Exploring Attentional Dynamics in Animated Programming Environments: Trajectories, Variability, and Predictors


  • Abdullahi Yusuf Department of Science Education, Sokoto State University, Nigeria
  • Norah Md Noor Department of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia
  • Lateef Adeyemi Yusuf Department of Science Education, Sokoto State University, Nigeria




Attention-Related Behaviors, Within-and Between-Person Variability, Students, Animation, Programming


Researchers have proposed that the ability to pay attention to teachers’ instruction is a prerequisite for learning. However, meaningful learning is often challenged by the presence of rule-breaking behaviors. In this study, we argue that although students exhibit different attention-related behaviors in all instructional settings, some behaviors are unique to a typical classroom. It is still unclear what factors uniquely determine students’ attention-related behaviors in animated programming environments because of the paucity of research evidence in this area. This study investigates students’ attention-related behaviors during animated programming instruction, including attentional growth trajectory, the nature of differences in attention-related behaviors, and predictors of these behaviors. Our analysis involved 8 classroom videos that collected the programming activities of 30 university students in our previous study. The video files were annotated on a one-dimensional, continuous scale, yielding 1,920 timestamped data points. The data on attentional trajectories and differences in attention-related behaviors were analyzed using latent and multi-level growth modeling, respectively, while data focusing on the predictors of attentional processes were analyzed using the Random Forest machine learning algorithm. We found that students’ attentional growth trajectory is linear and accelerates toward on-task events. However, these behaviors vary within and between students, leading to differences in attention-related behaviors. The results also revealed that individual and instructional characteristics predict the differences in attention-related behaviors. The findings highlight the importance of structured topics, safe classroom environments, quality instructional support, and interactive multimedia objects that activate students’ memory, eliminate task difficulty, and reduce the amount of mental resources required for meaningful learning.


P. Goldberg, W. Wanger, T. Seidel, and K. Sturmer, “Why do students exhibit different attention-related behavior during instruction? Investigating effects of individual and context-dependent determinants,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 83, pp. 1-16, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101694.

A. Helmke and A. Renkl, “The Munich attention inventory (MAI): An instrument for the systematic behavioral observation of student attention in the classroom,” Diagnostica, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 130-141, 1992.

A. Yusuf and N. M. Noor, “Research trends on learning computer programming with program animation. A systematic mapping study,” Computer Applications in Engineering Education, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1552-1582, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22659.

R. Boheim, M. Knogler, C. Kosel, and T. Seidel, “Exploring student hand-raising across two school subjects using mixed methods: An investigation of an everyday classroom behavior from a motivational perspective,” Learning and Instructions, vol. 65, p. 101250, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101250.

A. Yusuf, and N. M. Noor, “Using multimodal learning analytics to model students’ learning behavior in animated programming classroom,” Education and Information Technologies, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12079-8.

A. Yusuf, N. M. Noor, and M. Roman-Gonzalez, “Interaction patterns during block-based programming predict computational thinking: Analysis of the differences in gender, cognitive load, spatial ability and programming proficiency,” AI, Computer Science and Robotics Technology, 2024. In press.

S. Kelly, “Classroom discourse and the distribution of student engagement,” Social Psychology of Education, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 331-352, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-007-9024-0.

J. F. Kihlstrom and L. Park, “Cognitive psychology: Overview,” Reference Module in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Psychology, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809 324-5.21702-1.

C. Wickens, “Attention: Theory, principles, models and applications,” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 403-417, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/10 447318.2021.1874741.

J. A. Fredricks, P. C. Blumenfeld, and A. H. Paris, “School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 59-109, 2004. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059.

P. Goldberg et al., “Attentive or not? Toward a machine learning approach to assessing students’ visible engagement in classroom instruction,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 33, pp. 27-49, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09514-z.

A.-K. Praetorius, E. Klieme, B. Herbert, and P. Pinger, “Generic dimensions of teaching quality: The German framework of three basic dimensions,” ZDM Mathematics Education, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 407-426, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0918-4.

R. Scherer, T. Nilsen, and M. Jansen, “Evaluating individual students’ perceptions of instructional quality: An investigation of their factor structure, measurement invariance, and relations to educational outcomes,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 7, no. 110, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00110.

E. R. Campbell, “Can ‘eye’ tell if you are paying attention? The use of mobile eye-trackers to measure academic engagement in the primary-school classroom,” 2014. [Online]. Available: https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/8644/1/2.4.15.pdf.

C.-M. Chen, J.-Y. Wang, and C.-M. Yu, “Assessing the attention levels of students by using a novel attention aware system based on brainwave signals,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 348-369, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12359.

T. Hachad et al., “A novel architecture for student’s attention detection in classroom based on facial and body expressions,” International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 7357-7366, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.30534/ijatcse/2020/68952020.

J. Zaletelj and A. Košir, “Predicting students’ attention in the classroom from Kinect facial and body features,” EURASIP Journal on Image and Video Processing, vol. 80, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13640-017-0228-8.

R. Boheim, T. Urdan, M. Knogler, and T. Seidel, “Student hand-raising as an indicator of behavioral engagement and its role in classroom learning,” Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 62, p. 101894, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101894.

E. T. Pas et al., “Profiles of classroom behavior in high schools: Associations with teacher behavior management strategies and classroom composition,” Journal of School Psychology, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 137-148, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.12.005.

U. Kessels and A. Heyder, “Not stupid, but lazy? Psychological benefits of disruptive classroom behavior from an attributional perspective,” Social Psychology of Education, vol. 23, pp. 583-613, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09550-6.

M. T. Floress et al., “Externalizing behaviors within general, at-risk, and special education preschool classrooms: A preliminary investigation,” Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 279-288, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2018.1443424.

E. M. Skaalvik and S. Skaalvik, “Dimensions of teacher burnout: Relations with potential stressors at school,” Social Psychology of Education, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 775-790, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9391-0.

R. J. Collie, J. D. Shapka, and N. E. Perry, “School climate and social-emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 104, no. 4, pp. 1189-1204, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029356.

D. H. Gebbie et al., “The role of teacher efficacy in strengthening classroom support for preschool children with disabilities who exhibit challenging behaviors,” Early Childhood Educ Journal, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 35-46, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-011-0486-5.

C. Blank and Y. Shavit, “The association between student reports of classmates’ disruptive behavior and student achievement,” AERA Open, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1-17, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416653921.

J. Lee, T. Park, and R. O. Davis, “What affects learner engagement in flipped learning and what predicts its outcomes?” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 211-228, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12717.

C. M. Muller et al., “Peer influence on disruptive classroom behavior depends on teachers’ instructional practice,” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, vol. 56, pp. 99-108, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2018.04.001.

G. Lu, K. Xie, and Q. Liu, “What influences student situational engagement in smart classrooms: Perception of the learning environment and students' motivation,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 1665-1687, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13204.

F. Heider, The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley, 1958. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1037/10628-000.

R. Ploetzner, S. Berney, and M. Betrancourt, “When learning from animations is more successful than learning from static pictures: Learning the specifics of change,” Instructional Science, vol. 49, pp. 497-514, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09541-w.

J. Sweller, P. Ayres, and S. Kalyuga, Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer, 2011.

T. N. Höffler, “Spatial ability: Its influence on learning with visualizations - A meta-analytic review,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 22, pp. 245-269, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://doi. org/10.1007/s10648-010-9126-7.

T. N. Höffler and D. Leutner, “The role of spatial ability in learning from instructional animations – Evidence for an ability-as-compensator hypothesis,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 209-216, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.10 16/j.chb.2010.07.042.

T. Huk, “Who benefits from learning with 3D models? The case of spatial ability,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 392-404, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1365-2729.2006.00180.x.

A. B. Chikha, A. Khacharem, K. Trabelsi, and N. L. Bragazzi, “The effect of spatial ability in learning from static and dynamic visualizations: A moderation analysis in 6-year-old children,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 12, 2021. [Online]. Available: https:// doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.583968.

S. Kalyuga, P. Ayres, P. Chandler, and J. Sweller, “The expertise reversal effect,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 23-31, 2003. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP 3801_4.

S. Afroze, M. R. Hossain, and M. M. Hoque, “Deep Focus: A visual focus of attention detection framework using deep learning in multi-object scenarios,” Journal of King Saud University – Computer and Information Sciences, vol. 34, pp. 10109-10124, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2022.10.009.

A. Arslanyilmaz and J. Sullins, “Eye-gaze data to measure students’ attention to and comprehension of computational thinking concepts,” International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100414.

B. N. Anh, N. T. Son, P. T. Lam, L. P. Chi, N. H. Tuan, N. C. Dat, et al., “A computer-vision based application for student behavior monitoring in classroom,” Applied Sciences, vol. 9, no. 22, p. 4729, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/app9224729

A. Andrade, G. Delandshere, and J. A. Danish, “Using multimodal learning analytics to model student behaviour: A systematic analysis of behavioural framing,” Journal of Learning Analytics, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 282-306, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.186 08/jla.2016.32.14.

S. Kalyuga, P. Chandler, and J. Sweller, “Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 13, pp. 351-371, 1999. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199908)13:4<351::AID-ACP589>3.0.CO;2-6.

F. Paas, “Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive load approach,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 84, pp. 429-434, 1992. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429.

R. B. Ekstrom, J. W. French, and H. H. Harmann, Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1976.

A. Yusuf and N. M. Noor, “Revising the computer programming attitude scale in the context of attitude ambivalence,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1751-1768, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12838.

M. T. H. Chi and R. Wylie, “The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 219-243, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823.

R. P. Corcoran and J. O'Flaherty, “Longitudinal tracking of academic progress during teacher preparation,” British Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 87, pp. 664-682, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12171.

C. Stachl, Q. Au, R. Schoedel, S. D. Gosling, G. M. Harari, and D. Buschek et al., “Predicting personality from patterns of behaviour collected with smartphones,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920484117.

A. Altmann, L. Tolosi, O. Sander, and T. Lengauer, “Permutation importance: A corrected feature importance measure,” Bioinformatics, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 1340-1347, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq134.

G. Casalicchio, C. Molnar, and B. Bischl, “Visualizing the feature importance for black box models,” in Machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases, M. Berlingerio et al., (Eds.), Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 655-670. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10925-7_40.

D. W. Apley and J. Zhu, “Visualizing the effects of predictor variables in black box supervised learning models,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 1059-1086, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/rssb.12377.

G. Ebel and M. Ben-Ari, “Affective effects of program visualization,” in Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computing Education Research, 2006, pp. 1-5. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/1151588.1151590.

R. Gwinn and I. Krajbich, “Attitudes and attention,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 86, p. 103892, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103892.

I. A. Spanjers, P. Wouters, T. van Gog, and J. G. van Merrienboer, “An expertise reversal effect of segmentation in learning from animated worked out examples,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 27, pp. 46-52, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.chb.2010.05.011.

S. Kalyuga, “Relative effectiveness of animated and static diagrams: An effect of learner prior knowledge,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 852-861, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.02.018.

B. Aysolmaz and H. A. Reijers, “Animation as a dynamic visualization technique for improving process model comprehension,” Information & Management, vol. 58, pp. 103478, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2021.103478.

S. M. Aguillon et al., “Gender differences in student participation in an active-learning classroom,” Life Sciences Education, vol. 19, no. 2, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-03-0048.

I. Shubina and A. Kulakli, “Critical thinking, creativity and gender differences for knowledge generation in education,” Reading and Writing Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 3086-3093, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.20533/licej.2040.2589.2019.0405.

B. Fauth et al., “Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes,” Learning & Instruction, vol. 29, pp. 1-9, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.001.

A. Yusuf et al., “COVID-19 guidelines: A multimodal video analysis of student behavioral compliance during senior secondary certificate examination,” International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology, Basic and Applied Sciences, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 33-48, 2020.




How to Cite

Yusuf, A., Md Noor, N., & Adeyemi Yusuf, L. (2024). Exploring Attentional Dynamics in Animated Programming Environments: Trajectories, Variability, and Predictors. Asian Journal of Science and Applied Technology, 13(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.51983/ajsat-2024.13.1.4098