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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 · Cited by 15,798
School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543074001059 · Cited by 12,581 · cited 5×
“Attention is considered a component of behavioral engagement alongside overt participation, positive conduct, and persistence (Connell 1990; Fredricks et al. 2004).”
BackgroundInfluentialMotivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33 · Cited by 8,332
The New Statistics: Why and How
Cumming, G. (2014) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797613504966 · Cited by 3,200
Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x09332374 · Cited by 1,331
Relationships between student engagement and academic achievement: A meta-analysis
Lei, H., Cui, Y., & Zhou, W. (2018) · Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal · doi:10.2224/sbp.7054 · Cited by 987 · cited 1×
“Furthermore, in research on engagement, correlations between student engagement and academic achievement have been found (Lei et al. 2018).”
A Wearable Sensor for Unobtrusive, Long-Term Assessment of Electrodermal Activity
Poh, M.-Z., Swenson, N. C., & Picard, R. W. (2010) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2009.2038487 · Cited by 693
A selective review of selective attention research from the past century
Driver, J. (2001) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1348/000712601162103 · Cited by 658
Cited by
Digital transformations of classrooms in virtual reality
Gao, H., Bozkir, E., Hasenbein, L., Hahn, J.-U., Göllner, R., & Kasneci, E. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445596 · Cited by 77
Self-citationA systematic review on machine learning models for online learning and examination systems
Kaddoura, S., Popescu, D. E., & Hemanth, J. D. (2022) · PeerJ Computer Science · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.986 · Cited by 75
A systematic review of Stimulated Recall (SR) in educational research from 2012 to 2022
Zhai, X., Chu, X., Wang, M., Tsai, C.-C., Liang, J.-C., & Spector, J. M. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-02987-6 · Cited by 47
Global justice and the use of AI in education: ethical and epistemic aspects
Vučković, A., & Sikimić, V. (2025) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-024-02076-x · Cited by 22
How vocal and silent forms of participation in combination relate to student achievement
Sedova, K., & Sedlacek, M. (2023) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-022-09609-1 · Cited by 16
“There have been studies focused on these manifestations of behavioral engagement that used observational designs (Dixon et al., 2009; Goldberg et al., 2019; Goldin et al., 2019; Schnitzler et al., 2020).”
Background
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.