The RT propensity–learning relationship is strongest early in the class session and attenuates later¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 2 studies · 2 associational r2 · q2
Currency · no dated study recorded · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In the earliest session quartile, RT propensity is modestly but significantly negatively correlated with learning rate (r = −0.12, p < .001), whereas later-slice correlations are smaller and not statistically reliable. → slice-1 q2 i? The RT propensity × prior proficiency interaction is significant in Q1 (β = 0.12, adjusted p < .05) and marginally significant in Q4 (β = 0.09, adjusted p < .10), but not in the middle slices. → slice-2

Evidence¶

slice-1¶

Conrad Borchers, Lijin Zhang, Kexin Yang, Tomohiro Nagashima, and Benjamin W. Domingue. 2026. Understanding Student Effort Using Response-Time Propensities During Problem Solving. Proceedings of the Thirteenth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S '26). https://doi.org/10.1145/3774398.3811624

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Within-slice Pearson correlation analysis of student RT propensity and learning-rate parameters across four global time slices (Q1–Q4) of classroom tutoring sessions. Only the earliest slice shows a reliable association; later slices do not.

"In the earliest slice (Q1), RT propensity is modestly but significantly negatively correlated with learning rate (𝑟=− 0.12, 𝑝<. 001), whereas correlations in later slices are smaller and not statistically reliable (Q2: 𝑟=− 0.05,𝑝=.145; Q3:𝑟=0.04,𝑝=.296; Q4:𝑟=−0.03,𝑝=.375)."

slice-2¶

Conrad Borchers, Lijin Zhang, Kexin Yang, Tomohiro Nagashima, and Benjamin W. Domingue. 2026. Understanding Student Effort Using Response-Time Propensities During Problem Solving. Proceedings of the Thirteenth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S '26). https://doi.org/10.1145/3774398.3811624

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Slice-specific regressions with Benjamini–Hochberg adjustment predicting learning rate from RT propensity, prior proficiency, and their interaction. The moderation is significant in Q1, marginal in Q4, and absent in Q2 and Q3.

"The interaction between RT propensity and prior proficiency is significant in the earliest slice (Q1;𝛽= 0.12, 95% CI[0.03, 0.20], adjusted 𝑝<. 05) and marginally significant in the latest slice (Q4; 𝛽= 0.09, 95% CI[0.01, 0.17], adjusted 𝑝<. 10), but not in the middle slices (Q2 and Q3)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Higher prior proficiency is associated with faster step-level response-time propensities — related
• RT propensity shows no reliable main effect on learning rate, while prior proficiency is positively associated with learning rate — related
• Response-time propensities show moderate to strong within-student stability across practice session slices — related
• The association between RT propensity and learning rate is moderated by prior proficiency: slower propensities predict greater learning efficiency for higher-proficiency students but are weakly negative for lower-proficiency students — related
• Later time-point of cognitive testing is associated with faster reaction times, with significantly slower RT in the morning — related