skip to main content
10.1145/3502718.3524788acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiticseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Impact of Course Scheduling on Student Performance in Remote Learning

Published: 07 July 2022 Publication History

Abstract

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic gave rise to a need to change course syllabi in order to completely transition to a remote learning model. In the case of subjects comprising programming tasks, taking into account the availability of tools and resources that provide opportunities for independent work without teacher supervision, it was necessary to decide whether students should be allowed to work under self-paced learning, or, similar to traditional classes, fixed-schedule learning. Experiences from MOOCs demonstrated that course scheduling is not without impact on the learning process, and may affect the level of student satisfaction with the course. This study determines how course scheduling affected the performance of students attending a database course. The students were divided into two groups, and completed the first module without teacher supervision. During the learning process, they solved programming tasks which were assessed automatically, and then took quizzes to verify what they learned. One of the groups worked with the materials and took the quizzes in accordance with a schedule, and the other group did so without any time constraints. The results demonstrate that students perform better when working under the fixed-schedule model, without any impact on their level of satisfaction with the course. The system of learning not only affected the quiz results in the module where different scheduling was used, but student performance in later parts of the course as well. The results presented in the paper should be of interest to teachers designing remote courses involving self-learning.

References

[1]
Simon D. Angus and Judith Watson. 2009. Does regular online testing enhance student learning in the numerical sciences? Robust evidence from a large data set. British Journal of Educational Technology 40, 2 (2009), 255--272.
[2]
Tapio Auvinen. 2015. Harmful Study Habits in Online Learning Environments with Automatic Assessment. In 2015 International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering. 50--57.
[3]
Linda G. Carrington. 2010. The Impact Of Course Scheduling On Student Success In Intermediate Accounting. American Journal of Business Education (AJBE) 3, 4, 51--60.
[4]
Paul Denny, Jacqueline Whalley, and Juho Leinonen. 2021. Promoting Early Engagement with Programming Assignments Using Scheduled Automated Feedback. In Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 88--95.
[5]
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), 1--9.
[6]
Renée S. Jansen, Anouschka van Leeuwen, Jeroen Janssen, Rianne Conijn, and Liesbeth Kester. 2020. Supporting learners' self-regulated learning in Massive Open Online Courses. Computers & Education 146, (2020), 103771.
[7]
Mario De Jonge, Huib K. Tabbers, Diane Pecher, Yoonhee Jang, and René Zeelenberg. 2015. The efficacy of self-paced study in multitrial learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 41, 3, 851--858.
[8]
Project Jupyter, Douglas Blank, David Bourgin, Alexander Brown, Matthias Bussonnier, Jonathan Frederic, Brian Granger, Thomas Griffiths, Jessica Hamrick, Kyle Kelley, M Pacer, Logan Page, Fernando Pérez, Benjamin Ragan-Kelley, Jordan Suchow, and Carol Willing. 2019. nbgrader: A Tool for Creating and Grading Assignments in the Jupyter Notebook. Journal of Open Source Education 2, 16 (2019), 32.
[9]
Victor N. Kasyanov and Elena V. Kasyanova. 2020. Methods and tools for teaching programming at university. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1603, (2020), 12021.
[10]
Thomas Kluyver, Benjamin Ragan-Kelley, Fernando Pérez, Brian Granger, Matthias Bussonnier, Jonathan Frederic, Kyle Kelley, Jessica Hamrick, Jason Grout, Sylvain Corlay, Paul Ivanov, Damián Avila, Safia Abdalla, and Carol Willing. 2016. Jupyter Notebooks - a publishing format for reproducible computational workflows. In Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas - Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Electronic Publishing, ELPUB 2016, IOS Press, 87--90.
[11]
Gopal Singh Latwal and Leena Gupta. 2020. Learners' Satisfaction of MOOCs: Cross Sectional Study. SSRN Electronic Journal.
[12]
Rita Layona, Budi Yulianto, and Yovita Tunardi. 2017. Authoring Tool for Interactive Video Content for Learning Programming. Procedia Computer Science 116, 37--44.
[13]
Liina Lepp, Triinu Aaviku, -li Leijen, Margus Pedaste, and Katrin Saks. 2021. Teaching during COVID-19: The Decisions Made in Teaching. Education Sciences 11, 2 (2021).
[14]
Richard Lobb and Jenny Harlow. 2016. Coderunner: A Tool for Assessing Computer Programming Skills. ACM Inroads 7, 1 (2016), 47--51.
[15]
Jorge Maldonado-Mahauad, Mar Pérez-Sanagustín, Pedro Manuel Moreno-Marcos, Carlos Alario-Hoyos, Pedro J. Muñoz-Merino, and Carlos Delgado-Kloos. 2018. Predicting Learners' Success in a Self-paced MOOC Through Sequence Patterns of Self-regulated Learning. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Springer International Publishing, Cham, 355--369.
[16]
Jacek Marciniak. 2019. Methods and Tools for Centres of Integrated Teaching Excellence Providing Training in Complementary Fields. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU, pages 527--534.
[17]
Jacek Marciniak and Marcin Szczepa'ski. 2020. Individualized learning in a course with a tight schedule. Procedia Computer Science, Volume 176, 2020, Pages 2059--2068.
[18]
Olga Mironova, Irina Amitan, and Jüri Vilipõld. 2017. Programming basics for beginners: Experience of the institute of informatics at Tallinn University of Technology. In 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 735--739.
[19]
Jungkook Park, Yeong Hoon Park, Jinhan Kim, Jeongmin Cha, Suin Kim, and Alice Oh. 2018. Elicast: Embedding Interactive Exercises in Instructional Programming Screencasts. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale (L@S '18), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA.
[20]
Elisabeth Rosa Pelikan, Marko Lüftenegger, Julia Holzer, Selma Korlat, Christiane Spiel, and Barbara Schober. 2021. Learning during COVID-19: the role of self-regulated learning, motivation, and procrastination for perceived competence. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswiss. 24, 2 (2021), 393--418.
[21]
M. Susan Roberts, Myke Fulton, and George Semb. 1988. Self-Pacing in a Personalized Psychology Course: Letting Students Set the Deadlines. Teaching of Psychology 15, 2 (1988), 89--92.
[22]
Junghun Shin, Jason Cholhoon Jang, Huiseung Chae, Gimyeong Ryu, Jaejun Yu, and Jongsuk Ruth Lee. 2018. A Web-Based MOOC Authoring and Learning System for Computational Science Education. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), 1028--1032.
[23]
Andres Suárez, Miguel A. Alvarez-Feijoo, Raquel Fernández González, and Elena Arce. 2018. Teaching optimization of manufacturing problems via code components of a Jupyter Notebook. Computer Applications in Engineering Education 26, 5 (2018), 1102--1110.
[24]
Doreen Thierauf. 2021. Feeling Better: A Year without Deadlines. Nineteenth-Century Gender Studies 17, 1 (2021).
[25]
Massimo Vitiello, Simon Walk, Vanessa Chang, Rocael Hernandez, Denis Helic, and Christian Guetl. 2017. MOOC dropouts: A multi-system classifier. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Springer International Publishing, Cham, 300--314.
[26]
Szymon Wasik, Maciej Antczak, Jan Badura, Artur Laskowski, and Tomasz Sternal. 2018. A Survey on Online Judge Systems and Their Applications. ACM Computing Surveys 51, 1 (2018).
[27]
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.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)A Conjoint Analysis Approach, Implications, and Mitigation Plans in Analyzing Students’ Preferences for Online Learning Delivery Types during the COVID-19 Pandemic for Engineering Students: A Case Study in the PhilippinesSustainability10.3390/su1506551315:6(5513)Online publication date: 21-Mar-2023
  • (2023)Granular or Long: Influence of the Content Structure on Student Interaction with Learning Materials2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343030(1-8)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2023
  • (2023)From crisis to opportunity: practices and technologies for a more effective post-COVID classroomEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-023-11929-929:5(5981-6003)Online publication date: 22-Jul-2023

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ITiCSE '22: Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 1
July 2022
686 pages
ISBN:9781450392013
DOI:10.1145/3502718
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 ACM 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 July 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. fixed-schedule learning
  2. programming
  3. relational databases
  4. self-learning
  5. self-paced learning
  6. student assessment

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

ITiCSE 2022
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 552 of 1,613 submissions, 34%

Upcoming Conference

ITiCSE '25
Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education
June 27 - July 2, 2025
Nijmegen , Netherlands

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)24
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 17 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)A Conjoint Analysis Approach, Implications, and Mitigation Plans in Analyzing Students’ Preferences for Online Learning Delivery Types during the COVID-19 Pandemic for Engineering Students: A Case Study in the PhilippinesSustainability10.3390/su1506551315:6(5513)Online publication date: 21-Mar-2023
  • (2023)Granular or Long: Influence of the Content Structure on Student Interaction with Learning Materials2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343030(1-8)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2023
  • (2023)From crisis to opportunity: practices and technologies for a more effective post-COVID classroomEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-023-11929-929:5(5981-6003)Online publication date: 22-Jul-2023
  • (2022)Teaching a Hands-On CTF-Based Web Application Security CourseElectronics10.3390/electronics1121351711:21(3517)Online publication date: 29-Oct-2022

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