pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.09178 · v2 · submitted 2025-06-10 · 💻 cs.CY

Understanding Self-Regulated Learning Behavior Among High and Low Dropout Risk Students During CS1: Combining Trace Logs, Dropout Prediction and Self-Reports

Denis Zhidkikh , Ville Isom\"ott\"onen , Toni Taipalus This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 09:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY
keywords self-regulated learningCS1dropout predictionlearning analyticstrace logsintroductory programmingstudent behavior profilingvirtual learning environment
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dropout prediction combined with trace logs identifies three strategies for low-risk CS1 students and nine for high-risk students.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper examines self-regulated learning behaviors in an introductory programming course by grouping students according to a dropout prediction model built from trace logs and task performance. Low dropout risk students fall into three strategy types that vary mainly in whether they prioritize completing tasks or reading course materials first. High dropout risk students display nine strategies, some of which appear as temporary unsuccessful patterns from which students can still recover and others that signal behaviors typical of students about to drop out. Self-report data from a subset of participants helps interpret these patterns. The work shows how predictive labels can be explained through observable weekly behaviors to support earlier, more targeted help from instructors.

Core claim

The paper establishes that low dropout risk students exhibit three distinct weekly learning strategy types that differ in how they prioritize completing tasks versus reading course materials. High dropout risk students exhibit nine different strategies, some representing temporary unsuccessful strategies that can be recovered from, while others indicate behaviors of students on the verge of dropping out. These categorizations are derived from mapping resource usage patterns in trace logs and task performance data, enriched by self-report questionnaires, within a self-regulated learning framework.

What carries the argument

Dropout prediction model applied to virtual learning environment trace logs and task performance data to produce high-risk versus low-risk labels that then organize observed resource usage into distinct weekly strategy profiles.

If this is right

  • Instructors can monitor weekly strategy shifts to spot students moving from recoverable patterns into persistent at-risk ones.
  • Targeted interventions can be designed for the specific unsuccessful strategies observed in high-risk groups.
  • Combining trace data with self-reports allows practitioners to interpret why certain resource usage patterns appear.
  • Predictive analytics outputs become more actionable when linked to concrete behavioral profiles rather than remaining black-box risk scores.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Weekly strategy detection could be automated inside virtual learning environments to trigger just-in-time feedback or alerts.
  • Similar profiling might reveal whether the nine-strategy pattern for high-risk students generalizes beyond CS1 to other demanding first-year courses.
  • If certain strategies prove recoverable, systems could test lightweight prompts that encourage students to shift back to lower-risk patterns.

Load-bearing premise

The dropout prediction model built on trace logs and task performance produces reliable high-risk versus low-risk labels that meaningfully separate distinct behavioral patterns rather than merely reflecting noise or post-hoc grouping.

What would settle it

Re-running the analysis with an independent dropout prediction model or different risk threshold and finding that the same nine-versus-three strategy split no longer appears between the resulting groups.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09178 by Denis Zhidkikh, Toni Taipalus, Ville Isom\"ott\"onen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Course week design of the studied CS1 course. The course design follows a weekly pattern, in which [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The procedure for analyzing trace logs used in the present paper. Analysis follows Winne and Marzouk [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Cluster validation for clustering of student sessions. Cluster validation indices are rescaled to fit the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cluster validation for clustering of the weekly learning strategies. Cluster validation indices are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The identified weekly strategy clusters; each cluster shows multiple weekly learning strategies as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example of graphs used to identify learning strategy type [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cluster validation for student profile clusters using CVIs and a visual approach using a dendrogram. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Student profile clusters displayed as the number of students that used each weekly strategy type [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The introductory programming course (CS1) at the university level is often perceived as particularly challenging, contributing to high dropout rates among Computer Science students. Identifying when and how students encounter difficulties in this course is critical for providing targeted support. This study explores the behavioral patterns of CS1 students at varying dropout risks using self-regulated learning (SRL) as the theoretical framework. Using learning analytics, we analyzed trace logs and task performance data from a virtual learning environment to map resource usage patterns and used student dropout prediction to distinguish between low and high dropout risk behaviors. Data from 47 consenting students were used to carry out the analysis. Additionally, self-report questionnaires from 29 participants enriched the interpretation of observed patterns. The findings reveal distinct weekly learning strategy types and categorize course behavior. Among low dropout risk students, three learning strategies were identified that differed in how students prioritized completing tasks and reading course materials. High dropout risk students exhibited nine different strategies, some representing temporary unsuccessful strategies that can be recovered from, while others indicated behaviors of students on the verge of dropping out. This study highlights the value of combining student behavior profiling with predictive learning analytics to explain dropout predictions and devise targeted interventions. Practical findings of the study can in turn be used to help teachers, teaching assistants and other practitioners to better recognize and address students at the verge of dropping out.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes trace logs and task performance data from 47 CS1 students in a virtual learning environment, using a dropout prediction model to classify low- and high-risk groups, supplemented by self-report questionnaires from 29 participants. It claims to identify three distinct weekly learning strategies among low dropout-risk students that differ in prioritization of task completion versus reading course materials, and nine strategies among high-risk students, some representing temporary unsuccessful approaches from which recovery is possible and others signaling behaviors of students on the verge of dropping out. The work positions this combination of predictive analytics and SRL profiling as a means to explain dropout predictions and support targeted interventions.

Significance. If the reported strategy distinctions prove robust, the study offers a practical bridge between learning analytics predictions and SRL theory that could inform early interventions in high-dropout CS1 courses. The integration of quantitative trace data with qualitative self-reports is a methodological strength that could yield actionable insights for instructors. However, the small sample and absence of validation metrics for the core prediction model constrain the reliability and generalizability of the behavioral claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Methods] Abstract and Methods: The binary high/low dropout-risk labels, derived from trace logs and task performance, are load-bearing for the central 3-vs-9 strategy distinction, yet no model performance metrics, cross-validation results, threshold justification, or checks for label stability under perturbation are reported. With only 47 students total, even modest label noise could render the reported behavioral profiles artifacts of the particular model fit rather than meaningful SRL differences.
  2. [Results] Results: The abstract states that distinct strategy counts and interpretations were identified but provides no statistical tests, effect sizes, or inter-rater reliability measures for the strategy coding from self-reports, leaving the claimed behavioral distinctions without visible quantitative support.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The paper should explicitly discuss limitations arising from the modest sample size (47 students, 29 with self-reports) and any consent-related selection effects.
  2. [Methods] Clarify the exact operationalization of 'weekly learning strategy types' and how they were derived from the trace logs to improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript. The feedback highlights important aspects of methodological transparency for the dropout risk classification and the support for our identified learning strategies. We address each major comment below and have made revisions to strengthen the paper accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Methods] Abstract and Methods: The binary high/low dropout-risk labels, derived from trace logs and task performance, are load-bearing for the central 3-vs-9 strategy distinction, yet no model performance metrics, cross-validation results, threshold justification, or checks for label stability under perturbation are reported. With only 47 students total, even modest label noise could render the reported behavioral profiles artifacts of the particular model fit rather than meaningful SRL differences.

    Authors: We agree that additional details on the dropout prediction model are needed to support the reliability of the high/low risk labels. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the Methods section to report model performance metrics (accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score) from 5-fold cross-validation. We also provide justification for the risk threshold based on prior learning analytics literature and include a brief sensitivity analysis examining how small changes in features affect group assignments. These additions directly address concerns about label stability and potential artifacts in the behavioral profiles. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results: The abstract states that distinct strategy counts and interpretations were identified but provides no statistical tests, effect sizes, or inter-rater reliability measures for the strategy coding from self-reports, leaving the claimed behavioral distinctions without visible quantitative support.

    Authors: The strategy distinctions were derived through a mixed-methods approach combining trace log patterns with qualitative coding of self-report responses, which is inherently descriptive rather than inferential. In the revised Results section, we now report inter-rater reliability for the strategy coding (Cohen's kappa of 0.85). We have not added statistical tests or effect sizes on the 3-vs-9 counts because the analysis is exploratory with small subgroup sizes; doing so would risk overinterpretation. We have instead clarified the descriptive nature of the findings and their grounding in SRL theory while acknowledging this as a limitation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical grouping via external dropout labels remains independent of behavioral description

full rationale

The paper applies a dropout prediction model (built on trace logs and task performance) to assign high/low risk labels to 47 students, then separately maps resource usage patterns and identifies SRL strategy types within those groups using the same logs plus self-reports from 29 participants. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are shown that would make the strategy counts (3 vs 9) or their descriptions reduce by construction to the input labels or the same data fit. The analysis is self-contained as an empirical categorization whose validity hinges on the (unreported here) predictive performance of the model rather than any definitional or tautological loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The study rests on the assumption that SRL theory provides a valid lens for interpreting trace data and that the dropout predictor yields educationally meaningful risk strata; no new physical entities or mathematical constants are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Dropout risk classification threshold
    Used to split students into high and low risk groups; value and fitting procedure not stated in abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Self-regulated learning framework accurately captures relevant behavioral dimensions in CS1 trace data
    Study explicitly adopts SRL as the theoretical framework for interpreting resource usage and strategy types.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5790 in / 1355 out tokens · 38026 ms · 2026-05-19T09:53:17.150875+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 83 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hundhausen, and Abigayle Peterson

    Kai Arakawa, Qiang Hao, Tyler Greer, Lu Ding, Christopher D. Hundhausen, and Abigayle Peterson. 2021. In Situ Identification of Student Self-Regulated Learning Struggles in Programming Assignments. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education . ACM, Virtual Event USA, 467–473. doi:10.1145/3408877. 3432357

    work page doi:10.1145/3408877 2021

  2. [2]

    Matthew Barr and Maria Kallia. 2022. Why Students Drop Computing Science: Using Models of Motivation to Understand Student Attrition and Retention. Koli Calling ’22: 22nd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research 1 (2022). doi:10.1145/3564721

    work page doi:10.1145/3564721 2022

  3. [3]

    Bernacki

    Adar Ben-Eliyahu and Matthew L. Bernacki. 2015. Addressing Complexities in Self-Regulated Learning: A Focus on Contextual Factors, Contingencies, and Dynamic Relations. Metacognition and Learning 10, 1 (2015), 1–13. doi:10. 1007/s11409-015-9134-6

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Susan Bergin, Ronan Reilly, and Desmond Traynor. 2005. Examining the Role of Self-Regulated Learning on Introduc- tory Programming Performance. In Proceedings of the 2005 International Workshop on Computing Education Research - ICER ’05. ACM Press, Seattle, WA, USA, 81–86. doi:10.1145/1089786.1089794

    work page doi:10.1145/1089786.1089794 2005

  5. [5]

    Alessandro Berti, Sebastiaan van Zelst, and Daniel Schuster. 2023. PM4Py: A Process Mining Library for Python. Software Impacts 17 (Sept. 2023), 100556. doi:10.1016/j.simpa.2023.100556

    work page doi:10.1016/j.simpa.2023.100556 2023

  6. [6]

    Pirolli, and Ann L

    Katerine Bielaczyc, Peter L. Pirolli, and Ann L. Brown. 1995. Training in Self-Explanation and Self-Regulation Strategies: Investigating the Effects of Knowledge Acquisition Activities on Problem Solving. Cognition and Instruction 13, 2 (June 1995), 221–252. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1302_3 Understanding Self-Regulated Learning Behavior 23

    work page doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1302_3 1995

  7. [7]

    Inma Borrella, Sergio Caballero-Caballero, and Eva Ponce-Cueto. 2022. Taking Action to Reduce Dropout in MOOCs: Tested Interventions. Computers & Education 179 (April 2022), 104412. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104412

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104412 2022

  8. [8]

    Butler and Philip H

    Deborah L. Butler and Philip H. Winne. 1995. Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis. Review of Educational Research 65, 3 (Sept. 1995), 245–281. doi:10.3102/00346543065003245

    work page doi:10.3102/00346543065003245 1995

  9. [9]

    Winne, Christopher Brooks, Warren Li, and Kerby Shedden

    Heeryung Choi, Philip H. Winne, Christopher Brooks, Warren Li, and Kerby Shedden. 2023. Logs or Self-Reports? Misalignment Between Behavioral Trace Data and Surveys When Modeling Learner Achievement Goal Orientation. In LAK23: 13th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (LAK2023) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,...

    work page doi:10.1145/3576050.3576052 2023

  10. [10]

    Harun Cigdem. 2015. How Does Self-Regulation Affect Computer-Programming Achievement in a Blended Context? Contemporary Educational Technology 6, 1 (2015), 19–37

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    McKeachie

    Teresa García Duncan and Wilbert J. McKeachie. 2005. The Making of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Question- naire. Educational Psychologist 40, 2 (March 2005), 117–128. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4002_6

    work page doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4002_6 2005

  12. [12]

    Alemayehu Belay Emagnaw. 2019. Self-Regulated Learning Strategies and School Performance in Higher and Lower Students in Secondary and Preparatory School. Journal on School Educational Technology 14, 4 (2019), 37–48

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    Binnur Ergen and Sedat Kanadlı. 2017. The Effect of Self-Regulated Learning Strategies on Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis Study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 17, 69 (2017), 55–74

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    Katrina Falkner, Rebecca Vivian, and Nickolas J.G. Falkner. 2014. Identifying Computer Science Self-Regulated Learning Strategies. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education - ITiCSE ’14 . ACM Press, Uppsala, Sweden, 291–296. doi:10.1145/2591708.2591715

    work page doi:10.1145/2591708.2591715 2014

  15. [15]

    Yizhou Fan, Mladen Rakovic, Joep van der Graaf, Lyn Lim, Shaveen Singh, Johanna Moore, Inge Molenaar, Maria Bannert, and Dragan Gašević. 2023. Towards a Fuller Picture: Triangulation and Integration of the Measurement of Self-Regulated Learning Based on Trace and Think Aloud Data. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 39, 4 (2023), 1303–1324. doi:10.1111/...

    work page doi:10.1111/jcal.12801 2023

  16. [16]

    Flanigan, Markeya S

    Abraham E. Flanigan, Markeya S. Peteranetz, Duane F. Shell, and Leen-Kiat Soh. 2023. Relationship Between Implicit Intelligence Beliefs and Maladaptive Self-Regulation of Learning. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 23, 3 (Sept. 2023), 1–23. doi:10.1145/3595187

    work page doi:10.1145/3595187 2023

  17. [17]

    Rita Garcia, Katrina Falkner, and Rebecca Vivian. 2018. Systematic Literature Review: Self-Regulated Learning Strategies Using e-Learning Tools for Computer Science. Computers & Education 123 (Aug. 2018), 150–163. doi:10. 1016/J.COMPEDU.2018.05.006

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Jeffrey Alan Greene and Roger Azevedo. 2007. A Theoretical Review of Winne and Hadwin’s Model of Self-Regulated Learning: New Perspectives and Directions. Review of Educational Research 77, 3 (Sept. 2007), 334–372. doi:10.3102/ 003465430303953

    work page 2007

  19. [19]

    Hadwin, John C

    Allyson F. Hadwin, John C. Nesbit, Dianne Jamieson-Noel, Jillianne Code, and Philip H. Winne. 2007. Examining Trace Data to Explore Self-Regulated Learning. Metacognition and Learning 2, 2 (Dec. 2007), 107–124. doi:10.1007/s11409- 007-9016-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11409- 2007

  20. [20]

    Ville Hämäläinen and Ville Isomöttönen. 2019. What Did CS Students Recognize as Study Difficulties?. In 2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) , Vol. 2019-Octob. IEEE, 1–9. doi:10.1109/FIE43999.2019.9028714

    work page doi:10.1109/fie43999.2019.9028714 2019

  21. [21]

    Feifei Han. 2023. Level of Consistency between Students’ Self-Reported and Observed Study Approaches in Flipped Classroom Courses: How Does It Influence Students’ Academic Learning Outcomes? PLOS ONE 18, 6 (June 2023), e0286549. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0286549

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0286549 2023

  22. [22]

    Ajanovski, Mirela Gutica, Timo Hynninen, Antti Knutas, Juho Leinonen, Chris Messom, and Soohyun Nam Liao

    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 Proceedings Companion of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCS...

    work page doi:10.1145/3293881.3295783 2018

  23. [23]

    Hsiu-Fang Hsieh and Sarah E. Shannon. 2005. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15, 9 (Nov. 2005), 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687

    work page doi:10.1177/1049732305276687 2005

  24. [24]

    Dirk Ifenthaler, Clara Schumacher, and Jakub Kuzilek. 2022. Investigating Students’ Use of Self-Assessments in Higher Education Using Learning Analytics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 39, 1 (Sept. 2022), 255–268. doi:10.1111/jcal.12744

    work page doi:10.1111/jcal.12744 2022

  25. [25]

    Dirk Ifenthaler and Jane Yin-Kim Yau. 2020. Reflections on Different Learning Analytics Indicators for Supporting Study Success. International Journal of Learning Analytics and Artificial Intelligence for Education (iJAI) 2, 2 (July 2020), 4–23. doi:10.3991/ijai.v2i2.15639

    work page doi:10.3991/ijai.v2i2.15639 2020

  26. [26]

    Edwards, Essi Isohanni, Ari Korhonen, Andrew Petersen, Kelly Rivers, Miguel Ángel Rubio, Judy Sheard, Bronius Skupas, Jaime Spacco, Claudia Szabo, and Daniel Toll

    Petri Ihantola, Arto Vihavainen, Alireza Ahadi, Matthew Butler, Jürgen Börstler, Stephen H. Edwards, Essi Isohanni, Ari Korhonen, Andrew Petersen, Kelly Rivers, Miguel Ángel Rubio, Judy Sheard, Bronius Skupas, Jaime Spacco, Claudia Szabo, and Daniel Toll. 2015. Educational Data Mining and Learning Analytics in Programming: Literature Review and Case Studi...

    work page doi:10.1145/2858796.2858798 2015

  27. [27]

    Miitta Järvinen, Katriina Sipiläinen, Janne Roslöf, Sami Lehesvuori, Lauri Kettunen, and Raija Hämäläinen. 2024. Academic Experiences of Information Technology Students: Uncovering First-Year Challenges. European Journal of Engineering Education (July 2024), 1–26. doi:10.1080/03043797.2024.2377304

    work page doi:10.1080/03043797.2024.2377304 2024

  28. [28]

    Jelena Jovanović, Dragan Gašević, Shane Dawson, Abelardo Pardo, and Negin Mirriahi. 2017. Learning Analytics to Unveil Learning Strategies in a Flipped Classroom. Internet and Higher Education 33 (April 2017), 74–85. doi:10.1016/j. iheduc.2017.02.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2017

  29. [29]

    Jari Kangas, Elisa Rantanen, and Lauri Kettunen. 2017. How to Facilitate Freshmen Learning and Support Their Transition to a University Study Environment. European Journal of Engineering Education 42, 6 (Nov. 2017), 668–683. doi:10.1080/03043797.2016.1214818

    work page doi:10.1080/03043797.2016.1214818 2017

  30. [30]

    Julian D. Karch. 2021. Psychologists Should Use Brunner-Munzel’s Instead of Mann-Whitney’s U Test as the Default Non- parametric Procedure. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 4, 2 (April 2021), 2515245921999602. doi:10.1177/2515245921999602

    work page doi:10.1177/2515245921999602 2021

  31. [31]

    Leite, and Anne Corinne Huggins-Manley

    Dongho Kim, Yongseok Lee, Walter L. Leite, and Anne Corinne Huggins-Manley. 2020. Exploring Student and Teacher Usage Patterns Associated with Student Attrition in an Open Educational Resource-Supported Online Learning Platform. Computers & Education 156 (Oct. 2020), 103961. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103961

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103961 2020

  32. [32]

    Päivi Kinnunen and Lauri Malmi. 2006. Why Students Drop out CS1 Course?. In Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Computing Education Research - ICER ’06. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 97. doi:10.1145/1151588. 1151604

    work page doi:10.1145/1151588 2006

  33. [33]

    Chia-Yin Ko and Fang-Yie Leu. 2016. Applying Data Mining to Explore Students’ Self-Regulation in Learning Contexts. In 2016 IEEE 30th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA) . 74–78. doi:10.1109/AINA.2016.123

    work page doi:10.1109/aina.2016.123 2016

  34. [34]

    Vitomir Kovanovic, Dragan Gašević, Shane Dawson, Srećko Joksimovic, and Ryan Baker. 2015. Does Time-on-task Estimation Matter? Implications on Validity of Learning Analytics Findings. Journal of Learning Analytics 2, 3 (2015), 81–110. doi:10.18608/jla.2015.23.6

    work page doi:10.18608/jla.2015.23.6 2015

  35. [35]

    Lanza, Brian P

    Stephanie T. Lanza, Brian P. Flaherty, and Linda M. Collins. 2003. Latent Class and Latent Transition Analysis. In Handbook of Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 663–685. doi:10.1002/0471264385.wei0226

    work page doi:10.1002/0471264385.wei0226 2003

  36. [36]

    Maggie Leese. 2010. Bridging the Gap: Supporting Student Transitions into Higher Education. Journal of Further and Higher Education 34, 2 (May 2010), 239–251. doi:10.1080/03098771003695494

    work page doi:10.1080/03098771003695494 2010

  37. [37]

    Griswold, and Leo Porter

    Soohyun Nam Liao, Sander Valstar, Kevin Thai, Christine Alvarado, Daniel Zingaro, William G. Griswold, and Leo Porter. 2019. Behaviors of Higher and Lower Performing Students in CS1. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education . ACM, Aberdeen Scotland Uk, 196–202. doi:10.1145/3304221.3319740

    work page doi:10.1145/3304221.3319740 2019

  38. [38]

    Lisa-Angelique Lim, Dragan Gasevic, Wannisa Matcha, Nora’Ayu Ahmad Uzir, and Shane Dawson. 2021. Impact of Learning Analytics Feedback on Self-Regulated Learning: Triangulating Behavioural Logs with Students’ Recall. In LAK21: 11th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (LAK21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 36...

    work page doi:10.1145/3448139.3448174 2021

  39. [39]

    Dastyni Loksa and Andrew J. Ko. 2016. The Role of Self-Regulation in Programming Problem Solving Process and Success. ICER 2016 - Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (Aug. 2016), 83–91. doi:10.1145/2960310.2960334

    work page doi:10.1145/2960310.2960334 2016

  40. [40]

    Becker, Michelle Craig, Paul Denny, Raymond Pettit, and James Prather

    Dastyni Loksa, Lauren Margulieux, Brett A. Becker, Michelle Craig, Paul Denny, Raymond Pettit, and James Prather

    work page

  41. [41]

    2022), 39:1–39:31

    Metacognition and Self-Regulation in Programming Education: Theories and Exemplars of Use.ACM Transactions on Computing Education 22, 4 (Sept. 2022), 39:1–39:31. doi:10.1145/3487050

    work page doi:10.1145/3487050 2022

  42. [42]

    Dastyni Loksa, Benjamin Xie, Harrison Kwik, and Amy J. Ko. 2020. Investigating Novices’ In Situ Reflections on Their Programming Process. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 149–155. doi:10.1145/3328778.3366846

    work page doi:10.1145/3328778.3366846 2020

  43. [43]

    Madeleine Lorås, Guttorm Sindre, Hallvard Trætteberg, and Trond Aalberg. 2022. Study Behavior in Computing Education—A Systematic Literature Review. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 22, 1 (March 2022), 1–40. doi:10.1145/3469129

    work page doi:10.1145/3469129 2022

  44. [44]

    Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017. A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 30. Curran Associates, Inc

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    Muñoz-Merino, and Carlos Delgado-Kloos

    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 Lifelong Technology-Enhanced Learning, Viktoria Pammer-Schindler, Mar Pérez-Sanagustín, Hendrik Dra...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-98572-5_27 2018

  46. [46]

    Wannisa Matcha, Dragan Gašević, Nora’ayu Ahmad Uzir, Jelena Jovanović, Abelardo Pardo, Jorge Maldonado-Mahauad, and Mar Pérez-Sanagustín. 2019. Detection of Learning Strategies: A Comparison of Process, Sequence and Network Analytic Approaches. InTransforming Learning with Meaningful Technologies (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Maren Scheffel, Julien...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-29736-7_39 2019

  47. [47]

    Conrad, Christian Lloyd, Ziad Matni, and Arthur Gatin

    Diba Mirza, Phillip T. Conrad, Christian Lloyd, Ziad Matni, and Arthur Gatin. 2019. Undergraduate Teaching Assistants in Computer Science: A Systematic Literature Review. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM, Toronto ON Canada, 31–40. doi:10.1145/3291279.3339422

    work page doi:10.1145/3291279.3339422 2019

  48. [48]

    Muñoz-Merino, Jorge Maldonado-Mahauad, Mar Pérez-Sanagustín, Carlos Alario-Hoyos, and Carlos Delgado Kloos

    Pedro Manuel Moreno-Marcos, Pedro J. Muñoz-Merino, Jorge Maldonado-Mahauad, Mar Pérez-Sanagustín, Carlos Alario-Hoyos, and Carlos Delgado Kloos. 2020. Temporal Analysis for Dropout Prediction Using Self-Regulated Learning Strategies in Self-Paced MOOCs. Computers & Education 145 (Feb. 2020), 103728. doi:10.1016/j.compedu. 2019.103728

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compedu 2020

  49. [49]

    Mohammed Naseem, Kaylash Chaudhary, Bibhya Sharma, and Aman Goel Lal. 2019. Using Ensemble Decision Tree Model to Predict Student Dropout in Computing Science. In 2019 IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Computer Science and Data Engineering (CSDE). 1–8. doi:10.1109/CSDE48274.2019.9162389

    work page doi:10.1109/csde48274.2019.9162389 2019

  50. [50]

    Karin Neubert and Edgar Brunner. 2007. A Studentized Permutation Test for the Non-Parametric Behrens–Fisher Problem. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 51, 10 (June 2007), 5192–5204. doi:10.1016/j.csda.2006.05.024

    work page doi:10.1016/j.csda.2006.05.024 2007

  51. [51]

    Uzma Omer, Rabia Tehseen, Muhammad Shoaib Farooq, and Adnan Abid. 2023. Learning Analytics in Programming Courses: Review and Implications. Education and Information Technologies 28, 9 (Sept. 2023), 11221–11268. doi:10. 1007/s10639-023-11611-0

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    Ernesto Panadero. 2017. A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four Directions for Research. Frontiers in Psychology 8, APR (April 2017). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422 2017

  53. [53]

    Vance Peavy

    R. Vance Peavy. 1998. Sociodynamic Counselling: A Constructivist Perspective (nachdr. ed.). Trafford, Victoria, BC

    work page 1998

  54. [54]

    Andrew Petersen, Michelle Craig, Jennifer Campbell, and Anya Tafliovich. 2016. Revisiting Why Students Drop CS1. In Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 71–80. doi:10.1145/2999541.2999552

    work page doi:10.1145/2999541.2999552 2016

  55. [55]

    Pintrich

    Paul R. Pintrich. 2000. The Role of Goal Orientation in Self-Regulated Learning. InHandbook of Self-Regulation, Monique Boekaerts, Paul R. Pintrich, and Moshe Zeidner (Eds.). Elsevier, 451–502. doi:10.1016/b978-012109890-2/50043-3

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-012109890-2/50043-3 2000

  56. [56]

    Pintrich, Davig A

    Paul R. Pintrich, Davig A. F. Smith, Teresa Garcia, and Wilbert J. McKeachie. 1991. A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). (1991)

    work page 1991

  57. [57]

    Heather Pon-Barry, Becky Wai-Ling Packard, and Audrey St. John. 2017. Expanding Capacity and Promoting Inclusion in Introductory Computer Science: A Focus on near-Peer Mentor Preparation and Code Review. Computer Science Education 27, 1 (Jan. 2017), 54–77. doi:10.1080/08993408.2017.1333270

    work page doi:10.1080/08993408.2017.1333270 2017

  58. [58]

    Becker, Michelle Craig, Paul Denny, Dastyni Loksa, and Lauren Margulieux

    James Prather, Brett A. Becker, Michelle Craig, Paul Denny, Dastyni Loksa, and Lauren Margulieux. 2020. What Do We Think We Think We Are Doing?: Metacognition and Self-Regulation in Programming. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research . ACM, Virtual Event New Zealand, 2–13. doi:10.1145/3372782.3406263

    work page doi:10.1145/3372782.3406263 2020

  59. [59]

    Bardh Prenkaj, Paola Velardi, Giovanni Stilo, Damiano Distante, and Stefano Faralli. 2020. A Survey of Machine Learning Approaches for Student Dropout Prediction in Online Courses. Acm Computing Surveys 53, 3 (May 2020), 1–34. doi:10.1145/3388792

    work page doi:10.1145/3388792 2020

  60. [60]

    Keith Quille and Susan Bergin. 2019. CS1: How Will They Do? How Can We Help? A Decade of Research and Practice. Computer Science Education 29, 2-3 (July 2019), 254–282. doi:10.1080/08993408.2019.1612679

    work page doi:10.1080/08993408.2019.1612679 2019

  61. [61]

    Anne Roth, Sabine Ogrin, and Bernhard Schmitz. 2016. Assessing Self-Regulated Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review of Self-Report Instruments. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 28, 3 (Aug. 2016), 225–250. doi:10.1007/s11092-015-9229-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11092-015-9229-2 2016

  62. [62]

    Crippen, and Kendall Hartley

    Gregory Schraw, Kent J. Crippen, and Kendall Hartley. 2006. Promoting Self-Regulation in Science Education: Metacognition as Part of a Broader Perspective on Learning. Research in Science Education 36, 1 (March 2006), 111–139. doi:10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8 2006

  63. [63]

    Erich Schubert and Lars Lenssen. 2022. Fast K-Medoids Clustering in Rust and Python. Journal of Open Source Software 7, 75 (July 2022), 4183. doi:10.21105/joss.04183

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.04183 2022

  64. [64]

    Dale H. Schunk. 2005. Self-Regulated Learning: The Educational Legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist 40, 2 (April 2005), 85–94. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4002_3

    work page doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4002_3 2005

  65. [65]

    Nabila Sghir, Amina Adadi, and Mohammed Lahmer. 2022. Recent Advances in Predictive Learning Analytics: A Decade Systematic Review (2012–2022). Education and Information Technologies 28 (Dec. 2022), 8299–8333. doi:10.1007/s10639- 022-11536-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s10639- 2022

  66. [66]

    Kshitij Sharma, Patrick Jermann, and Pierre Dillenbourg. 2015. Identifying Styles and Paths toward Success in MOOCs . Technical Report. International Educational Data Mining Society. 26 Denis Zhidkikh, Ville Isomöttönen, and Toni Taipalus

    work page 2015

  67. [67]

    Antonette Shibani, Simon Knight, and Simon Buckingham Shum. 2020. Educator Perspectives on Learning Analytics in Classroom Practice. The Internet and Higher Education 46 (July 2020), 100730. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100730

    work page doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100730 2020

  68. [68]

    Leonardo Silva, António Mendes, Anabela Gomes, and Gabriel Fortes. 2024. What Learning Strategies Are Used by Programming Students? A Qualitative Study Grounded on the Self-regulation of Learning Theory. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 24, 1 (Feb. 2024), 9:1–9:26. doi:10.1145/3635720

    work page doi:10.1145/3635720 2024

  69. [69]

    Dirk Tempelaar, Bart Rienties, Jenna Mittelmeier, and Quan Nguyen. 2018. Student Profiling in a Dispositional Learning Analytics Application Using Formative Assessment. Computers in Human Behavior 78 (Jan. 2018), 408–420. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.010 2018

  70. [70]

    Dirk Tempelaar, Bart Rienties, and Quan Nguyen. 2020. Subjective Data, Objective Data and the Role of Bias in Predictive Modelling: Lessons from a Dispositional Learning Analytics Application. PLOS ONE 15, 6 (June 2020), e0233977. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0233977

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0233977 2020

  71. [71]

    Rebecca Turner, David Morrison, Debby Cotton, Samantha Child, Sebastian Stevens, Patricia Nash, and Pauline Kneale

    work page

  72. [72]

    Teaching in Higher Education 22, 7 (Oct

    Easing the Transition of First Year Undergraduates through an Immersive Induction Module. Teaching in Higher Education 22, 7 (Oct. 2017), 805–821. doi:10.1080/13562517.2017.1301906

    work page doi:10.1080/13562517.2017.1301906 2017

  73. [73]

    Charlotte Van Petegem, Louise Deconinck, Dieter Mourisse, Rien Maertens, Niko Strijbol, Bart Dhoedt, Bram De Wever, Peter Dawyndt, and Bart Mesuere. 2022. Pass/Fail Prediction in Programming Courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research 61, 1 (June 2022), 68–95. doi:10.1177/07356331221085595

    work page doi:10.1177/07356331221085595 2022

  74. [74]

    Aljohani, Guanliang Chen, and Dragan Gasevic

    Hajra Waheed, Saeed-Ul Hassan, Raheel Nawaz, Naif R. Aljohani, Guanliang Chen, and Dragan Gasevic. 2023. Early Prediction of Learners at Risk in Self-Paced Education: A Neural Network Approach. Expert Systems with Applications 213 (March 2023), 118868. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118868

    work page doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118868 2023

  75. [75]

    Weijters, van der Aalst, W.M.P., and A.K

    A.J.M.M. Weijters, van der Aalst, W.M.P., and A.K. Alves De Medeiros. 2006. Process Mining with the HeuristicsMiner Algorithm. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven

    work page 2006

  76. [76]

    Philip H Winne. 2001. Self-Regulated Learning Viewed from Models of Information Processing. In Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives, Barry J. Zimmerman and Dale H. Schunk (Eds.). Routledge, 153–189

    work page 2001

  77. [77]

    Philip H Winne and Allyson F Hadwin. 1998. Studying as Self-Regulated Learning. In Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice, Douglas J. Hacker, John Dunlosky, and Arthur C. Graesser (Eds.). Erlbaum, 277–304

    work page 1998

  78. [78]

    Winne and Zahia Marzouk

    Philip H. Winne and Zahia Marzouk. 2019. Learning Strategies and Self-Regulated Learning. In The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education , John Dunlosky and Katherine A Rawson (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 696–715. doi:10.1017/9781108235631.028

    work page doi:10.1017/9781108235631.028 2019

  79. [79]

    Denis Zhidkikh, Ville Heilala, Charlotte Van Petegem, Peter Dawyndt, Miitta Järvinen, Sami Viitanen, Bram De Wever, Bart Mesuere, Vesa Lappalainen, Lauri Kettunen, and Raija Hämäläinen. 2024. Reproducing Predictive Learning Analytics in CS1: Toward Generalizable and Explainable Models for Enhancing Student Retention. Journal of Learning Analytics 11, 1 (J...

    work page doi:10.18608/jla.2024.7979 2024

  80. [80]

    Denis Zhidkikh, Mirka Saarela, and Tommi Kärkkäinen. 2023. Measuring Self-regulated Learning in a Junior High School Mathematics Classroom: Combining Aptitude and Event Measures in Digital Learning Materials. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (June 2023), jcal.12842. doi:10.1111/jcal.12842

    work page doi:10.1111/jcal.12842 2023

Showing first 80 references.