Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ) 19 (4)

ISSN: 1545-679X August 2021

Class Participation and Student Performance:

A Follow-up Study

Ernst Bekkering
[email protected]

Ted Ward
[email protected]
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
Northeastern State University
Tahlequah, OK 74464

Abstract
Student attendance in class, and participation while in class, are predictors of student performance. Last
year, we reported on a new measure combining class attendance and attentiveness while in class and
used this participation score as a predictor of student performance on the final exam in the class. This
year, we follow up by analyzing data for four classes in the Fall semester of 2019. In each class, and for
the four classes combined, we found a statistically significant relationship between participation and
score on the final exam.
Keywords: participation, attendance, attentiveness, distraction, student performance

1. INTRODUCTION focused on time spent on the course site, clicks,

and pages visited. Participation shifted to making
Traditionally, education has taken place in face- meaningful contributions in email conversations
to-face environments. The advent of distance and on discussion boards. In general, research
education started in the 19th century with shows that active class participation improves
correspondence courses, followed by television- subjective and objective student performance.
based courses in the mid-20th century, but the Students perceive that they do better in class,
real growth of distance education occurred with and objective criteria like Grade Point Average
the development of the Internet in the late 20th (Credé, Roch, & Kieszczynky, 2010) and scores
and early 21st century (Visual Academy, 2020). on final exams confirm this (Duncan, Kenworthy,
The Internet enabled three forms of interactivity: Mcnamara, & Kenworthy, 2012; Irwin, Burnett, &
interaction with content, with the instructor, and McCarron, 2018).
with other learners (Craig, 2020). Class
participation is becoming more important than Over the last twenty years the possibilities for
pure class attendance alone (Büchele, 2020). virtual delivery have blossomed as networks have
greatly improved in speed, stability, and ease of
When most classes were still taught face to face, connectivity. In 1998, dial-up internet was still
participation was measured in terms of coming to limited to 56Kbps and connections had to be set
class (attendance). Romer (1993) advocated up for each session. Broadband started to replace
mandatory attendance based on the strong dial-up in the early 2000s and provided always-
relationship between attendance and on connections in the Mbps range. Currently,
performance. Other researchers examined the fiber-optic broadband provides speeds in the
usefulness of different participatory metrics Gigabit range. Additionally, users are no longer
(hand raising, response cards, clickers). In the limited to wired connections. Wireless
Internet environment, measures of attendance connections are now fast enough to be useful in

©2021 ISCAP (Information Systems and Computing Academic Professionals) Page 77

https://isedj.org/; https://iscap.info
Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ) 19 (4)
ISSN: 1545-679X August 2021

education, and content management systems like electronically. In a lecture-oriented class, we

Blackboard are optimized for use on mobile found a significant relationship between class
devices. A variety of class formats has emerged participation and scores on final exams. In the
based on the different combinations of time and skills-based programming class, the lecture
place. component was not a determinant but attendance
in the associated labs was. In the classes used for
this study, like before, we used data in the
professional version of our videoconferencing
software to objectively measure student
participation as the product of attendance
(coming to class) and attentiveness (paying
attention while in class). Student performance
was again measured by the score on
comprehensive final exams, and the results
analyzed for four courses in the 2019 Fall
Figure 1- Course Delivery Formats (Daniels & semester separately and collectively. The
Pethel, 2014) contribution of this research is the use of a single
measure of class participation, without
Using different combinations of time and place interpretation by the researchers.
depicted in Figure 1, our regional university in the
Southwest offers face to face courses (same 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
place, synchronous), Interactive
Videoconferencing and Virtual Class Meetings The research literature has supported that class
(different place, synchronous), fully online attendance improves student performance
courses over Blackboard (different place, (Coldwell, Craig, Paterson, & Mustard, 2008;
asynchronous), and blended courses delivered Landin & Pérez, 2015; Teixeira, 2016; Yakovlev &
partly face to face and partly asynchronously over Kinney, 2008; Landin & Pérez, 2015; Zorio-Grima
Blackboard (Northeastern State University, & Merello, 2020). It is considered a better student
2019). Using videoconferencing software is useful success predictor than SAT, high school GPA,
in the traditional classroom too. Presentation study habits, study skills (Credé et al., 2010),
tools include traditional blackboards, self-financing, and hours worked (Devadoss &
whiteboards, digital whiteboards, overhead Foltz, 1996). The effect may not be completely
projectors, ceiling-mounted classroom linear. Durden & Ellis (1995) found that students
projectors, and computer lab monitors. These are could miss up to four classes without negative
not easily visible to all students in the classroom. effect.
Using the Equivalent Visibility Rule, students in
the back of the class are better off using individual Beyond attendance, active participation makes a
computer screens (Feierman, 2020). When difference, in both synchronous and
teaching in computer labs, using asynchronous conditions (Duncan et al., 2012;
videoconferencing software is therefore a good Nieuwoudt, 2020). Mean course grades are
alternative over projection to a screen in front of higher for students who actively engage in
the class. Offering multiple modes of attending discourse than those who just do the
may increase attendance for students who might work(Beaudoin, 2002).
otherwise miss class for employment reasons
(Lukkarinen, Koivukangas, & Seppala, 2016; New communication technologies have had
Paisey & Paisey, 2004), while simultaneously positive and negative effects on participation.
meeting the preferences of those who prefer real- Some technologies, like social media, are used for
life lectures over web-based lecture technologies class purposes (Kraushaar & Novak, 2010).
(Gysbers, Johnston, Hancock, & Denyer, 2011). Whether this helps or hinders students, depends
Francescucci and Rohani (2019) compared face to on how they are used. Using Facebook for class
face and virtual classes for the same Marketing may have a positive effect, while using it for
course and found no differences in outcomes socializing may be negative (Junco, 2012a).
between them. Overall, using social media for class purposes
may not be effective (Lau, 2017).
This paper builds on previous research (Bekkering
& Ward, 2019), where we compared two classes. Whether students attend locally or remotely may
We used videoconferencing to stream the not matter (much). Meta-analysis for
instructor desktop to the lab computers and used asynchronous education showed slightly better
the interactive tools to communicate student performance in distance education

©2021 ISCAP (Information Systems and Computing Academic Professionals) Page 78

https://isedj.org/; https://iscap.info
Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ) 19 (4)
ISSN: 1545-679X August 2021

courses (Allen, Mabry, Mattrey, Bourhis, LMS, but it is often used in education and can be
Titsworth, & Burrell, 2004) , but synchronous integrated in Blackboard, Moodle, and other
education may be equivalent to the physical platforms.
classroom (Mullen, 2020). With a wide variation
in effect, positives may cancel out negatives Modern videoconferencing software provide
especially when students have additional tasks to multiple interaction tools. Some of them are
perform (Bernard, Abrami, Lu, Borkhovski, Wade, based on their physical counterparts, such as
Wozney, Wallet, Fiset, & Huang, 2004). When the voice communication and virtual hand raising.
task load is identical, for local and distant Information can be shared through programs
students in a videoconferencing setting, student such as PowerPoint, sharing of the presenter’s
performance is the same (MacLaughlin, desktop, whiteboards, slideshows, and sharing of
Supernaw, & Howard, 2004). Interaction may online videos. Collaboration tools include chat
make the difference: distance education with messages, annotation and drawing tools on
collaborative discussions is more effective than shared desktops, and transfer of control over
independent study only (Lou, Bernard, & Abrami, mouse and keyboard. These tools transform the
2006). Just recording lectures and posting notes shared view into two-way communication
online may not meet students’ needs (Gysbers et between instructor and students (SJSU, 2018)
al., 2011). For synchronous online session,
special attention tracking tools may be available. Finally, some forms of interaction scale better
Zoom had an attention tracking feature until April than others. Multiple choice quizzes work well for
2020, when it was removed for security and any size audience, but voice discussions are best
privacy reasons (Yuan, 2020). Cisco Webex still limited to small groups (Garner, 2018).
provides group and individual attentiveness
indicators and participant attention reports (Cisco Student Performance
Webex, 2018) Once we assume that class attendance and class
participation influence how well students do in
Class Participation class, we need to select a way to measure their
Active participation in class can take multiple performance. Multiple metrics have been used to
forms. In face to face classes, participation can measure student performance. Most frequently
mean the use of response cards and hand-raising used are readily-available items like course
(Christle & Schuster, 2003; Gardner, Heward, & grades (Beaudoin, 2002; Durden & Ellis, 1995;
Grossi, 1994; Narayan, Heward, Gardner, Kassarnig et al., 2017; Teixeira, 2016), term GPA
Courson, & Omness, 1990). Sometimes, special (Wang, Harari, Hao, Zhou, & Campbell., 2015),
tools like clickers were used (Stowell & Nelson, cumulative GPA (Lau, 2017), self-reported GPA
2007), but also cellphones for text messaging (Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010), GPA obtained from
(Nkhoma, Thomas, Nkhoma, Sriratanaviriyaku, registrars (Junco, 2012a), course credits
Truong, & Vo, 2018; L.-C. C. Wang & Morgan, (Giunchiglia, Zeni, Gobbi, Bignotti, & Bison,
2008). In the online environment, the initial 2018), scores on final exams (Duncan et al.,
measurement of participation in asynchronous 2012; Lukkarinen et al., 2016) and finishing the
classes might be with pages visited, tools used, course (Coldwell et al., 2008; Junco, 2012b).
messages accessed, discussions posted, and Occasionally, pre-tests and post-tests (Omar,
email contacts (Coldwell et al., 2008; Douglas & Bhutta, & Kalulu, 2009), student ranking (Felisoni
Alemanne, 2007; Romero, Lopez, Luna, & & Godoi, 2018) or multi-item scales are used (Yu,
Ventura, 2013). Some novel tools like location Tian, Vogel, & Chi-Wai Kwok, 2010).
and Bluetooth data have been used (Kassarnig,
Bjerre-Nielsen, Mones, Lehmann, & Lassen, On the other hand, a significant number of studies
2017), as has spyware installed on student rely on self-report by students (Junco & Cotten,
laptops to check browsing and application use 2011), including self-report of GPA and hours
(Kraushaar & Novak, 2010), but these are more spent studying (Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010).
for research and not for day-to-day teaching. However, some caution must be used since self-
report may not be as reliable (Kuncel, Crede, &
In the digital environment, all modern Learning Thomas, 2005)
Management Systems (LMS) provide some form
of videoconferencing to enable virtual class Multitasking
meetings. Moodle has a Videoconference Edition Using computers, cell phones, and other
(Moodle, Inc., 2019). Blackboard offers the technology does present new problems. McCoy
Blackboard Collaborate module (BlackBoard Inc, (2016) reported that students used digital
2019). Canvas includes the Conferences tool devices 11.43 times per school day. More than
(Canvas LMS Community, 2019). Zoom is not an 25% of effective class time may be spent on the

©2021 ISCAP (Information Systems and Computing Academic Professionals) Page 79

https://isedj.org/; https://iscap.info
Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ) 19 (4)
ISSN: 1545-679X August 2021

phone (Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, Han, Lee, Mark, & 3. METHODOLOGY
Lee, 2019). Students often alternate between
class-related and non-class-related computer use Data for the four classes in this study were
(Fried, 2008; Grace-Martin & Gay, 2001; automatically recorded by the videoconferencing
Hembrooke & Gay, 2003; Janchenko, Rodi, & software. Data points were join time, leave time,
Donohoe, 2018). Cell phone use among college and attentiveness score for each student in each
students is becoming an addiction (Roberts, Yaya, course. Students were allowed to enter the class
& Manolis, 2014). before it started, and before the instructor. If
students entered early, the official start time of
Multitasking in class has evolved with the the class was used. The instructor used the full
technology of the day. When laptops entered the class period and closed the session after the class
classroom, instant messaging and web browsing was officially over. If students left after the class
were major distractions (Fox, Rosen, & Crawford, was officially over, the official closing time was
2009; Hembrooke & Gay, 2003). Later, Facebook used. Network interruptions or equipment
became a major distractor (Kirschner & Karpinski, problems occasionally dropped students from the
2010). Now, mobile phones provide yet another session, and they could immediately rejoin the
source of distraction (Chen & Yan, 2016; Harman class without instructor intervention. The
& Sato, 2011). Cell phone applications include attentiveness score reflected the percentage of
WhatsApp (Ahad & Lim, 2014), Snapchat and time that the focus of the student’s computer was
Instagram (Griffin, 2014). The negative effect of on the desktop shared by the instructor. The
using cellphones is especially high when it takes syllabus explained the attentiveness statistic and
place in class (Felisoni & Godoi, 2018), and lower instructed the students to maximize the class
performing students are especially at risk (Beland window to avoid accidental low scores. All
& Murphy, 2016; Chiang & Sumell, 2019). Beland lectures were recorded and generally available
and Murphy (2016) also found significant online after two hours and use of pen and paper
improvement in high stakes exam scores after for notes was suggested. Students had to use a
mobile phones were banned. computer with mouse and keyboard and keep the
camera on at all times.
Multitasking with technology negatively affects
participation and student performance, Participation scores were calculated each week by
subjectively (Junco & Cotten, 2011) and multiplying the attendance and attentiveness
objectively (Amez, Vujic, De Marex, & Baert, scores. For instance, if a student was 10 minutes
2020b; Amez & Baert, January 1, 2020a; Junco & late in a 50-minute class, attendance was 80%.
Cotten, 2012; Kates, Wu, & Coryn, 2018). Likewise, if a student had the shared instructor
Students do not necessarily recognize the desktop in focus only half of the time, the
negative effect. In a study of Malaysian university attentiveness score was 50%. If a student was 10
students, respondents felt that they performed minutes late and did not keep the shared desktop
better as Facebook usage increased (Ainin, in focus half the time, the participation score was
Naqshbandi,Moghavvemi, & Jaafar, 2015). 40%. At the end of the week, each day’s
The general research consensus holds that participation score was posted to the gradebook
multitasking does have a negative effect on for the class. For days when students were
student performance (Bellur, Nowak, & Hull, disconnected one or more times, the sum of the
2015; Burak, 2012; Junco & Cotten, 2012; products for the partial sessions was used. At the
Kraushaar & Novak, 2010; Kuznekoff, Munz, & end of the semester, students with average
Titsworth, 2015; MacLaughlin et al., 2004), participation below 80% lost one letter grade, and
although the causality has not yet been two letter grades if below 60%.
established (van der Schuur, Baumgartner,
Sumter, & Valkenburg, 2015). Controlled The four classes in the study involved two face to
experiments show that actual performance may face classes in computer labs and two Virtual
be the same, but the time to achieve it is longer Class Meetings. The university defines Virtual
(Bowman, Levine, Waite, & Genfron, 2010; Class Meetings as follows: “Virtual class meeting
Rubinstein, Meyer, & Evans, 2001). While some courses allow students to use their home or
studies fail to demonstrate differences between university computer to attend class at designated
performance of cognitive tasks with and without times” (Northeastern State University, 2019). In
distraction, they do show decreased efficiency of other words, both formats are synchronous but
information processing (End, Worthman, virtual class meetings are location-independent
Mathews,& Wetterau, 2010) and increased and face to face classes are not. The same
memory errors (Rubinstein et al., 2001). videoconferencing software was used in all
classes. Face to face classes were taught in

©2021 ISCAP (Information Systems and Computing Academic Professionals) Page 80

https://isedj.org/; https://iscap.info
Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ) 19 (4)
ISSN: 1545-679X August 2021

computer labs, did not use overhead projectors or every two weeks and used Unity with Visual
whiteboards, and streamed the session directly to Studio to develop the games. The final exam was
the students’ lab computers. All applications were an in-class programming project worth 30% of
shared on the instructor’s desktop. Various the course grade. Twenty-seven students started
features of the videoconferencing software were the course, and 22 students took the final exam.
used to increase student participation. Students One student got a zero score for the final exam
could use annotation and drawing tools on the for failure to follow final exam instructions.
shared desktop to ask questions, post comments,
and make annotations anonymously. The Chat Activity Reports
feature was used to post questions and The videoconferencing software can generate
comments, and answers to instructor questions. multiple reports. For this study, we used the
Finally, having students take over control over details report which can list each login for each
mouse and keyboard was used to have students course meeting for a period of up to a month.
demonstrate their understanding on the common Data include topic, join time, leave time, and the
desktop. Regardless of online or local delivery, all “attentiveness score.” Attentiveness in this
these techniques were used to lesser or greater context was defined as the percent of time that
extent. Students in the face-to-face classes were the shared Zoom window was in focus. If a
also allowed to participate remotely to maximize student was logged in but used another
attendance. No records were kept regarding local application, this did not contribute to
or remote attendance for face-to-face classes. attentiveness. If students got disconnected
during class and connected again, each partial
The first class, CS 3403 Data Structures, is one of session would have its own attentiveness score.
the core classes in the curriculum. It was taught Unfortunately, the attentiveness score was
as a virtual class meeting twice a week for 75 removed from all reports during the COVID-19
minutes. The course covered common data crisis (Yuan, 2020).
structures and algorithms in Computer Science
and used Python programming projects to 4. SAMPLE STATISTICS
illuminate the concepts. The final exam consisted
of a comprehensive multiple-choice test worth As usual in Computer Science, the majority of
40% of the course grade. Twenty-nine students students were male, traditional full-time students
started the course, and 24 took the final exam. in their late teens and early twenties who finished
the course and took the final. Details are listed in
The second class, CS 3643 Programming for Table 1.
Cyber Security, was an elective class taught as a
face-to-face class twice weekly for 75 minutes. course female male
The course covered general cybersecurity CS3403 7 22
concepts and problems and used virtual machines non-traditional 1
with Python programs to illustrate the material. final 1
The final exam consisted of a comprehensive traditional 6 22
multiple-choice test worth 40% of the course final 6 17
grade. Fifteen students started the course, and
no_final 5
11 took the final exam.
CS3643 1 14
traditional 1 14
The third class, CS 4203 Software Engineering, is
final 1 9
another core class in the CS curriculum. It was
taught as a virtual class meeting thrice weekly for no_final 5
50 minutes. The course covered the development CS4203 7 22
process including analysis, modeling, and testing. non-traditional 1
UML models were developed with online software, final 1
and testing was done with a scripting language. traditional 6 22
The final exam consisted of a comprehensive final 6 21
multiple-choice test worth 40% of the course no_final 1
grade. Twenty-nine students started the course, CS4223 5 22
and 28 took the final exam. non-traditional 1
no_final 1
The final class, CS 4223 Game Programming, was traditional 4 22
an elective class taught face to face. The class final 3 18
met twice weekly for 75 minutes. The course was no_final 1 4
heavily project based with hands-on projects due Table 1 - Sample Statistics

©2021 ISCAP (Information Systems and Computing Academic Professionals) Page 81

https://isedj.org/; https://iscap.info
Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ) 19 (4)
ISSN: 1545-679X August 2021

Class attendance and attentiveness data were Linear regression at the semester level, with all
automatically recorded by Zoom, since students courses combined, showed a statistically
were required to log in to the class sessions. significant relationship between the independent
Participation scores were posted on the participation variable and the dependent
Blackboard gradebook every two weeks, and performance variable. The level of significance
students who scored low on participation early in was .000 for the regression and .000 for
the course received an email with separate data participation. The R Square statistic was strong at
for attendance and attentiveness to explain why .648, indicating that 64% of the variance in
their scores were low. Since we measured the student performance was explained by student
influence of conditions in for each student in one participation. Since we used only one
course only, we used the final exam in the course independent variable, the unstandardized
to measure performance. The final multiple- coefficient for participation was reviewed. At a
choice exam was posted using the course delivery level of 1.094, each percent increase in
system and scores automatically calculated. participation was related to about a percent of
Questions and answers were reviewed based on increase in performance. Appendix B shows the
less than 50% correct answers, and no questions output of the semester level analysis.
were found to be incorrectly stated.
At the course level, linear regression showed a
5. ANALYSIS similar result. The significance for regression in
each course was .000, indicating a statistically
The data was analyzed in anonymous form. Daily significant relationship. The R Square statistic
Activity Reports were downloaded in CSV files and varied between a low of .465 and a high of .933.
copied to one sheet of a spreadsheet, final exam Coefficients for participation were all slightly
scores were downloaded from the Blackboard above 1, again indicating that each percent
gradebook and copied to another sheet, and a increase in participation was related to about a
third sheet was used as a lookup table with percent increases in performance. Appendix C
student names and random numbers between shows the output of the course level analysis.
1111 and 9999.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Next, we corrected for absences which were not
reflected in the activity reports. All absences Based on these results, it appears that class
received a zero score for participation, as no time participation, defined as the combination of
was spent in class. Absences were not corrected coming to class and paying attention while there,
for excused absences, such as attendance of is a good predictor of student performance. This
events sanctioned by Academic Affairs. Students would appear to be a no-brainer, but in this age
who did not finish the class and did not take the where students often work significant hours
final exam were included with a zero score for the and/or have family obligations, the importance of
final. Final exam scores were standardized to a coming to class and spending this time
percent of possible points by dividing the actual productively should not be underestimated. Using
score by the maximum of 300 or 400 points. the participation statistic as part of the total
number of points in the course can also help
Student names in the activity reports and the final motivate students to change behavior in a
exam scores sheet were replaced with the positive manner. When students notice that the
random numbers, and linked in a fourth sheet participation score is low, it is easy to see whether
combining the student participation with their this is due to being distracted in class, or not
grades on the final exam. This sheet with random coming to class altogether. Since the
numbers, participation score, and standardized videoconferencing software does not record
final exam score was exported in CSV format and attentiveness when students are not in class, the
imported in SPSS. percent time in class is a perfect indicator for
attendance and the attentiveness score a good
The data were analyzed with linear regression at indicator for focus while they are there.
the course level and at the semester level (all
courses combined). Descriptive statistics show This does not mean that attentiveness as
that some students reached perfect participation measured by computer focus on the shared
and perfect scores on the final exams. Appendix desktop is perfect. Students can keep other
A lists the descriptive statistics first at the applications open, especially on dual monitors,
semester level, and then at the course level. and quickly click back and forth. The
videoconferencing software only samples focus

©2021 ISCAP (Information Systems and Computing Academic Professionals) Page 82

https://isedj.org/; https://iscap.info
Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ) 19 (4)
ISSN: 1545-679X August 2021

every 30 seconds. They can also use cell phones 7. REFERENCES

to play, and dependent on the positioning of the
phone, this may not be very apparent even when
Ahad, A. D., & Lim, S. M. A. (2014). Convenience
the camera is on and students have to keep their
or Nuisance?: The ‘WhatsApp’ Dilemma.
face in view. Conversely, students could log with
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
their cell phone and play on the computer if use
155, 189–196.
of cell phones is not prohibited. Students could
use two computers. It is even possible to record Ainin, S., Naqshbandi, M. M., Moghavvemi, S., &
short videos with a webcam, leaving the meeting, Jaafar, N. I. (2015). Facebook usage,
and running the video as a background in a loop socialization and academic performance.
(Clark, 2020). Fortunately, there are many Computers & Education, 83, 64–73.
communication tools instructors can use to
facilitate active participation. Chat boxes record Allen, M., Mabry, E., Mattrey, M., Bourhis, J.,
messages by name, annotation pointers have Titsworth, S., & Burrell, N. (2004).
names, students can have designated areas on Evaluating the Effectiveness of Distance
the shared desktop to respond, individual Learning: A Comparison Using Meta-
students can be called on to take over control of Analysis. Journal of Communication, 54(3),
mouse and keyboard, and so on. 402–420.
Amez, S., & Baert, S. (January 1, 2020a).
Unfortunately, attentiveness tracking is no longer Smartphone use and academic
available in the videoconferencing software used. performance: A literature review.
During the CoVid-19 pandemic, use of the International Journal of Educational
software increased dramatically. This made it an Research, 103, 101618.
attractive target for outsiders to intrude and
disrupt the session with unwanted graphic Amez, S., Vujic, S., De Marez, L., & Baert, S.
content. In response, the software provider (2020b). Smartphone Use and Academic
introduced several security and privacy Performance: First Evidence from
measures, which unfortunately included the Longitudinal Data (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID
removal of the attentiveness score we used. 3521679). Social Science Research Network.
Maybe it will be available in the future, and maybe Beaudoin, M. F. (2002). Learning or lurking?
in selected versions or subscription levels. In the Tracking the ‘“invisible”’ online student.
meantime, this analysis demonstrates the benefit Internet and Higher Education, 5(2), 147–
of not only attending class but paying attention 155.
while there. Future avenues for research include
analyzing the data with attendance and Bekkering, E., & Ward, T. (2019, November 6).
attentiveness as separate independent variables. Class Participation and Student
Due to the loss of attentiveness tracking, we also Performance: A Tale of Two Courses. 2019
need to develop alternative measures of Proceedings of the EDSIG Conference.
measuring active participation while in class and EDSIG Conference on Information Systems
encouraging students to decrease lurking & Computing Education, Cleveland, OH.
behaviors. Beland, L.-P., & Murphy, R. (2016). Ill
Communication: Technology, distraction &
In the current educational climate with infectious student performance. Labour Economics,
diseases affecting course delivery mechanisms, 41, 61–76.
we expect an accelerated move towards more
flexible class formats. Courses do not have to be Bellur, S., Nowak, K. L., & Hull, K. S. (2015).
purely face to face, and students should be able Make it our time: In class multitaskers have
to seamlessly switch between face to face and lower academic performance. Computers in
virtual formats. Allowing students to switch Human Behavior, 53, 63–70.
between face to face and synchronous virtual
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y.,
attendance will help to keep attendance high, and
Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L.,
measures to increase two-way communication
Wallet, P. A., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004).
between instructors and students will help to
How Does Distance Education Compare with
maintain the quality of instruction.
Classroom Instruction? A Meta-Analysis of
the Empirical Literature. Review of
Educational Research, 74(3), 379–439.
BlackBoard Inc. (2019). Blackboard Collaborate.
https://www.blackboard.com/online-

©2021 ISCAP (Information Systems and Computing Academic Professionals) Page 83

https://isedj.org/; https://iscap.info
Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ) 19 (4)
ISSN: 1545-679X August 2021

collaborative-learning/blackboard- Credé, M., Roch, S. G., & Kieszczynka, U. M.

collaborate.html (2010). Class Attendance in College: A Meta-
Analytic Review of the Relationship of Class
Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., &
Attendance With Grades and Student
Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really
Characteristics. Review of Educational
multitask? An experimental study of instant
Research, 80(2), 272–295.
messaging while reading. Computers &
Education, 54(4), 927–931. Daniels, T., & Pethel, M. (2014, December 8).
Computer Mediated Instruction—Emerging
Büchele, S. (2020). Evaluating the link between
Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and
attendance and performance in higher
Technology.
education: The role of classroom
http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Co
engagement dimensions. Assessment &
mputer_Mediated_Instruction
Evaluation in Higher Education, 6(2), 1–19.
Devadoss, S., & Foltz, J. (1996). Evaluation of
Burak, L. (2012). Multitasking in the University
Factors Influencing Student Class
Classroom. International Journal for the
Attendance and Performance. American
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2),
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 78(3),
1–12.
499–507.
Canvas LMS Community. (2019). What are
Douglas, I., & Alemanne, N. D. (2007). Measuring
Conferences?
student participation and effort. IADIS
https://community.canvaslms.com/docs/D
International Conference on Cognition and
OC-10738
Exploratory Learning in Digital Age, Algarve,
Chen, Q., & Yan, Z. (2016). Does multitasking Portugal.
with mobile phones affect learning? A
Duncan, K., Kenworthy, A. L., Mcnamara, R., &
review. Computers in Human Behavior, 54,
Kenworthy, D. A. (2012). The Effect of
34–42.
Synchronous and Asynchronous
Chiang, E. P., & Sumell, A. J. (2019). Are your Participation on Performance in Online
students absent, not absent, or present? Accounting Courses. Accounting Education,
Mindfulness and student performance. The 21(4), 431–449.
Journal of Economic Education, 50(1), 1–16.
Durden, G. C., & Ellis, L. V. (1995). The Effects of
Christle, C. A., & Schuster, J. W. (2003). The Attendance on Student Learning in Principles
Effects of Using Response Cards on Student of Economics. The American Economic
Participation, Academic Achievement, and Review, 85(2), 343–346.
On-Task Behavior During Whole-Class, Math
End, C. M., Worthman, S., Mathews, M. B., &
Instruction. Journal of Behavioral Education,
Wetterau, K. (2010). Costly Cell Phones: The
12(3), 147–165.
Impact of Cell Phone Rings on Academic
Cisco Webex. (2018, July 12). Webex—Track Performance. Teaching of Psychology,
Participant Attention in Cisco Webex 37(1), 55–57.
Training. https://help.webex.com/en-
Feierman, A. (2020, April 30). Equivalent
us/st7tr1/Track-Participant-Attention-in-
Visibility and The 4/6/8 Rules—Choosing the
Cisco-Webex-Training
right Display Size For Each Classroom.
Clark, B. (2020, March 23). People are skipping Projector Reviews.
Zoom meetings by looping videos of https://www.projectorreviews.com/articles-
themselves paying attention. The Next Web. guides/equivalent-visibility-and-the-4-6-8-
https://thenextweb.com/corona/2020/03/2 rules-choosing-the-right-display-size-for-
3/adapt-evolve-overcome/ each-classroom/

Coldwell, J., Craig, A., Paterson, T., & Mustard, J. Felisoni, D. D., & Godoi, A. S. (2018). Cell phone
(2008). Online Students: Relationships usage and academic performance: An
between Participation, Demographics and experiment. Computers & Education, 117,
Academic Performance. 6(1), 10. 175–187.

Craig, R. (2020). A Brief History (And Future) Of Fox, A. B., Rosen, J., & Crawford, M. (2009).
Online Degrees. Forbes. Distractions, Distractions: Does Instant
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryancraig/20 Messaging Affect College Students’
15/06/23/a-brief-history-and-future-of- Performance on a Concurrent Reading
online-degrees/

©2021 ISCAP (Information Systems and Computing Academic Professionals) Page 84

https://isedj.org/; https://iscap.info
Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ) 19 (4)
ISSN: 1545-679X August 2021

Comprehension Task? CyberPsychology & Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and

Behavior, 12(1), 51–53. Learning, 10(3), 396–401.
Francescucci, A., & Rohani, L. (2019). Exclusively Janchenko, G., Rodi, A., & Donohoe, M. J. (2018).
Synchronous Online (VIRI) Learning: The Impact of computers in the classroom
Impact on Student Performance and environment—A distraction or an essential
Engagement Outcomes. Journal of tool? Issues in Information Systems, 19(4),
Marketing Education, 41(1), 60–69. 6.
Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its Junco, R. (2012a). Too much face and not enough
effects on student learning. Computers & books: The relationship between multiple
Education, 50(3), 906–914. indices of Facebook use and academic
performance. Computers in Human
Gardner, R., Heward, W. L., & Grossi, T. A.
Behavior, 28(1), 187–198.
(1994). Effects of Response Cards on
Student Participation and Academic Junco, R. (2012b). In-class multitasking and
Achievement: A Systematic Replication with academic performance. Computers in
Inner-City Students During Whole-Class Human Behavior, 28(6), 2236–2243.
Science Instruction. Journal of Applied
Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2011). Perceived
Behavior Analysis, 27(1), 63–71.
academic effects of instant messaging use.
Garner, B. (2018, April 6). Distance Learning Computers & Education, 56, 370–378.
Methods Which Scale: A Review of the
Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The
Literature. 2018 Proceedings of the
relationship between multitasking and
Information Systems Education Conference.
academic performance. Computers &
ISECON, San Antoinio, Texas.
Education, 59(2), 505–514.
Giunchiglia, F., Zeni, M., Gobbi, E., Bignotti, E., & https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.1
Bison, I. (2018). Mobile social media usage 2.023
and academic performance. Computers in
Kassarnig, V., Bjerre-Nielsen, A., Mones, E.,
Human Behavior, 82, 177–185.
Lehmann, S., & Lassen, D. D. (2017). Class
Grace-Martin, M., & Gay, G. (2001). Web attendance, peer similarity, and academic
Browsing, Mobile Computing and Academic performance in a large field study. PLOS
Performance. Journal of Educational ONE, 12(11), 15.
Technology & Society, 4(3), 95–107.
Kates, A. W., Wu, H., & Coryn, C. L. (2018). The
Griffin, A. (2014). Technology Distraction in the effects of mobile phone use on academic
Learning Environment. SAIS 2014 performance: A meta-analysis. Computers &
Proceedings, 10. Education, 127, 107–112.
Gysbers, V., Johnston, J., Hancock, D., & Denyer, Kim, I., Kim, R., Kim, H., Kim, D., Han, K., Lee,
G. (2011). Why do Students Still Bother P. H., Mark, G., & Lee, U. (2019).
Coming to Lectures, When Everything is Understanding smartphone usage in college
Available Online? International Journal of classrooms: A long-term measurement
Innovation in Science and Mathematics study. Computers & Education, 141,
Education, 19(2). 103611.
Harman, B. A., & Sato, T. (2011). Cell Phone Use Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010).
and Grade Point Average Among Facebook® and academic performance.
Undergraduate University Students. College Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6),
Student Journal, 45(3), 544–549. 1237–1245.
Hembrooke, H., & Gay, G. (2003). The laptop and Kraushaar, J. M., & Novak, D. C. (2010).
the lecture: The effects of multitasking in Examining the Affects of Student
learning environments. Journal of Multitasking With Laptops During the
Computing in Higher Education, 15(1), 46– Lecture. Journal of Information Systems
64. Education, 21(2), 241–251.
Irwin, N., Burnett, K. M., & McCarron, P. A. Kuncel, N. R., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005).
(2018). Association between attendance and The Validity of Self-Reported Grade Point
overall academic performance on a module Averages, Class Ranks, and Test Scores: A
within a professional pharmacy degree. Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature.
Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 63–

©2021 ISCAP (Information Systems and Computing Academic Professionals) Page 85

https://isedj.org/; https://iscap.info
Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ) 19 (4)
ISSN: 1545-679X August 2021

82. Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3),

https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430750010 15–25.
63
Nkhoma, C. A., Thomas, S., Nkhoma, M. Z.,
Kuznekoff, J. H., Munz, S., & Titsworth, S. (2015). Sriratanaviriyakul, N., Truong, T. H., & Vo,
Mobile Phones in the Classroom: Examining H. X. (2018). Measuring the impact of out-
the Effects of Texting, Twitter, and Message of-class communication through instant
Content on Student Learning. messaging. Education+ Training, 60(4),
Communication Education, 64(3), 344–365. 318–334.
Landin, M., & Pérez, J. (2015). Class attendance Northeastern State University,. (2019). Academic
and academic achievement of pharmacy Information—Northeastern State
students in a European University. Currents University—Acalog ACMSTM. Academic
in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 7(1), Information.
78–83. http://catalog.nsuok.edu/content.php?catoi
d=19&navoid=661
Lau, W. W. F. (2017). Effects of social media
usage and social media multitasking on the Omar, A., Bhutta, M. K. S., & Kalulu, D. (2009).
academic performance of university Assessment of Student Outcomes in
students. Computers in Human Behavior, Management Information Systems Online
68, 286–291. Course Participation. 10.
Lou, Y., Bernard, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Paisey, C., & Paisey, N. J. (2004). Student
Media and Pedagogy in Undergraduate attendance in an accounting module—
Distance Education: A Theory-Based Meta- Reasons for non-attendance and the effect
Analysis of Empirical Literature. Educational on academic performance at a Scottish
Technology Research and Development, University. Accounting Education, 13, 39–
54(2), 141–176. 53.
Lukkarinen, A., Koivukangas, P., & Seppälä, T. Roberts, J., Yaya, L., & Manolis, C. (2014). The
(2016). Relationship between Class invisible addiction: Cell-phone activities and
Attendance and Student Performance. addiction among male and female college
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, students. Journal of Behavioral Addictions,
228, 341–347. 3(4), 254–265.
MacLaughlin, E. J., Supernaw, R. B., & Howard, Romer, D. (1993). Do Students Go to Class?
K. A. (2004). Impact of Distance Learning Should They? Journal of Economic
Using Videoconferencing Technology on Perspectives, 7(3), 167–174.
Student Performance. American Journal of
Romero, C., López, M.-I., Luna, J.-M., & Ventura,
Pharmaceutical Education, 68(3), 58.
S. (2013). Predicting students’ final
Moodle, Inc. (2019). Moodle plugins directory: performance from participation in on-line
Video Conference. Activities: Video discussion forums. Computers & Education,
Conference. 68, 458–472.
https://moodle.org/plugins/mod_videoconf
Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E.
erence
(2001). Executive control of cognitive
Mullen, C. A. (2020). Does modality matter? A processes in task switching. Journal of
comparison of aspiring leaders’ learning Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
online and face-to-face. Journal of Further and Performance, 27(4), 763–797.
and Higher Education, 44(5), 670–688.
SJSU. (2018, May 14). Zoom Features and Use
Narayan, J. S., Heward, W. L., Gardner, R., Cases. ECampus.
Courson, F. H., & Omness, C. K. (1990). http://www.sjsu.edu/ecampus/teaching-
Using response cards to increase student tools/zoom/features/index.html
participation in an elementary classroom.
Stowell, J. R., & Nelson, J. M. (2007). Benefits of
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23(4),
Electronic Audience Response Systems on
483–490.
Student Participation, Learning, and
Nieuwoudt, J. E. (2020). Investigating Emotion. Teaching of Psychology, 34(4),
synchronous and asynchronous class 253–258.
attendance as predictors of academic
Teixeira, A. A. C. (2016). The impact of class
success in online education. Australasian
absenteeism on undergraduates’ academic

©2021 ISCAP (Information Systems and Computing Academic Professionals) Page 86

https://isedj.org/; https://iscap.info
Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ) 19 (4)
ISSN: 1545-679X August 2021

performance: Evidence from an elite Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International

Economics school in Portugal. Innovations in Joint Conference on Pervasive and
Education and Teaching International, Ubiquitous Computing, 295–306.
53(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2804251
van der Schuur, W. A., Baumgartner, S. E., Yakovlev, P., & Kinney, L. (2008). Additional
Sumter, S. R., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). Evidence on the Effect of Class Attendance
The consequences of media multitasking for on Academic Performance. Atlantic
youth: A review. Computers in Human Economic Journal, 36(4), 493.
Behavior, 53, 204–215.
Yu, A. Y., Tian, S. W., Vogel, D., & Chi-Wai Kwok,
Visual Academy. (2020, July 15). The History of R. (2010). Can learning be virtually boosted?
Online Schooling. OnlineSchools.Org. An investigation of online social networking
https://www.onlineschools.org/visual- impacts. Computers & Education, 55(4),
academy/the-history-of-online-schooling/ 1494–1503.
Wang, L.-C. C., & Morgan, W. R. (2008). Student Yuan, E. (2020, April 2). A Message to Our Users.
Perceptions of Using Instant Messaging Zoom Blog. https://blog.zoom.us/a-
Software to Facilitate Synchronous Online message-to-our-users/
Class Interaction in a Graduate Teacher
Zorio-Grima, A., & Merello, P. (2020). Class-
Education Course. Journal of Computing in
attendance and Online-tests Results:
Teacher Education, 25(1), 15–21.
Reflections for Continuous Assessment.
Wang, R., Harari, G., Hao, P., Zhou, X., & Journal of Teaching in International
Campbell, A. T. (2015). SmartGPA: How Business, 31(1), 75–97.
Smartphones Can Assess and Predict https://doi.org/10.1080/08975930.2019.16
Academic Performance of College Students. 98394

©2021 ISCAP (Information Systems and Computing Academic Professionals) Page 87

https://isedj.org/; https://iscap.info
Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ) 19 (4)
ISSN: 1545-679X August 2021

APPENDIX A: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean

participation 100 0.5% 100.0% 77.075%
standardized as % of max score possible 100 0.0% 100.0% 67.790%

Valid N (listwise) 100

Descriptive Statistics
course N Minimum Maximum Mean
2019Fall-CS3403 participation 29 7.0% 100.0% 74.162%
standardized as % of max score possible 29 0.0% 96.0% 65.655%

Valid N (listwise) 29

2019Fall-CS3643 participation 15 0.5% 90.3% 60.993%

standardized as % of max score possible 15 0.0% 90.0% 56.500%

Valid N (listwise) 15

2019Fall-CS4203 participation 29 45.6% 98.9% 86.510%

standardized as % of max score possible 29 0.0% 100.0% 81.638%

Valid N (listwise) 29
2019Fall-CS4223 participation 27 6.4% 98.3% 79.004%
standardized as % of max score possible 27 0.0% 100.0% 61.481%
Valid N (listwise) 27

©2021 ISCAP (Information Systems and Computing Academic Professionals) Page 88

https://isedj.org/; https://iscap.info
Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ) 19 (4)
ISSN: 1545-679X August 2021

APPENDIX B: COMBINED COURSES

Variables Entered/Removeda
Variables
Model Entered Variables Removed Method
1 participationb . Enter
a. Dependent Variable: standardized as % of max score possible
b. All requested variables entered.
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .805a .648 .644 18.7685%
a. Predictors: (Constant), participation
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 63501.016 1 63501.016 180.270 .000b
Residual 34521.074 98 352.256
Total 98022.090 99
a. Dependent Variable: standardized as % of max score possible
b. Predictors: (Constant), participation
Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients 95.0% Confidence Interval for B
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 (Constant) -16.496 6.552 -2.518 .013 -29.498 -3.493
participation 1.094 .081 .805 13.426 .000 .932 1.255
a. Dependent Variable: standardized as % of max score possible

©2021 ISCAP (Information Systems and Computing Academic Professionals) Page 89

https://isedj.org/; https://iscap.info
Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ) 19 (4)
ISSN: 1545-679X August 2021

APPENDIX C: SEPARATE COURSES

Variables Entered/Removeda
Variables Variables
course Model Entered Removed Method
2019Fall-CS3403 1 participationb . Enter
2019Fall-CS3643 1 participationb . Enter
2019Fall-CS4203 1 participationb . Enter
2019Fall-CS4223 1 participationb . Enter
a. Dependent Variable: standardized as % of max score possible
b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
course Model R R Square Square Estimate
2019Fall-CS3403 1 .845a .714 .703 17.6498%
2019Fall-CS3643 1 .966a .933 .928 9.7440%
2019Fall-CS4203 1 .731a .535 .518 12.4119%
2019Fall-CS4223 1 .682a .465 .443 26.4172%
a. Predictors: (Constant), participation

©2021 ISCAP (Information Systems and Computing Academic Professionals) Page 90

https://isedj.org/; https://iscap.info
Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ) 19 (4)
ISSN: 1545-679X August 2021

ANOVAa
course Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
2019Fall-CS3403 1 Regression 20989.648 1 20989.648 67.379 .000b
Residual 8410.903 27 311.515
Total 29400.552 28
2019Fall-CS3643 1 Regression 17175.696 1 17175.696 180.899 .000b
Residual 1234.304 13 94.946
Total 18410.000 14
2019Fall-CS4203 1 Regression 4781.484 1 4781.484 31.038 .000b
Residual 4159.464 27 154.054
Total 8940.948 28
2019Fall-CS4223 1 Regression 15144.015 1 15144.015 21.700 .000b
Residual 17446.726 25 697.869
Total 32590.741 26
a. Dependent Variable: standardized as % of max score possible
b. Predictors: (Constant), participation
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients 95.0% Confidence Interval for
course Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
2019Fall-CS3403 1 (Constant) -19.653 10.897 -1.803 .082 -42.012 2.706
participation 1.150 .140 .845 8.208 .000 .863 1.438
2019Fall-CS3643 1 (Constant) -5.520 5.253 -1.051 .312 -16.868 5.828
participation 1.017 .076 .966 13.450 .000 .854 1.180
2019Fall-CS4203 1 (Constant) -34.376 20.951 -1.641 .112 -77.364 8.613
participation 1.341 .241 .731 5.571 .000 .847 1.835
2019Fall-CS4223 1 (Constant) -30.553 20.400 -1.498 .147 -72.568 11.463
participation 1.165 .250 .682 4.658 .000 .650 1.680
a. Dependent Variable: standardized as % of max score possible

©2021 ISCAP (Information Systems and Computing Academic Professionals) Page 91

https://isedj.org/; https://iscap.info