pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.25014 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 💻 cs.CY

Coasting Through Class: Learning Opportunity Loss from Practice Avoidance During Individual Seatwork

Ashish Gurung , Jordan Gutterman , Danielle R. Thomas , Mingyu Feng , Vincent Aleven , Kenneth R. Koedinger This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 01:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY
keywords task avoidancepractice disengagementcoasted timelearning opportunity lossindividual seatworkextra effortstudent engagementstandardized test performance
0
0 comments X

The pith

Students coast through 60% of class time without practicing math, while extra effort beyond minimum work predicts higher test scores.

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

The paper introduces session-level measures of delayed start and early stop to quantify lost practice time from task avoidance during individual seatwork, extending prior within-task idle time measures. Analysis of activity logs reveals students spend only 40% of available time on actual math practice, with the remaining 60% lost to coasting. Early stops drive most of this loss, patterns show moderate stability across sessions, and differences appear by gender and special education status. Students who continue working past the first assignment completion perform better on standardized tests. This frames coasting as a consistent source of opportunity loss and points to the value of supporting sustained engagement.

Core claim

By adding session-level measures of delayed start and early stop to existing idle time metrics, the study characterizes coasted time as the portion of available classwork time not devoted to math practice. Students coast 60% of the time, with early stops comprising 62% of coasted time, delayed starts 36%, and idling 2%. Even after removing early stops due to assignment completion, coasted time stays at 32%. Coasting exhibits temporal stability, and students showing extra effort by persisting beyond minimum requirements score significantly higher on standardized tests.

What carries the argument

Coasted time, the sum of time lost to delayed starts, within-task idling, and early stops at the session level, which quantifies practice avoidance and opportunity loss during seatwork.

If this is right

  • Coasting behavior shows moderate stability over time for the same students.
  • Early stops make up the largest share of lost time at 62%, even after excluding completion-related stops.
  • Students who continue working past first assignment completion perform significantly better on standardized tests.
  • Coasting rates differ by gender and special education status but not by other demographic factors or school locale.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Digital platforms could add features like progress prompts to reduce early stopping and increase productive practice time.
  • Teachers might use coasting data to identify students needing support for sustained engagement during seatwork.
  • Similar session-level measures could be applied to other subjects to quantify opportunity loss from avoidance.

Load-bearing premise

Delayed starts and early stops mainly reflect students avoiding practice rather than resulting from teacher instructions, technical issues, assignment design, or external interruptions.

What would settle it

A controlled observation in which all alternative causes of delayed starts and early stops are eliminated, yet students still show the reported 60% coasted time, would confirm the measures capture avoidance; the opposite result would undermine them.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25014 by Ashish Gurung, Danielle R. Thomas, Jordan Gutterman, Kenneth R. Koedinger, Mingyu Feng, Vincent Aleven.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A problem-level visualization of student engagement during a classwork session (inspired by visualization from view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Average proportion of coasted time to available classwork session time by student characteristics and locale. We view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Measures of disengagement provide insights into unproductive use of learning opportunities. Although measures of active disengagement, such as gaming the system and mind-wandering, are well studied, loss of practice time due to outright task avoidance remains relatively understudied. The current study addresses this gap by extending existing within-task measures (idle time) with two new session-level measures (delayed start and early stop) to capture loss of practice time due to task avoidance. We characterize the combined lost time as coasted time and the associated behavior as coasting behavior. Using ASSISTments logs (N = 1,425), we find that students dedicate only 40% of available classwork time to math practice and coast through the remaining 60%. Of the coasted time, 36% resulted from delayed starts, 2% from mid-practice idling, and 62% from stopping early. Delayed start and early stop showed moderate temporal stability (G = 0.73 and 0.71, respectively), suggesting that coasting is a consistent behavioral pattern. Even after excluding early stops attributable to assignment completion (i.e., early stop = 0), coasted time remained substantial at 32%. While we observe significant differences in coasting by gender and IEP status, we do not observe them by other demographic factors or school locale. Critically, students who continued working beyond the first assignment completion ("extra effort") performed significantly better on standardized tests. For research, coasting offers a new lens on opportunity loss by combining session-level disengagement with within-task disengagement. For practitioners, our results highlight the need for platform affordances that support sustained engagement and more productive use of available practice time.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces 'coasted time' as a composite measure of practice avoidance during individual seatwork by combining within-task idle time with two new session-level measures: delayed start (time from first log to first action) and early stop (cessation before assignment completion or class end). Using ASSISTments log data from N=1,425 students, it reports that students dedicate only 40% of available classwork time to math practice and coast the remaining 60% (36% delayed starts, 2% mid-practice idling, 62% early stops). Delayed start and early stop exhibit moderate temporal stability (G=0.73 and 0.71). Even after excluding early stops due to assignment completion, coasted time remains 32%. Coasting differs by gender and IEP status but not other demographics; students showing 'extra effort' by continuing beyond first assignment completion perform better on standardized tests. The work positions coasting as a new lens on opportunity loss for research and platform design.

Significance. If the log-based measures validly isolate student-initiated avoidance, the findings document substantial underutilization of learning opportunities in digital classrooms and demonstrate that coasting is a stable behavioral pattern with consequences for achievement. Strengths include the reasonably large sample drawn from real platform logs, explicit reporting of generalizability coefficients for stability, decomposition of coasted time into components, and linkage of extra-effort behavior to external standardized test scores. These elements could inform both measurement of disengagement and practical interventions in educational technology.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and measurement definitions: The headline 40%/60% split (and the 32% residual coasted time after excluding completion-driven early stops) rests on the assumption that intervals from first log to first action and from last action to class/assignment end primarily reflect task avoidance. No independent ground truth (e.g., teacher-reported release times, class schedules, or observational validation) is provided to rule out system constraints, technical delays, or instructional pauses. This directly scales the opportunity-loss percentages, the stability coefficients, and the overall claim; a sensitivity analysis or external validation would be required to establish that the measures capture the intended construct.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that 'significant differences in coasting by gender and IEP status' exist but does not report direction, magnitude, or statistical details; adding these would improve informativeness without altering the central claim.
  2. [Abstract] The association between extra effort and test scores is described as 'significant' but lacks mention of the exact statistical model, covariates, effect size, or sample used; while secondary to the time-use claim, clearer reporting would strengthen the manuscript.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback emphasizing the need to validate our log-based coasting measures. We address the concern point by point below, incorporating revisions where feasible while being transparent about data limitations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and measurement definitions: The headline 40%/60% split (and the 32% residual coasted time after excluding completion-driven early stops) rests on the assumption that intervals from first log to first action and from last action to class/assignment end primarily reflect task avoidance. No independent ground truth (e.g., teacher-reported release times, class schedules, or observational validation) is provided to rule out system constraints, technical delays, or instructional pauses. This directly scales the opportunity-loss percentages, the stability coefficients, and the overall claim; a sensitivity analysis or external validation would be required to establish that the measures capture the intended construct.

    Authors: We agree that delayed start and early stop are log-derived proxies whose interpretation as student-initiated avoidance assumes the absence of dominant system or instructional confounds, and that this assumption underpins the reported percentages and stability estimates. The ASSISTments logs record session initiation at the platform level (typically aligned with class start) and student actions on problems, but we lack auxiliary data to isolate every possible delay. To address this directly, we have added a sensitivity analysis (new subsection in Results) varying delayed-start thresholds from 30s to 5min and early-stop definitions (including stricter completion checks), which shows coasted time remains in the 55-65% range and the extra-effort/test-score association holds. We have also revised the Discussion and Limitations sections to explicitly enumerate potential confounds (technical latency, teacher pauses) and to call for multimodal validation in future work. We maintain that the moderate generalizability coefficients and the external linkage to standardized test performance provide initial support for the construct, but we do not claim the measures are fully validated without ground truth. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Absence of independent ground-truth data (teacher reports, class schedules, or classroom observations) to confirm that log intervals represent avoidance rather than system/instructional factors; this cannot be retroactively supplied from the existing ASSISTments logs alone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct empirical definitions from log data

full rationale

The paper is an observational analysis of ASSISTments logs. It defines delayed start, early stop, idle time, and coasted time directly from timestamps and assignment events (e.g., interval from first log to first action; cessation before completion or class end). The 40%/60% split, component breakdowns (36%/2%/62%), G-coefficients (0.73/0.71), residual 32% after exclusions, demographic comparisons, and extra-effort/test-score correlation are all computed statistics from these definitions. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, ansatzes, or self-citation chains appear that reduce any claimed result to its own inputs by construction. The derivation chain is self-contained against the raw log data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on the validity of log-based behavioral measures and the assumption that the observed patterns reflect avoidance rather than other factors. No free parameters are explicitly fitted in the reported results. Coasting is a new construct but defined operationally from data.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Log data from ASSISTments accurately captures student behavior without significant technical artifacts or external interruptions.
    Assumed in defining delayed start and early stop from timestamps.
invented entities (1)
  • coasted time no independent evidence
    purpose: Composite measure of total lost practice time due to avoidance behaviors
    New operational construct created by summing delayed start, mid-practice idle time, and early stop durations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5630 in / 1438 out tokens · 76571 ms · 2026-05-08T01:18:19.696852+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Pengcheng An, Kenneth Holstein, Bernice d’Anjou, Berry Eggen, and Saskia Bakker. 2020. The TA framework: Designing real-time teaching augmentation for K-12 classrooms. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    2020

  2. [2]

    John R Anderson, Albert T Corbett, Kenneth R Koedinger, and Ray Pelletier. 1995. Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned.The journal of the learning sciences4, 2 (1995), 167–207

    1995

  3. [3]

    Brooke J Arterberry, Matthew P Martens, Jennifer M Cadigan, and David Rohrer

  4. [4]

    Application of generalizability theory to the big five inventory.Personality and individual differences69 (2014), 98–103

    2014

  5. [5]

    Dahlia Novarianing Asri, Punaji Setyosari, Imanuel Hitipeuw, and Tutut Chus- niyah. 2017. The Academic Procrastination in Junior High School Students’ Mathematics Learning: A Qualitative Study.International Education Studies10, 9 (2017), 70–77

    2017

  6. [6]

    Roger Azevedo and Vincent Aleven. 2013. Metacognition and learning technolo- gies: An overview of current interdisciplinary research.International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies(2013), 1–16

    2013

  7. [7]

    gaming the system

    Ryan Baker, Jason Walonoski, Neil Heffernan, Ido Roll, Albert Corbett, and Kenneth Koedinger. 2008. Why students engage in “gaming the system” behavior L@S ’26, June 29-July 03, 2026, Seoul, Republic of Korea Gurung et al. in interactive learning environments.Journal of Interactive Learning Research19, 2 (2008), 185–224

    2008

  8. [8]

    Ryan Shaun Baker, Albert T Corbett, Kenneth R Koedinger, and Angela Z Wagner

  9. [9]

    game the system

    Off-task behavior in the cognitive tutor classroom: When students" game the system". InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 383–390

  10. [10]

    Ryan S Baker, J Elizabeth Richey, Jiayi Zhang, Shamya Karumbaiah, Juan Miguel Andres-Bray, Huy Anh Nguyen, Juliana Maria Alexandra L Andres, and Bruce M McLaren. 2025. Gaming the system mediates the relationship between gender and learning outcomes in a digital learning game.Instructional Science53, 2 (2025), 203–238

    2025

  11. [11]

    Ryan SJ d Baker, Albert T Corbett, Ido Roll, and Kenneth R Koedinger. 2008. Developing a generalizable detector of when students game the system.User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction18 (2008), 287–314

    2008

  12. [12]

    Joseph E Beck and Yue Gong. 2013. Wheel-spinning: Students who fail to master a skill. InArtificial Intelligence in Education: 16th International Conference, AIED 2013, Memphis, TN, USA, July 9-13, 2013. Proceedings 16. Springer, 431–440

    2013

  13. [13]

    Hinsdale Bernard, Jerome D Thayer, and Edward A Streeter. 1993. Diligence and academic performance.Journal of Research on Christian Education2, 2 (1993), 213–234

    1993

  14. [14]

    Conrad Borchers, Yinuo Xu, and Zachary A Pardos. 2024. Are You an Early Dropper or Late Shopper? Mining Enrollment Transaction Data to Study Pro- crastination in Higher Education.International Educational Data Mining Society (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Robert L Brennan. 1992. Generalizability theory.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice11, 4 (1992), 27–34

    1992

  16. [16]

    Robert L Brennan. 2010. Generalizability theory and classical test theory.Applied measurement in education24, 1 (2010), 1–21

    2010

  17. [17]

    2015.The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and respon- siveness in the classroom

    Stephen D Brookfield. 2015.The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and respon- siveness in the classroom. John Wiley & Sons

    2015

  18. [18]

    Kalina Christoff, Caitlin Mills, Jessica R Andrews-Hanna, Zachary C Irving, Evan Thompson, Kieran CR Fox, and Julia WY Kam. 2018. Mind-wandering as a scientific concept: cutting through the definitional haze.Trends in cognitive sciences22, 11 (2018), 957–959

    2018

  19. [19]

    Cronbach, Goldine C

    Lee J. Cronbach, Goldine C. Gleser, Harinder Nanda, and Nageswari Rajaratnam. 1972.The Dependability of Behavioral Measurements: Theory of Generalizability for Scores and Profiles. Wiley, New York, NY

    1972

  20. [20]

    Steven Dang, Michael Yudelson, and Kenneth R Koedinger. 2017. Detecting diligence with online behaviors on intelligent tutoring systems. InProceedings of the Fourth (2017) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale. 51–59

    2017

  21. [21]

    Sidney K D’Mello, Caitlin Mills, Robert Bixler, and Nigel Bosch. 2017. Zone out No More: Mitigating Mind Wandering during Computerized Reading.International Educational Data Mining Society(2017)

    2017

  22. [22]

    Allison Dunatchik and Hyunjoon Park. 2022. Racial and ethnic differences in homework time among US teens.Sociological Perspectives65, 6 (2022), 1144–1168

    2022

  23. [23]

    Jacquelynne S Eccles and Allan Wigfield. 2020. From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation.Contemporary educational psychology 61 (2020), 101859

    2020

  24. [24]

    Mingyu Feng, Linlin Li, Chunwei Huang, Natalie Brezack, and Kim Luttgen

  25. [25]

    InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education

    Empowering Teachers with Technology: A National Study on a Formative Assessment Platform. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer, 119–126

  26. [26]

    Charles Fisher, David Berliner, Nikola Filby, Richard Marliave, Leonard Cahen, and Marilyn Dishaw. 2015. Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview.The Journal of Classroom Interaction50, 1 (2015), 6–24

    2015

  27. [27]

    Brian M Galla, Benjamin D Plummer, Rachel E White, David Meketon, Sidney K D’Mello, and Angela L Duckworth. 2014. The Academic Diligence Task (ADT): Assessing individual differences in effort on tedious but important schoolwork. Contemporary educational psychology39, 4 (2014), 314–325

    2014

  28. [28]

    Karrie E Godwin, Howard Seltman, Ma Almeda, Mandi Davis Skerbetz, Shimin Kai, Ryan S Baker, and Anna V Fisher. 2021. The elusive relationship between time on-task and learning: Not simply an issue of measurement.Educational Psychology41, 4 (2021), 502–519

    2021

  29. [29]

    Peter M Gollwitzer and Paschal Sheeran. 2006. Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes.Advances in experi- mental social psychology38 (2006), 69–119

    2006

  30. [30]

    Yue Gong and Joseph E Beck. 2015. Towards detecting wheel-spinning: Future failure in mastery learning. InProceedings of the second (2015) ACM conference on learning@ scale. 67–74

    2015

  31. [31]

    Ashish Gurung, Anthony F Botelho, and Neil T Heffernan. 2021. Examining student effort on help through response time decomposition. InLAK21: 11th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference. 292–301

    2021

  32. [32]

    Ashish Gurung, Jionghao Lin, Zhongtian Huang, Conrad Borchers, Ryan Baker, Vincent Aleven, and Kenneth Koedinger. 2025. Starting Seatwork Earlier as a Valid Measure of Student Engagement. InProceedings of the 18th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, Caitlin Mills, Giora Alexandron, Davide Taibi, Giosuè Lo Bosco, and Luc Paquette (Eds.). I...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.15870183 2025

  33. [33]

    Wei He and J Meyer. 2021. MAP Growth universal screening benchmarks: Es- tablishing MAP Growth as an effective universal screener.Northwest Evaluation Association(2021)

    2021

  34. [34]

    Neil T Heffernan and Cristina Lindquist Heffernan. 2014. The ASSISTments ecosystem: Building a platform that brings scientists and teachers together for minimally invasive research on human learning and teaching.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education24 (2014), 470–497

    2014

  35. [35]

    Kenneth Holstein, Bruce M McLaren, and Vincent Aleven. 2018. Student learning benefits of a mixed-reality teacher awareness tool in AI-enhanced classrooms. In International conference on artificial intelligence in education. Springer, 154–168

    2018

  36. [36]

    Michael T Kane. 2013. Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of educational measurement50, 1 (2013), 1–73

    2013

  37. [37]

    Ji Young Kim and Daniel M Fienup. 2022. Increasing access to online learning for students with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic.The Journal of Special Education55, 4 (2022), 213–221

    2022

  38. [38]

    Kenneth R Koedinger, Paulo F Carvalho, Ran Liu, and Elizabeth A McLaughlin

  39. [39]

    An astonishing regularity in student learning rate.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences120, 13 (2023), e2221311120

    2023

  40. [40]

    Kenneth R Koedinger, Albert T Corbett, and Charles Perfetti. 2012. The Knowledge-Learning-Instruction framework: Bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning.Cognitive science36, 5 (2012), 757–798

    2012

  41. [41]

    Jonna Koivisto and Juho Hamari. 2014. Demographic differences in perceived benefits from gamification.Computers in Human Behavior35 (2014), 179–188

    2014

  42. [42]

    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 Analytics2, 3 (2015), 81–110

    2015

  43. [43]

    Edwin A Locke and Gary P Latham. 2019. The development of goal setting theory: A half century retrospective.Motivation science5, 2 (2019), 93

    2019

  44. [44]

    Roberto Martinez Maldonado, Yannis Dimitriadis, Judy Kay, Kalina Yacef, and Marie-Theresa Edbauer. 2012. Orchestrating a multi-tabletop classroom: from activity design to enactment and reflection. InProceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on Interactive tabletops and surfaces. 119–128

    2012

  45. [45]

    Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, Judy Kay, Kalina Yacef, Marie-Theresa Edbauer, and Yannis Dimitriadis. 2013. MTClassroom and MTDashboard: supporting analysis of teacher attention in an orchestrated multi-tabletop classroom. (2013)

    2013

  46. [46]

    Caitlin Mills, Robert Bixler, Xinyi Wang, and Sidney K D’Mello. 2016. Automatic Gaze-Based Detection of Mind Wandering during Narrative Film Comprehension. International Educational Data Mining Society(2016)

    2016

  47. [47]

    Luc Paquette, Ryan S Baker, Adriana de Carvalho, and Jaclyn Ocumpaugh. 2015. Cross-system transfer of machine learned and knowledge engineered models of gaming the system. InInternational Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization. Springer, 183–194

    2015

  48. [48]

    Luc Paquette, Adriana MJB de Carvalho, and Ryan Shaun Baker. 2014. Towards Understanding Expert Coding of Student Disengagement in Online Learning.. In CogSci

    2014

  49. [49]

    Paul R Pintrich. 2004. A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students.Educational psychology review16 (2004), 385–407

    2004

  50. [50]

    Adrian E Raftery. 1995. Bayesian model selection in social research.Sociological methodology(1995), 111–163

    1995

  51. [51]

    Carol Rentas, Ramapoza O’Dwyer, Rohini Ganjoo, Marcia A Firmani, Cliff Cym- rot, Yousif Barzani, and Lisa S Schwartz. 2025. Exploring English Language Learners’ Performance on Online, Asynchronous Science-Based Examinations. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (IJDET)23, 1 (2025), 1–27

    2025

  52. [52]

    Maria Ofelia San Pedro, Jaclyn Ocumpaugh, Ryan S Baker, and Neil T Heffernan

  53. [53]

    Predicting STEM and Non-STEM College Major Enrollment from Middle School Interaction with Mathematics Educational Software.. InEDM. 276–279

  54. [54]

    Benjamin Shih, Kenneth R Koedinger, and Richard Scheines. 2011. A response time model for bottom-out hints as worked examples.Handbook of educational data mining(2011), 201–212

    2011

  55. [55]

    Piers Steel. 2007. The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure.Psychological bulletin133, 1 (2007), 65

    2007

  56. [56]

    Danielle R Thomas, Erin Gatz, Shivang Gupta, Vincent Aleven, and Kenneth R Koedinger. 2024. The neglected 15%: positive effects of hybrid human-AI tutor- ing among students with disabilities. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer, 409–423

    2024

  57. [57]

    Philip H Winne. 2011. A cognitive and metacognitive analysis of self-regulated learning: Faculty of education, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada. In Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. Routledge, 29–46

    2011

  58. [58]

    Winne and Allyson F

    Philip H. Winne and Allyson F. Hadwin. 1998. Studying as Self-Regulated Learn- ing. InMetacognition in Educational Theory and Practice, D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, and A. C. Graesser (Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 277–

    1998

  59. [59]

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247664651_Studying_as_Self- Regulated_Learning Coasting Through Class: Learning Opportunity Loss from Practice Avoidance During Individual Seatwork L@S ’26, June 29-July 03, 2026, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    work page arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    Claire Wladis, Alyse C Hachey, and Katherine Conway. 2024. It’s about time: The inequitable distribution of time as a resource for college, by gender and race/ethnicity.Research in Higher Education65, 7 (2024), 1614–1646

    2024

  61. [61]

    Claire Wladis, Alyse C Hachey, and Katherine M Conway. 2024. It’s about time, part II: Does time poverty contribute to inequitable college outcomes by gender and race/ethnicity?AERA Open10 (2024), 23328584241237971

    2024

  62. [62]

    Christopher A Wolters. 2003. Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underem- phasized aspect of self-regulated learning.Educational psychologist38, 4 (2003), 189–205

    2003

  63. [63]

    Christopher A Wolters and Paul R Pintrich. 1998. Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms.Instructional science26, 1 (1998), 27–47

    1998

  64. [64]

    Dandan Zhang, Xin Li, and Jinjun Xue. 2015. Education inequality between rural and urban areas of the People’s Republic of China, migrants’ children education, and some implications.Asian development review32, 1 (2015), 196–224

    2015

  65. [65]

    Barry J Zimmerman. 2002. Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into practice41, 2 (2002), 64–70

    2002