Design of a Microlevel Student Engagement Data Capture System

  • Isuru BalasooriyaEmail author
  • Enric Mor
  • M. Elena Rodríguez
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies book series (LNDECT, volume 13)


Student engagement is a known contributor to student success. In the ever increasing channels for online learning, both engagement and success has been seen to struggle particularly in the STEM subject areas where dropouts are high and grades are lower. Student engagement has been known to be measured in lengthy questionnaires at the end of a semester, whereas we propose and design a microlevel approach to timely capture student engagement that adds the cognitive and emotional dimensions to the more widely used behavioural engagement data. In this paper we present a data capture design we have carried out to re-design the conventional method of retrospective and lengthy engagement questionnaires into a more dynamic, timely method that uses micro-surveys at strategic points in a virtual learning environment using a newly developed data capture module. We discuss our findings based on a pilot study carried out at Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain.


Microlevel student engagement Engagement analytics Data capture module design 


  1. Appleton, J.J., Christenson, S.L., Kim, D., Reschly, A.L.: Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: validation of the student engagement instrument. J. Sch. Psychol. 44(5), 427–445 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balasooriya, I., Mor, E., Rodríguez, M.E.: Extending learning analytics with microlevel student engagement data. In: Proceedings of EduLearn 2017 (2017a)Google Scholar
  3. Balasooriya, I., Rodríguez, M.E., Mor, E.: Microlevel student engagement measurement as an accessory to continuous assessment. In: Technology Enhanced Assessment Conference 2017 (2017b)Google Scholar
  4. Boekaerts, M., Seegers, G., Vermeer, H.: Solving math problems: Where and why does the solution process go astray? Educ. Stud. Math. 28(3), 241–262 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crick, R.D., Broadfoot, P., Claxton, G.: Developing an effective lifelong learning inventory: the ELLI project. In: Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 247–272 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. Erdt, M., Fernandez, A., Rensing, C.: Evaluating recommender systems for technology enhanced learning: a quantitative survey. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 8(4), 326–344 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Feidakis, M., Daradoumis, T., Caballé, S., Conesa, J.: Design of an emotion aware e-learning system. Int. J. Knowl. Learn. 8(3–4), 219–238 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fredricks, J.A., McColskey, W.: The measurement of student engagement: a comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In: Christenson, S., Reschly, A., Wylie, C. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, pp. 763–782. Springer, Boston (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., Paris, A.H.: School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev. Educ. Res. 74(1), 59–109 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garcia, T., Pintrich, P.: Assessing students’ motivation and learning strategies in the classroom context: the motivation and strategies in learning questionnaire. In: Birenbaum, M., Dochy, F.J. (eds.) Alternatives in Assessment of Achievements, Learning Processes, and Prior Knowledge, pp. 319–339. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press, New York (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goetz, T., Bieg, M., Hall, N.C.: Assessing academic emotions via the experience sampling method. In: Zembylas, M., Schutz, P. (eds.) Methodological Advances in Research on Emotion and Education, pp. 245–258. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2016)Google Scholar
  12. Gogol, K., Brunner, M., Goetz, T., Martin, R., Ugen, S., Keller, U., Fischbach, A., Preckel, F.: “My Questionnaire is Too Long!” The assessments of motivational-affective constructs with three-item and single-item measures. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 39(3), 188–205 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Griffith, A.L.: Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the school that matters? Econ. Educ. Rev. 29, 911–922 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Henrie, C.R., Halverson, L.R., Graham, C.R.: Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: a review. Comput. Educ. 90, 36–53 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kennedy, T.J., Odell, M.R.L.: Engaging students in STEM education. Sci. Educ. Int. 25(3), 246–258 (2014)Google Scholar
  16. Kuh, G.D.: The national survey of student engagement: conceptual and empirical foundations. New Dir. Inst. Res. 141, 5–20 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J.A., Bridges, B.K., Hayek, J.C.: Piecing together the student success puzzle: research, propositions, and recommendations. ASHE Higher Education Report, vol. 116 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. Ladd, G.W., Dinella, L.M.: Continuity and change in early school engagement: predictive of children’s achievement trajectories from first to eighth grade? J. Educ. Psychol. 101(1), 190–206 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pardo, A., Han, F., Ellis, R.A.: Combining university student self-regulated learning indicators and engagement with online learning events to predict academic performance. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 10(1), 82–92 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pintrich, P.R., De Groot, E.V.: Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. J. Educ. Psychol. 82(1), 33–40 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A., García, T., McKeachie, W.J.: Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educ. Psychol. Measur. 53(3), 801–813 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schraw, G., Dennison, R.S.: Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 19(4), 460–475 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shernoff, D.J.: Optimal Learning Environments to Promote Student Engagement. Springer, New York (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shernoff, D.J., Schmidt, J.A.: Further evidence of an engagement–achievement paradox among US high school students. J. Youth Adolesc. 37(5), 564–580 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sinclair, J., Butler, M., Morgan, M., Kalvala, S.: Measures of student engagement in computer science. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, pp. 242–247 (2015)Google Scholar
  26. Skinner, E.A., Kindermann, T.A., Connell, J.P., Wellborn, J.G.: Engagement and disaffection as organizational constructs in the dynamics of motivational development. In: Handbook of Motivation at School, pp. 223–245 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. Susman, G.I., Evered, R.D.: An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Adm. Sci. Q. 23, 582–603 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zhu, E.: Interaction and cognitive engagement: an analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instr. Sci. 34, 451 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isuru Balasooriya
    • 1
    Email author
  • Enric Mor
    • 1
  • M. Elena Rodríguez
    • 1
  1. 1.Universitat Oberta de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations