Facial Emotion Detection in Massive Open Online Courses

  • Mohamed Soltani
  • Hafed Zarzour
  • Mohamed Chaouki Babahenini
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 745)


Recently, the Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) has appeared as a new emerging method of online teaching with the advantages of low cost and unlimited participation as well as open access via the web. However, the use of facial emotion detection in MOOCs is still unexplored and challenging. In this paper, we propose a new innovative approach for facial emotion detection in MOOCs, which provides an adaptive learning content based on students’ emotional states and their profiles. Our approach is based on three principles: (i) modeling the learner using the MOOC (ii) using of pedagogical agents during the learning activities (iii) capturing and interpreting the facial emotion of the students. The proposed approach was implemented and tested in a case study on the MOOC.


MOOC Massive Open Online Course E-learning Educational technology Technology enhanced learning Emotion detection Facial expression Emotional awareness 


  1. 1.
    Stillman, S.B., Stillman, P., Martinez, L., Freedman, J., Jensen, A.L., Leet, C.: Strengthening social emotional learning with student, teacher, and schoolwide assessments. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 14, 461–484 (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Staus, N.L., Falk, J.H.: The role of emotion in informal science learning: testing an exploratory model. Mind Brain Educ. 11(2), 45–53 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    García-Peñalvo, F.J., Hermo, V.F., Blanco, Á.F., Sein-Echaluce, M.: Applied educational innovation MOOC: learners’ experience and valorization of strengths and weaknesses. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, pp. 139–145. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim, C.M., Hodges, C.B.: Effects of an emotion control treatment on academic emotions, motivation and achievement in an online mathematics course. Instr. Sci. 40(1), 173–192 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Munoz-Merino, P.J., Fernandez Molina, M., Munoz-Organero, M., Delgado Kloos, C.: Motivation and emotions in competition systems for education: an empirical study. IEEE Trans. Educ. 57(3), 182–187 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ekman, P., Friesen, W.V.: The Facial Action Coding System: A Technique for the Measurement of Facial Movement. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto (1978)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Feidakis, M., Caballé, S., Daradoumis, T., Gañán, D., Conesa, J.: Providing emotion awareness and affective feedback to virtualized collaborative learning scenarios. Int. J. Continuing Eng. Educ. Life-Long Learn. (IJCEELL) 24(2), 141–167 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bahreini, K., Nadolski, R., Westera, W.: FILTWAM - a Framework for online affective computing in serious games. Procedia Comput. Sci. 15, 45–52 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jennings, P.A.: Promoting teachers’ social and emotional competencies to support performance and reduce burnout. In: Cohan, A., Honigsfeld, A. (eds.) Breaking the Mold of Preservice and Inservice Teacher Education: Innovative and Successful Practices for The Twenty-First Century, pp. 133–143. Rowman & Littlefield, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu, C.J., Huang, C.F., Liu, M.C., Chien, Y.C., Lai, C.H., Huang, Y.M.: Does gender influence emotions resulting from positive applause feedback in self-assessment testing? evidence from neuroscience. Educ. Technol. Soc. 18(1), 337–350 (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shapiro, H.B., Lee, C.H., Roth, N.E.W., Li, K., Çetinkaya-Rundel, M., Canelas, D.A.: Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience: an examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers. Comput. Educ. 110, 35–50 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Warugaba, C., Naughton, B., Gauthier, B.H., Muhirwa, E., Amoroso, C.L.: Experience with a massive open online course in rural Rwanda. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 17(2) (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pekrun, R.: Progress and open problems in educational emotion research. Learn. Instr. 15(5), 497–506 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kort, B., Reilly, R.: Analytical models of emotions, learning and relationships: towards an affect-sensitive cognitive machine. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Virtual Worlds and Simulation (VWSim 2002) (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gardner, H.: Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons. Basic Books, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baker, R., Rodrigo, M., Xolocotzin, U.: The Dynamics of affective transitions in simulation problem-solving environments. In: Paiva, A.C.R., Prada, R., Picard, W. (eds.) Affective Computing and Intelligent Interactions, pp. 666–677 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fini, A.: The technological dimension of a massive open online course: the case of the CCK08 course tools. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 10(5) (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sandra, S.-G., Sergio, L.-M.: Adaptive content presentation extension for open edX. In: The Eighth International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions ACHI 2015 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., Sein-Echaluce, M.L., García-Peñalvo, F.J.: From massive access to cooperation: lessons learned and proven results of a hybrid xMOOC/cMOOC pedagogical approach to MOOCs. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 13(1), 1–13 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yuan, L., Powell, S.: Implications for higher education MOOCs and open education (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meyer, R.: What it’s like to teach a MOOC and what the heck’sa MOOC. The Atlantic (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kizilcec, R.F., Piech, C., Schneider, E.: Deconstructing disengagement: analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, pp. 170–179. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gütl, C., Rocael, H.R., Vanessa, C., Miguel, M.: Attrition in MOOC: lessons learned from drop-out students. In: Learning Technology for Education in Cloud. MOOC and Big Data, pp. 37–48. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cisel, M.: Analyzing completion rates of first French xMOOC. EMOOCS (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Halawa, S.: Dropout prediction in MOOCs using learner activity features. EMOOCS 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khalil, H., Martin, E.: MOOCs completion rates and possible methods to improve retention-a literature review. In: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, pp. 1305–1313 (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kizilcec, R.F., Piech, C., Schneider, E.: Deconstructing disengagement: analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge -LAK 2013, pp. 170–179 (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nawrot, I., Doucet, A.: Building engagement for MOOC students. In: Proceedings of the Companion Publication of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web Companion - WWW Companion 2014, pp. 1077–1082 (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Leony, D., Parada, G.H.A., Muñoz-Merino, P.J., Pardo, A., Delgado Kloos, C.: A generic architecture for emotion-based recommender systems in cloud learning environments. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 19(14), 2075–2092 (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tarhini, A., Hone, K., Liu, X., Tarhini, T.: Examining the moderating effect of individual-level cultural values on users’ acceptance of E-learning in developing countries: a structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model. Interact. Learn. Environ. 25(3), 306–328 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bull, S., Judy K.: Open learner models. In: Advances in Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pp. 301–322. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Azevedo, R., Vincent, A.: International Handbook of Metacognition and Learning Technologies. Springer Science & Business Media, New York (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Domagk, S.: Do pedagogical agents facilitate learner motivation and learning outcomes? J. Media Psychol. 22(2), 84–97 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Azevedo, R., Landis, R.S., Feyzi- Behnagh, R., Duffy, M., Trevors, G., Harley, J.M., Bouchet, F., Burlison, J., Taub, M., Pacampara, N., etal.: The effectiveness of pedagogical agents prompting and feedback in facilitating co-adapted learning with MetaTutor. In: Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pp. 212–221. Springer (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Arguedas, M., Daradoumis, T., Xhafa, F.: Analyzing how emotion awareness influences students’ motivation, engagement, self-regulation and learning outcome. Educ. Technol. Soc. 19(2), 87–103 (2016)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Feidakis, M., Daradoumis, T., Caballé, S.: Building emotion-aware features in computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) systems. In: Alpine Rendez-Vous (ARV) Workshop on Tools and Technologies for Emotion Awareness in Computer-Mediated Collaboration and Learning (ARV 2013). Villard de Lans, France: TELEARC & EATEL Associations (2013)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zarzour, H., Sellami, M.: A linked data-based collaborative annotation system for increasing learning achievements. Educ. Technol. Res. Develop. 65(2), 381–397 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zarzour, H., Sellami, M.: An investigation into whether learning performance can be improved by CAALDT. In: Innovations in Education and Teaching International (2017).
  39. 39.
    Aronson, E., Patnoe, S.: Cooperation in the Classroom: The Jigsaw Method, 3rd edn. Pinter & Martin Ltd, London (2011)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Didonato, N.: Effective self- and co-regulation in collaborative learning groups: an analysis of how students regulate problem solving of authentic interdisciplinary tasks. Instr. Sci. 41(1), 25–47 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Labarthe, H., Rémi, B., François, B., Kalina, Y.: Increasing MOOC completion rates through social interaction. In: EMOOCS 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zarzour, H., Sellami, M.: Effects of a linked data-based annotation approach on students’ learning achievement and cognitive load. Interactive Learning Environments (2018, In press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed Soltani
    • 1
  • Hafed Zarzour
    • 1
  • Mohamed Chaouki Babahenini
    • 2
  1. 1.LIM Research, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Souk AhrasSouk AhrasAlgeria
  2. 2.LESIA LaboratoryUniversity of BiskraBiskraAlgeria

Personalised recommendations