[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3564721.3565953acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pageskoli-callingConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Finding Significant p in Coffee or Tea: Mildly Distasteful

Published: 17 November 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Students’ preferences have an impact on their behavior, and behaviors can in turn affect student performance. Earlier work has found that students who tend to work earlier in the course or curse more in their source code tend to perform better. But could other types of preferences also affect student performance? In this work, we examine the relationship between student preferences such as preferring coffee over tea, and students’ performance in the course. Our results suggest that certain preferences are related to better overall performance in the course, but only for certain cohorts of students. Indeed, this work provides an example of how easy it is to find statistically significant correlations in educational settings.

References

[1]
Anne-Laure Boulesteix. 2010. Over-optimism in bioinformatics research. Bioinformatics 26, 3 (2010), 437–439.
[2]
Neil CC Brown, Eva Marinus, and Aleata Hubbard Cheuoua. 2022. Launching Registered Report Replications in Computer Science Education Research. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research-Volume 1. 309–322.
[3]
Adam S Carter, Christopher D Hundhausen, and Olusola Adesope. 2015. The normalized programming state model: Predicting student performance in computing courses based on programming behavior. In Proc. of the Eleventh Annual Int. Conf. on Int. Computing Education Research. 141–150.
[4]
Luca Chiodini and Matthias Hauswirth. 2021. Wrong Answers for Wrong Reasons: The Risks of Ad Hoc Instruments. In 21st Koli Calling Int. Conf. on Computing Education Research. 1–11.
[5]
Ying Cui, Fu Chen, Ali Shiri, and Yaqin Fan. 2019. Predictive analytic models of student success in higher education: A review of methodology. Information and Learning Sciences(2019).
[6]
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 Proc. of the fifth int. workshop on Computing education research workshop. 3–14.
[7]
Malte Friese and Julius Frankenbach. 2020. p-Hacking and publication bias interact to distort meta-analytic effect size estimates.Psychological Methods 25, 4 (2020), 456.
[8]
Samuel D Gosling, Carson J Sandy, and Jeff Potter. 2010. Personalities of self-identified “dog people” and “cat people”. Anthrozoös 23, 3 (2010), 213–222.
[9]
Patricia Haden. 2019. Inferential statistics. Cambridge University Press, Chapter 6, 133–172.
[10]
Arto Hellas, Petri Ihantola, Andrew Petersen, Vangel V Ajanovski, Mirela Gutica, Timo Hynninen, Antti Knutas, Juho Leinonen, Chris Messom, and Soohyun Nam Liao. 2018. Predicting academic performance: a systematic literature review. In Proc. companion of the 23rd annual ACM conf. on innovation and technology in computer science education. 175–199.
[11]
Petri Ihantola, Arto Vihavainen, Alireza Ahadi, Matthew Butler, Jürgen Börstler, Stephen H Edwards, Essi Isohanni, Ari Korhonen, Andrew Petersen, Kelly Rivers, 2015. Educational data mining and learning analytics in programming: Literature review and case studies. Proc. of the 2015 ITiCSE on Working Group Reports (2015), 41–63.
[12]
Ayaan M Kazerouni, Stephen H Edwards, and Clifford A Shaffer. 2017. Quantifying incremental development practices and their relationship to procrastination. In Proc. of the 2017 ACM Conf. on Int. Computing Education Research. 191–199.
[13]
Daniël Lakens. 2021. The Practical Alternative to the p Value Is the Correctly Used p Value. Perspectives on Psychological Science 16, 3 (2021), 639–648. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620958012 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620958012PMID: 33560174.
[14]
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 Proc. of the 26th ACM Conf. on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1. 373–379.
[15]
Juho Leinonen and Arto Hellas. 2017. Thought crimes and profanities whilst programming. In Proc. of the 17th Koli Calling Int. Conf. on Computing Education Research. 148–152.
[16]
Kartika Maharani, Teguh Bharata Adji, Noor Akhmad Setiawan, and Indriana Hidayah. 2015. Comparison analysis of data mining methodology and student performance improvement influence factors in small data set. In 2015 Int. Conf. on Science in Information Technology (ICSITech). IEEE, 169–174.
[17]
Danila Petrova. 2019. The Relationship Between Coffee and Developers. https://simpleprogrammer.com/coffee-and-developers/
[18]
Hannah R Rothstein, Alexander J Sutton, and Michael Borenstein. 2005. Publication bias in meta-analysis. Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (2005), 1–7.
[19]
Isabel Ruthotto, Quintin Kreth, Jillian Stevens, Clare Trively, and Julia Melkers. 2020. Lurking and participation in the virtual classroom: The effects of gender, race, and age among graduate students in computer science. Computers & Education 151 (2020), 103854.
[20]
Kate Sanders, Judy Sheard, Brett A Becker, Anna Eckerdal, Sally Hamouda, and Simon. 2019. Inferential statistics in computing education research: A methodological review. In Proc. of the 2019 ACM conf. on int. computing education research. 177–185.
[21]
Sami Sarsa, Arto Hellas, and Juho Leinonen. 2022. Who Continues in a Series of Lifelong Learning Courses?. In Proc. of the 27th ACM Conf. on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 1. 47–53.
[22]
Joseph P Simmons and RA LeBoeuf. 2011. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological science 22, 11 (2011), 1359–1366.
[23]
Theodore D Sterling. 1959. Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance—or vice versa. J. of the American statistical association 54, 285 (1959), 30–34.
[24]
Lisa Sudlow. 2015. Dev Tidbits #001: How much caffeine do developers consume?https://developermedia.com/how-much-caffeine-do-developers-consume/
[25]
Alex J Sutton. 2009. Publication bias. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis 2 (2009), 435–452.
[26]
Christopher Watson, Frederick WB Li, and Jamie L Godwin. 2013. Predicting performance in an introductory programming course by logging and analyzing student programming behavior. In 2013 IEEE 13th int. conf. on advanced learning technologies. IEEE, 319–323.
[27]
Jelte M Wicherts, Coosje LS Veldkamp, Hilde EM Augusteijn, Marjan Bakker, Robbie Van Aert, and Marcel ALM Van Assen. 2016. Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies: A checklist to avoid p-hacking. Frontiers in psychology(2016), 1832.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Exploring the Difficulty of Faded Parsons Problems for Programming EducationProceedings of the 25th Australasian Computing Education Conference10.1145/3576123.3576136(113-122)Online publication date: 30-Jan-2023

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

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
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 17 November 2022

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Extended-abstract
  • 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)18
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 04 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Exploring the Difficulty of Faded Parsons Problems for Programming EducationProceedings of the 25th Australasian Computing Education Conference10.1145/3576123.3576136(113-122)Online publication date: 30-Jan-2023

View Options

Login 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

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media