Incentivized Spacing and Gender in Computer Science Education

Iman YeckehZaare, Elijah Fox, Gail Grot, Sea-Shon Chen, Claire Walkosak, Kevin Kwon, A. Hofmann, Jessica Steir, Olivia McGeough, Nealie Silverstein
{"title":"Incentivized Spacing and Gender in Computer Science Education","authors":"Iman YeckehZaare, Elijah Fox, Gail Grot, Sea-Shon Chen, Claire Walkosak, Kevin Kwon, A. Hofmann, Jessica Steir, Olivia McGeough, Nealie Silverstein","doi":"10.1145/3446871.3469760","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Extensive prior research shows that spacing – the distribution of studying over multiple sessions – significantly improves long-term learning in many disciplines. However, in computer science education, it is unclear if 1) spacing is effective in an incentivized, non-imposed setting and 2) when incentivized, female and male students space their studying differently. To investigate these research questions, we examined how students in an introductory computer science course (378 female and 310 male) spaced their studying. A retrieval practice tool in the course (for 5% of the course grade) incentivized students to space their studying, by awarding a point per day of usage. To measure how much each student spaced, we examined their interactions with the course eBook, which served as their primary learning resource. Specifically, when comparing two students with the same academic and demographic characteristics, the same measure of course easiness, and the same amount of content studied, we considered the student who distributed their studying over more days to be the one who spaced more. Using this definition, our structural equation modeling (SEM) results show that, 1) on average, students who spaced their studying over 14.516 more days (one standard deviation) got 2.25% higher final exam scores; and 2) female students spaced their studying over 4.331 more days than their male counterparts. These results suggest that, in an introductory computer science course, incentivized spacing is effective. Notably, when compared to their male counterparts, female students both exhibited more spacing and obtained higher final exam scores through spacing.","PeriodicalId":309835,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3446871.3469760","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Extensive prior research shows that spacing – the distribution of studying over multiple sessions – significantly improves long-term learning in many disciplines. However, in computer science education, it is unclear if 1) spacing is effective in an incentivized, non-imposed setting and 2) when incentivized, female and male students space their studying differently. To investigate these research questions, we examined how students in an introductory computer science course (378 female and 310 male) spaced their studying. A retrieval practice tool in the course (for 5% of the course grade) incentivized students to space their studying, by awarding a point per day of usage. To measure how much each student spaced, we examined their interactions with the course eBook, which served as their primary learning resource. Specifically, when comparing two students with the same academic and demographic characteristics, the same measure of course easiness, and the same amount of content studied, we considered the student who distributed their studying over more days to be the one who spaced more. Using this definition, our structural equation modeling (SEM) results show that, 1) on average, students who spaced their studying over 14.516 more days (one standard deviation) got 2.25% higher final exam scores; and 2) female students spaced their studying over 4.331 more days than their male counterparts. These results suggest that, in an introductory computer science course, incentivized spacing is effective. Notably, when compared to their male counterparts, female students both exhibited more spacing and obtained higher final exam scores through spacing.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
计算机科学教育中的激励间隔与性别
大量先前的研究表明,间隔——在多个课程中学习的分布——显著提高了许多学科的长期学习效果。然而,在计算机科学教育中,目前尚不清楚1)间隔在激励、非强制的环境中是否有效;2)在激励下,男女学生的学习间隔不同。为了调查这些研究问题,我们调查了计算机科学入门课程的学生(378名女性和310名男性)的学习间隔。课程中有一个检索练习工具(占课程成绩的5%),通过每天使用奖励一分来激励学生间隔学习。为了测量每个学生的间隔,我们检查了他们与课程电子书的互动,电子书是他们的主要学习资源。具体来说,当比较两个具有相同的学术和人口特征、相同的课程难易程度和相同的学习内容量的学生时,我们认为分配学习时间更多的学生是间隔时间更多的学生。利用这一定义,我们的结构方程模型(SEM)结果表明,1)平均而言,间隔学习时间超过14.516天(一个标准差)的学生期末考试成绩提高2.25%;2)女生的学习间隔比男生多4.331天。这些结果表明,在计算机科学入门课程中,激励间隔是有效的。值得注意的是,与男性学生相比,女性学生表现出更多的间隔,并通过间隔获得更高的期末考试成绩。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Exploring the Impact of Gender Bias on Pair Programming A Pedagogical Framework for Teaching Computer Programming: A Social Constructivist and Cognitive Load Theory Approach Computing Educational Activities Involving People Rather Than Things Appeal More to Women (Recruitment Perspective) Developing Empathy and Persistence through Professional Development in New to CSA Teachers Promoting Learning Transfer in Computer Science Education by Training Teachers to use Explicit Programming Strategies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1