2014 13th International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications 2014
DOI: 10.1109/icmla.2014.111
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Learner Engagement Measurement and Classification in 1:1 Learning

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The study recommended the triangulation of other sensors and indices for better detection of student engagement and attention. Aslan et al used feature selection, including gaze, body posture, and facial points to create a student engagement classification with accuracies up to 85% to 95% [30]. However, the study only specified that the students were in a learning environment and failed to address the specific educational context where this model is beneficial.…”
Section: Indices Of Attentionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The study recommended the triangulation of other sensors and indices for better detection of student engagement and attention. Aslan et al used feature selection, including gaze, body posture, and facial points to create a student engagement classification with accuracies up to 85% to 95% [30]. However, the study only specified that the students were in a learning environment and failed to address the specific educational context where this model is beneficial.…”
Section: Indices Of Attentionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Aslan et al. ( 2014 ) used feature selection, including gaze, body posture, and facial points to create a student engagement classification with accuracies up to 85%–95%. However, the study only specified that the students were in a learning environment and failed to address the specific educational context where this model is beneficial.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this study, student performance was evaluated by supervised ML models. Studies that had similar data have used random forest [42][43][44], gradient boosting [41], support vector machines (SVM) [45][46][47], elastic net [12], naive Bayes [15,34,48], logistic regression [12,41,49], decision tree [42,50,51], and ANN [52][53][54] algorithms. Therefore, the preprocessed data executed on previously mentioned models and best performance with the default parameters were obtained by RF, SVM and LR models; Thus, these models were selected for more tuning and analysis.…”
Section: Model Selectionmentioning
confidence: 99%