Decoding Video Logs: Unveiling Student Engagement Patterns in Lecture Capture Videos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lecture capture videos, a popular type of instructional content used by instructors to share course recordings online, play a significant role in educational settings. Compared to other educational videos, these recordings require minimal time and effort to produce, making them a preferred choice for disseminating course materials. Despite their numerous benefits, there exists a scarcity of data-driven evidence regarding students’ use of and engagement with lecture capture videos. Most existing studies rely on self-reported data, lacking comprehensive insights into students’ actual video engagement. This research endeavor sought to bridge this gap by investigating university students’ engagement patterns while watching lecture capture videos. To achieve this objective, we conducted an analysis of a large-scale dataset comprising over one million rows of video interaction logs. Leveraging clustering and process mining methodologies, we explored the data to reveal valuable insights into students’ video engagement behaviors. Our findings indicate that in approximately 60% of students’ video-watching sessions, only a small portion of the videos (an average of 7%) is watched. Our results also show that visiting the video page does not necessarily mean that the student watched it. This study may contribute to the existing literature by providing robust data-driven evidence on university students’ lecture capture video engagement patterns. It is also expected to contribute methodologically to capturing, preprocessing, and analyzing students’ video interactions in different contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".