Exploiting Wearable Technologies to Measure and Predict Students’ Effort

  • Barbara MoissaEmail author
  • Geoffray Bonnin
  • Anne Boyer


Effort is considered a key factor of students’ success and its influences on learning outcomes have been studied for decades. To study this relationship, researchers have been measuring it in several different ways. One traditional way to measure effort is to rely on indicators such as the time spent on a task. This solution is not entirely reliable, as divergent results can be found in the literature. Additionally, it is not possible to know the internal and external conditions that led to these observations and how they can influence the results. Being able to accurately measure and predict students’ effort can contribute to the understanding of its relationship with learning outcomes, and allow teachers to identify students who are struggling or not truly engaged into learning trough new tools. One promising way to acquire information about students’ internal phenomena is to exploit wearable technologies. In this chapter, after reviewing different definitions of effort, we present a landscape of students’ effort measurement and prediction. Then, we discuss how wearable technologies can be exploited to enhance the accuracy of these measurements and predictions.


Students’ effort Cognitive load Descriptive analytics Predictive analytics Wearable technologies 


  1. Alvarez, V., Bower, M., de Freitas, S., Gregory, S., & de Wit, B. (2016). The use of wearable technologies in Australian universities: Examples from environmental science, cognitive and brain sciences and teacher training (pp. 25–32). Sydney: University of Technology.Google Scholar
  2. Arshad, S., Wang, Y., & Chen, F. (2013). Analysing mouse activity for cognitive load detection. In Proceedings of the 25th Australian computer-human interaction conference: Augmentation, application, innovation, collaboration (pp. 115–118). New Work: ACM.Google Scholar
  3. Ayres, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beatty, J., & Lucero-Wagoner, B. (2000). The pupillary system. Handbook of Psychophysiology, 2, 142–162.Google Scholar
  5. Borthwick, A. C., Anderson, C. L., Finsness, E. S., & Foulger, T. S. (2015). Special article personal wearable technologies in education: Value or villain? Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 31(3), 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borys, M., Plechawska-W’ojcik, M., Wawrzyk, M., & Wesołowska, K. (2017). Classifying cognitive workload using eye activity and EEG features in arithmetic tasks. In International conference on information and software technologies (pp. 90–105). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Camp, G., Paas, F., Rikers, R., & van Merriënboer, J. (2001). Dynamic problem selection in air traffic control training: A comparison between performance, mental effort and mental efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(5), 575–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carbonaro, W. (2005). Tracking, students’ effort, and academic achievement. Sociology of Education, 78(1), 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang, T. J., Hsu, P. S., Wu, M. H., & Chuang, C. P. (2008). A dynamic user-friendly interactive interface for adaptive e-learning: A real-time and non-interference diagnostic technique. In 2008 international symposium on knowledge acquisition and modeling (pp. 462–466).Wuhan, China.
  11. Chen, F., Zhou, J., Wang, Y., Yu, K., Arshad, S. Z., Khawaji, A., & Conway, D. (2016). Robust multimodal cognitive load measurement. Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load? Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 315–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Darrow, C. W. (1964). The rationale for treating the change in galvanic skin response as a change in conductance. Psychophysiology, 1(1), 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Greef, T., Lafeber, H., van Oostendorp, H., & Lindenberg, J. (2009). Eye movement as indicators of mental workload to trigger adaptive automation. In D. D. Schmorrow, I. V. Estabrooke, & M. Grootjen (Eds.), Foundations of augmented cognition. Neuroergonomics and operational neuroscience (pp. 219–228). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dev, P. C. (1997). Intrinsic motivation and academic achievement: What does their relationship imply for the classroom teacher? Remedial and Special Education, 18(1), 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dooley, E. E., Golaszewski, N. M., & Bartholomew, J. B. (2017). Estimating accuracy at exercise intensities: A comparative study of self-monitoring heart rate and physical activity wearable devices. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 5(3), e34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. EdTech Review. (2014). Wearable technology in the classroom. Accessed 19 Dec 2017.
  18. European Commission. (2018). Data protection. Accessed 09 Apr 2018.
  19. Eysink, T. H. S., de Jong, T., Berthold, K., Kolloffel, B., Opfermann, M., & Wouters, P. (2009). Learner performance in multimedia learning arrangements: An analysis across instructional approaches. American Educational Research, 46(4), 1107–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferguson, T., Rowlands, A. V., Olds, T., & Maher, C. (2015). The validity of consumer level, activity monitors in healthy adults worn in free-living conditions: A cross sectional study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12(1), 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Galán, F. C., & Beal, C. R. (2012). EEG estimates of engagement and cognitive workload predict math problem solving outcomes. In J. Masthoff, B. Mobasher, M. C. Desmarais, & R. Nkambou (Eds.), User modeling, adaptation, and personalization (pp. 51–62). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 511–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gipps, C., & Tunstall, P. (1998). Effort, ability and the teacher: Young children’s explanations for success and failure. Oxford Review of Education, 24(2), 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guhe, M., Gray, W. D., Schoelles, M. J., Liao, W., Zhu, Z., & Ji, Q. (2005). Non-intrusive measurement of workload in real-time. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 49(12), 1157–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guo, F., Li, Y., Kankanhalli, M. S., & Brown, M. S. (2013). An evaluation of wearable activity monitoring devices. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM international workshop on personal data meets distributed multimedia (pp. 31–34). New Work: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload, advances in psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hill, L. (1990). Effort and reward in college: A replication of some puzzling findings. In J. W. Neuliep (Ed.), Handbook of replication research in the behavioral and social sciences (pp. 139–149). Corte Madera: Select Press.Google Scholar
  28. Khawaja, M. A., Ruiz, N., & Chen, F. (2007). Potential speech features for cognitive load measurement. In Proceedings of the 19th Australasian conference on computer-human interaction: Entertaining user interfaces (pp. 57–60). New Work: ACM.Google Scholar
  29. Khawaja, M. A., Chen, F., & Marcus, N. (2014). Measuring cognitive load using linguistic features: Implications for usability evaluation and adaptive interaction design. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 30(5), 343–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klimesch, W. (1999). EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance: A review and analysis. Brain Research Reviews, 29(2), 169–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kooiman, T. J. M., Dontje, M. L., Sprenger, S. R., Krijnen, W. P., van der Schans, C. P., & de Groot, M. (2015). Reliability and validity of ten consumer activity trackers. BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, 7(1), 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Korbach, A., Brünken, R., & Park, B. (2017). Differentiating different types of cognitive load: A comparison of different measures. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 503–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kramer, A. F. (1990). Physiological metrics of mental workload: A review of recent progress. In D. L. Damos (Ed.), Multiple-task performance (pp. 279–328). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  34. Leppink, J. (2017). Cognitive load theory: Practical implications and an important challenge. Taibah University Medical Sciences, 12(5), 385–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leppink, J., Paas, F., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1058–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lu, Y., Zhang, S., Zhang, Z., Xiao, W., & Yu, S. (2017). A framework for learning analytics using commodity wearable devices. Sensors, 17(6), E1382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mantua, J., Gravel, N., & Spencer, R. M. C. (2016). Reliability of sleep measures from four personal health monitoring devices compared to research-based actigraphy and polysomnography. Sensors, 16(5), E646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meltzer, L., Katzir-Cohen, T., Miller, L., & Roditi, B. (2001). The impact of effort and strategy use on academic performance: Student and teacher perceptions. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(2), 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mock, P., Gerjets, P., Tibus, M., Trautwein, U., Moeller, K., & Rosenstiel, W. (2016). Using touchscreen interaction data to predict cognitive workload. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM international conference on multimodal interaction (pp. 349–356). New Work: ACM.Google Scholar
  40. Mulder, L. (1992). Measurement and analysis methods of heart rate and respiration for use in applied environments. Biological Psychology, 34(2), 205–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nagy, R. (2016). Tracking and visualizing student effort: Evolution of a practical analytics tool for staff and student engagement. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(2), 165–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Naismith, L. M., & Cavalcanti, R. B. (2015). Validity of cognitive load measures in simulation-based training: A systematic review. Academic Medicine, 90(11), S24–S35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nickel, P., & Nachreiner, F. (2000). Psychometric properties of the 0.1hz component of HRV as an indicator of mental strain. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 44(12), 2.747–2.750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ødegảrd, A. (2013). Smartwatches can potentially be very useful in education. Accessed 19 Dec 2017.
  45. Opperman, R., Rashev, R., Kashihara, A., & Simm, H. (2000). A cognitive load reduction approach to exploratory learning and its application to an interactive simulation-based learning system. Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(3), 253–276.Google Scholar
  46. Or, C. K., & Duffy, V. G. (2007). Development of a facial skin temperature-based methodology for non-intrusive mental workload measurement. Occupational Ergonomics, 7(2), 83–94.Google Scholar
  47. Paas, F. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Paas, F. G. W. C., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35(4), 737–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Paas, F. G. W. C., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Paas, F. G., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Adam, J. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79(1), 419–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Gerven, P. W. M. V. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. ReWalk Robotics. (2014). Rewalk motorized device helps people with disabilities to walk. Accessed 19 Dec 2017.
  53. Rosenberger, M. E., Buman, M. P., Haskell, W. L., McConnell, M. V., & Carstensen, L. L. (2016). 24 hours of sleep, sedentary behavior, and physical activity with nine wearable devices. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 48(3), 457–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ruiz, N., Taib, R., Shi, Y. D., Choi, E., & Chen, F. (2007). Using pen input features as indices of cognitive load. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on multimodal interfaces (pp. 315–318). New Work: ACM.Google Scholar
  55. Salden, R. J., Paas, F., Broers, N. J., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2004). Mental effort and performance as determinants for the dynamic selection of learning tasks in air traffic control training. Instructional Science, 32(1), 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scariot, A. P., Andrade, F. G., da Silva, J. M. C., & Imran, H. (2016). Students effort vs. outcome: Analysis through Moodle logs. In 2016 IEEE 16th international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT) (pp. 371–372). Austin.Google Scholar
  57. Schultheis, H., & Jameson, A. (2004). Assessing cognitive load in adaptive hypermedia systems: Physiological and behavioral methods. In P. M. E. De Bra & W. Nejdl (Eds.), Adaptive hypermedia and adaptive web-based systems (pp. 225–234). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schuman, H. (2001). Comment: Students’ effort and reward in college settings. Sociology of Education, 74(1), 73–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schuman, H., Walsh, E., Olson, C., & Etheridge, B. (1985). Effort and reward: The assumption that college grades are affected by quantity of study. Social Forces, 63(4), 945–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shi, Y., Ruiz, N., Taib, R., Choi, E., & Chen, F. (2007). Galvanic skin response (GSR) as an index of cognitive load. In CHI ‘07 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2651–2656). New Work: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Siegel, E. (2013). Predictive analytics. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  62. Spüler, M., Walter, C., Rosenstiel, W., Gerjets, P., Moeller, K., & Klein, E. (2016). EEG-based prediction of cognitive workload induced by arithmetic: A step towards online adaptation in numerical learning. ZDM, 48(3), 267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stables, A., Murakami, K., McIntosh, S., & Martin, S. (2014). Conceptions of effort among students, teachers and parents within an English secondary school. Research Papers in Education, 29(5), 626–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Swinton, O. H. (2010). The effect of effort grading on learning. Economics of Education Review, 29(6), 1176–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tehrani, K., & Michael, A. (2014). Wearable technology and wearable devices: Everything you need to know. Accessed 01 Dec 2017.
  67. US Department of Education. (2015). Family educational rights and privacy act (FERPA). Accessed 01 Dec 2017.
  68. van Orden, K. F., Limbert, W., Makeig, S., & Jung, T. P. (2001). Eye activity correlates of workload during a visuospatial memory task. Human Factors, 43(1), 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. van Wouwe, N. C., Valk, P. J., & Veenstra, B. J. (2011). Sleep monitoring: A comparison between three wearable instruments. Military Medicine, 176(7), 811–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vandrico Solutions Inc. (2018). The wearables database. Accessed 24 Sept 2018.
  71. Verrel, J., Lövdén, M., Schellenbach, M., Schaefer, S., & Lindenberger, U. (2009). Interacting effects of cognitive load and adult age on the regularity of whole-body motion during treadmill walking. Psychology and Aging, 24(1), 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wallen, M. P., Gomersall, S. R., Keating, S. E., Wislff, U., & Coombes, J. S. (2016). Accuracy of heart rate watches: Implications for weight management. PLoS One, 11(5), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Walter, C., Rosenstiel, W., Bogdan, M., Gerjets, P., & Sp¨uler, M. (2017). Online EEG-based workload adaptation of an arithmetic learning environment. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Webster, E., Sukaviriya, N., Chang, H. Y., & Kozloski, J. (2017). Predicting cognitive states from wearable recordings of autonomic function. IBM Research and Development, 61(2/3), ):1–)11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wright, R., & Keith, L. (2014). Wearable technology: If the tech fits, wear it. Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 11(4), 204–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Xie, B., & Salvendy, G. (2000). Prediction of mental workload in single and multiple tasks environments. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4(3), 213–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yin, B., Ruiz, N., Chen, F., & Khawaja, M. A. (2007). Automatic cognitive load detection from speech features. In Proceedings of the 19th Australasian conference on computer-human interaction: Entertaining user interfaces (pp. 249–255). New Work: ACM.Google Scholar
  78. Yu, K., Epps, J., & Chen, F. (2011). Cognitive load evaluation of handwriting using stroke-level features. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on intelligent user interfaces (pp. 423–426). New Work: ACM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Lorraine, CNRS, Inria, LORIANancyFrance

Personalised recommendations