Many studies have established that recursion is a notoriously difficult topic for CS1 students. We report on a quantitative controlled experiment involving N=100 CS1 students that characterizes student performance with linear recursion versus iteration across progressively more demanding programming activities defined by the Use–Modify–Create (UMC) framework. The study examines whether the order in which students practice the same programming tasks using iteration and linear recursion affects subsequent performance (RQ1), and compares performance using linear recursion versus iteration in terms of correctness (RQ2) and time-on-task (RQ3). Across activities, we find no meaningful effects of practice order, but observe a persistent correctness gap of approximately 10–20% across all Use, Modify, and Create activities and substantially longer time-on-task for linear recursion, with differences increasing for active programming tasks (Modify and Create). These findings provide an empirical characterization of how CS1 students perform with linear recursion versus iteration under a conventional imperative-first curriculum, and clarify patterns of student proficiency that subsequent computing courses may rely upon.