Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 280

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Attentive or Not? Toward a Machine Learning Approach to Assessing Students’ Visible Engagement in Classroom Instruction

Open access
Goldberg, Patricia, Sümer, Ömer, Stürmer, Kathleen, Wagner, Wolfgang, Göllner, Richard, Gerjets, Peter, Kasneci, Enkelejda, Trautwein, Ulrich·2021·Educational Psychology Review

Abstract

Teachers must be able to monitor students’ behavior and identify valid cues in order to draw conclusions about students’ actual engagement in learning activities. Teacher training can support (inexperienced) teachers in developing these skills by using videotaped teaching to highlight which indicators should be considered. However, this supposes that (a) valid indicators of students’ engagement in learning are known and (b) work with videos is designed as effectively as possible to reduce the effort involved in manual coding procedures and in examining videos. One avenue for addressing these issues is to utilize the technological advances made in recent years in fields such as machine learning to improve the analysis of classroom videos. Assessing students’ attention-related processes through visible indicators of (dis)engagement in learning might become more effective if automated analyses can be employed. Thus, in the present study, we validated a new manual rating approach and provided a proof of concept for a machine vision-based approach evaluated on pilot classroom recordings of three lessons with university students. The manual rating system was significantly correlated with self-reported cognitive engagement, involvement, and situational interest and predicted performance on a subsequent knowledge test. The machine vision-based approach, which was based on gaze, head pose, and facial expressions, provided good estimations of the manual ratings. Adding a synchrony feature to the automated analysis improved correlations with the manual ratings as well as the prediction of posttest variables. The discussion focuses on challenges and important next steps in bringing the automated analysis of engagement to the classroom.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10648-019-09514-z

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 280

Metadata

Authors
Goldberg, P., Sümer, Ö., Stürmer, K., Wagner, W., Göllner, R., Gerjets, P., Kasneci, E., & Trautwein, U.
Venue
Educational Psychology Review
Published
2019-12-18
Volume
33
Issue
1
Pages
27-49
ISSN
  • 1040-726X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-336X
OpenAlex
W2995682556
Cited by
280
References
8
FWCI
12.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.