homework completion rate was 75%, varying somewhat based on how many course grade points those items were worth. Students on average spent about 10 minutes reading each section, and about 3 minutes per homework problem, both appropriate amounts for those items. Furthermore, we developed measures of whether students were earnestly attempting the reading and homeworks, versus just "cheating the system" to get course grade points. We describe those earnestness measures in this paper. With proper design and amount of assigned work, 80%-90% of students earnestly did the reading and homework activities, even when no penalty existed for cheating the system, and fewer than 3% blatantly cheated the system to get their points.

References

[1]
Newstead, Stephen E., Arlene Franklyn-Stokes, and Penny Armstead. "Individual differences in student cheating." Journal of Educational Psychology 88.2, 229, 1996.
[2]
Jordan, Augustus E. "College student cheating: The role of motivation, perceived norms, attitudes, and knowledge of institutional policy." Ethics & Behavior 11.3, 233--247, 2001.
[3]
Hutton, Patricia A. "Understanding student cheating and what educators can do about it." College Teaching 54.1, 171--176, 2006.
[4]
zyBooks, www.zybooks.com, December 2016.
[5]
Judy Shearda, Selby Markhama & Martin Dicka, "Investigating Differences in Cheating Behaviours of IT Undergraduate and Graduate Students: The maturity and motivation factors" Higher Education Research & Development Vol. 22, Issue 1, 2003.
[6]
Avinash C Singhal, "Factors in Student Dishonesty" Psychological Reports 2011.
[7]
Augustus E. Jordan, "College Student Cheating: The Role of Motivation, Perceived Norms, Attitudes, and Knowledge of Institutional Policy" Ethics & Behavior Vol. 11, Issue 3, 2001.
[8]
Bernard E. Whitley, "Factors Associated with Cheating Among College Students" Research in Higher Education, Vol. 39, Issue 3, pp 235--274, 1993.
[9]
Pearson, MasteringPhysics, http://www.pearsonmylabandmastering.com/northamerica/masteringphysics/, December 2016.
[10]
Pearson, MathXL, http://www.pearsonmylabandmastering.com/northamerica/mathxl/, December 2016
[11]
Wiley, WileyPlus, https://www.wileyplus.com/WileyCDA/, December 2016.
[12]
TuringsCraft, CodeLab, http://turingscraft.com/, December 2016.
[13]
WebAssign, WebAssign, http://webassign.net/, December 2016.
[14]
McGraw-Hill, Connect, http://connect.mheducation.com/, December 2016.
[15]
Scott Bonham, Robert Beichner and Duane Deardorff, "Online homework: Does it make a difference?", Phys. Teach. 39, 293, 2001.
[16]
Yuen, J., Edgcomb, A., and Vahid, F. Will Students Earnestly Attempt Learning Questions if Answers are Viewable? Proceedings of ASEE Annual Conference, 2016.
[17]
A. Edgcomb, F. Vahid, and R. Lysecky. Students Learn More with Less Text that Covers the Same Core Topics, Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), IEEE, 2015.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
SIGCSE '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
March 2017
838 pages
ISBN:9781450346986
DOI:10.1145/3017680
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: 08 March 2017

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. homework
  2. introductory programming
  3. learning content
  4. reading
  5. student cheating
  6. student earnestness
  7. studying

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

  • NSF SBIR

Conference

SIGCSE '17
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

SIGCSE '17 Paper Acceptance Rate 105 of 348 submissions, 30%;
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)29
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 27 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)How My Students and I (Re)Discovered the Joy of Computing in CS2ACM Inroads10.1145/359691814:2(36-39)Online publication date: 19-May-2023
  • (2023)Reflections on Conducting Online Think-AloudsACM Inroads10.1145/359691714:2(26-34)Online publication date: 19-May-2023
  • (2023)Teaching CS-101 at the Dawn of ChatGPTACM Inroads10.1145/359563414:2(40-46)Online publication date: 19-May-2023
  • (2023)CONVERSATIONS: Conversation with a Prominent Propagator: Frank VahidACM Inroads10.1145/359487514:2(14-17)Online publication date: 19-May-2023
  • (2023)Increasing Women's Participation in CS at Large Public Universities: Issues and InsightsACM Inroads10.1145/358418114:2(18-25)Online publication date: 19-May-2023
  • (2023)Visual vs. Textual Programming Languages in CS0.5Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3545945.3569722(32-38)Online publication date: 2-Mar-2023
  • (2023)Less Is More: Students Skim Lengthy Online TextbooksIEEE Transactions on Education10.1109/TE.2022.319965166:2(123-129)Online publication date: Apr-2023
  • (2023)Improving Student Experience in an Introductory Programming Course with an Interactive Textbook2023 IEEE World Engineering Education Conference (EDUNINE)10.1109/EDUNINE57531.2023.10102903(1-6)Online publication date: 12-Mar-2023
  • (2022)Integrating Videos with Programming PracticeProceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 110.1145/3502718.3524778(241-247)Online publication date: 7-Jul-2022
  • (2022)Using an open source textbook in programming classProceedings of the 2022 ACM Southeast Conference10.1145/3476883.3520202(25-30)Online publication date: 18-Apr-2022
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media