That figure is skewed downwards as there is 15% for reference / learning which is a ton of me watching coursera videos in the evenings.
The artificial pacing of the courses made it essentially impossible to go through any faster than you would in an an in person class. Also the honor code prevents people from actually helping each other when they're stumped in the forums. There's clearly some tension between my goal of learning and the platform's focus on credentialing (via credentials that carry almost no weight).
Many courses were watered down versions and since different institutions break up their coursework slightly differently, there was a constant problem of repeating material or missing parts of prerequisites. Now it seems nearly all the courses are watered down and most don't seem to have any prerequisites at all.
Is it possible to do an entire technical degree's worth of material on Coursera, even at the undergrad level? Regardless of the value of their own certificates and capstone projects, if a student could learn enough to pass a GRE subject test, that credential that would actually carry some weight.
Which is a good sign i guess. I miss my IDE though... a little bit. :)
Of that time, probably a quarter is spent running tests over and over again. For a project that's just applying something I've done a dozen times before, I'll probably spend half of the rest of the time just understanding the part of the codebase I'm applying it to. For something that's new or rusty, I'll spend 90% of the time in the beginning and 20% at the end researching or planning or just looking up APIs in the documentation.
Another point is that it also depends on the familiarity of the technology/language you are using.
I'd actually count design and scheduling as coding, because that's where most of the code is written.