Student Emotion Recognition in Computer Science Education: A Blessing or Curse?

  • Dustin Terence van der HaarEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11590)


One of the key skills in the fourth industrial revolution is the ability to program. To attain this skill, many prospective students study for a degree in computer science or a related field. An important skill in computer science is the ability to solve for a particular problem by programming an application. However, some challenges exist that make teaching this skill difficult, which leads to student frustration and a decrease in grades. These challenges can be attributed to a lack of access to appropriate skill-building or disjoint teaching methods that are not applicable to the student, which is especially prevalent with some inexperienced educators. Using teaching methods, which a student cannot relate to can lead to distance between the taught skill and the student. The article aims to address this distance by proposing a model that derives user sentiment with affective computing methods and leveraging the sentiment outcome to support the educator by providing feedback relevant for teaching. The technology will then allow the educator to adjust teaching and provide a more personalized teaching experience cognizant of classroom concepts with a lower level of understanding or that evoke certain emotions. It can also provide an informal assessment of content delivery by using student sentiment to infer whether concepts are well received. The preliminary prototype shows there is value in using assistive technologies in the physical classroom to achieve adaptive student learning. However, the onus is still on the educator to be able to react correctly to compensate for the lack of understanding for it to be an effective tool.


Computer science education Affective computing Computer vision 


  1. 1.
    Yin, S., Kaynak, O.: Big data for modern industry: challenges and trends [point of view]. Proc. IEEE 103(2), 143–146 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wilson, B.C.: A study of factors promoting success in computer science including gender differences. Comput. Sci. Educ. 12(1–2), 141–164 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hake, R.R.: Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am. J. Phys. 66(1), 64–74 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jones, V., Jo, J.H.: Ubiquitous learning environment: an adaptive teaching system using ubiquitous technology. In: Beyond the Comfort Zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference, Perth, Western Australia, vol. 468, p. 474 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Phipps, R., Merisotis, J.: What’s the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garrison, D.R., Vaughan, N.D.: Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. Wiley, Hoboken (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schwab, K.: The fourth industrial revolution. In: World Economic Forum (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Teferra, D., Altbachl, P.G.: African higher education: challenges for the 21st century. High. Educ. 47(1), 21–50 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Handelsman, J., et al.: Scientific teaching. Science 304(5670), 521–522 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jones, J.S.: Participatory teaching methods in computer science. In: ACM SIGCSE Bulletin. vol. 19, pp. 155–160. ACM (1987)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ben-Ari, M.: Constructivism in computer science education. In: ACM Sigcse Bulletin. vol. 30, pp. 257–261. ACM (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Robins, A., Rountree, J., Rountree, N.: Learning and teachingprogramming: a review and discussion. Comput. Sci. Educ. 13(2), 137–172 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Williams, L., Kessler, R.: Pair Programming Illuminated. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Papastergiou, M.: Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Comput. Educ. 52(1), 1–12 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., Ben-Ari, M.: Learning computer science concepts with scratch. Comput. Sci. Educ. 23(3), 239–264 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paramythis, A., Loidl-Reisinger, S.: Adaptive learning environments and e-learning standards. In: Second European Conference on e-learning, vol. 1, pp. 369–379 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brusilovsky, P., Peylo, C.: Adaptive and intelligent web-based educational systems. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. (IJAIED) 13, 159–172 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pea, R.D.: The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. J. Learn. Sci. 13(3), 423–451 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Picard, R.W., et al.: Affective computing (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meyer, D.K., Turner, J.C.: Discovering emotion in classroom motivation research. Educ. Psychol. 37(2), 107–114 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sutton, R.E., Mudrey-Camino, R., Knight, C.C.: Teachers’ emotion regulation and classroom management. Theory Pract. 48(2), 130–137 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fried, L., et al.: Teaching teachers about emotion regulation in the classroom. Aust. J. Teach. Educ. (Online) 36(3), 1 (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Titsworth, S., McKenna, T.P., Mazer, J.P., Quinlan, M.M.: The bright side of emotion in the classroom: do teachers’ behaviors predict students’ enjoyment, hope, and pride? Commun. Educ. 62(2), 191–209 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lisetti, C.L., Nasoz, F.: Using noninvasive wearable computers to recognize human emotions from physiological signals. EURASIP J. Appl. Signal Process. 2004, 1672–1687 (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shen, L., Wang, M., Shen, R.: Affective e-learning: using “emotional” data to improve learning in pervasive learning environment. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 12(2), 176 (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wu, C.H., Tzeng, Y.L., Huang, Y.M.: Understanding the relationship between physiological signals and digital game-based learning outcome. J. Comput. Educ. 1(1), 81–97 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Agnew, R.: Building on the foundation of general strain theory: specifying the types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 38(4), 319–361 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Albrecht, J.P.: How the gdpr will change the world. Eur. Data Prot. L. Rev. 2, 287 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Academy of Computer Science and Software EngineeringUniversity of JohannesburgGautengSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations