ENGAGIUM: A Real-Time Participation Tracking System for Synchronous Online Learning in Higher Education

The rapid adoption of synchronous online and blended learning environments has intensified the need for fair and consistent monitoring of student participation during virtual class sessions. However, instructors frequently encounter difficulties in capturing participation across multiple interaction channels such as chat messages, microphone activity, reactions, and hand-raise events while simultaneously facilitating instruction. This study designed, developed, and evaluated ENGAGIUM, a real-time participation tracking system intended for professors conducting synchronous online classes through Google Meet and Zoom. The system integrates a browser-based participation tracking extension, instructor-facing dashboards, and real-time analytics mechanisms to automate the collection and visualization of participation events.
The study employed a quantitative-descriptive developmental research methodology utilizing sequential pre-development and post-development evaluation phases. Pre-development findings revealed that instructors experienced difficulty consolidating participation records manually, resulting in concerns regarding grading consistency and participation visibility. The developed system was evaluated using descriptive statistical analysis, weighted mean computation, thematic analysis, and the System Usability Scale (SUS). Evaluation results demonstrated positive faculty perceptions regarding usability, effectiveness, transparency, and reliability. ENGAGIUM achieved a System Usability Scale score of 72.88, indicating above-average usability and acceptable system readiness for instructional use. Findings further showed that automated participation logging improved perceived fairness in participation-based assessment by reducing dependence on fragmented manual observation.
The study concludes that ENGAGIUM provides a practical and privacy-aware approach for synchronous participation monitoring through automated event capture and analytics visualization. The system contributes to educational technology by supporting transparent participation assessment while preserving user privacy through metadata-based tracking without audio or video recording.

synchronous online learning, participation tracking

1. Simon, et al. (2025). Challenges in evaluating participation across online and offline modalities. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning Journal, 22(1), 205–222. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bergdahl, N., Nouri, J., & Fors, U. (2024). Learning analytics and multidimensional engagement in higher education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Gan, B. K. S., & Ouh, E. L. (2023). Class participation: Using technology to enhance efficiency and fairness. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE) (pp. 1–7). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE56641.2023.10398380 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Kaliisa, R., Misiejuk, K., Lopez-Pernas, S., Khalil, M., & Saqr, M. (2024). Learning analytics dashboards and student engagement. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Marquez, Lazcano, Bada, & Arroyo-Barriguete. (2023). Participation monitoring and academic inclusion. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Jopson, et al. (2024). Hybrid learning engagement experiences among Filipino college students. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Donelan, H., et al. (2025). Synchronous online learning: Why some students don’t actively participate. Online Learning, 29(3). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v29i3.4641 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Svabensky, V., et al. (2024). Fairness and explainability in educational analytics systems. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Foronda, S. M., Javier, N., Vigonte, F., & Abante, M. V. (2023). Implementation of Republic Act 10173 or the Data Privacy Act of 2012 in Albay Electric Cooperative (ALECO)–IMRAD. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4621933 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Funa, A. A., & Gabay, R. A. E. (2024). Policy guidelines and recommendations on AI use in teaching and learning: A meta-synthesis study. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 11, 101221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101221 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, I. L. McClelland, & B. Weerdmeester (Eds.), Usability Evaluation in Industry (pp. 189–194). Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Sommerville, I. (2016). Software Engineering (10th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• What the Desert Fathers Teach Data Scientists: Ancient Ascetic Principles for Ethical Machine-Learning Practice
• Comparative Analysis of Some Machine Learning Algorithms for the Classification of Ransomware
• Comparative Performance Analysis of Some Priority Queue Variants in Dijkstra’s Algorithm
• Transfer Learning in Detecting E-Assessment Malpractice from a Proctored Video Recordings.
• Dual-Modal Detection of Parkinson’s Disease: A Clinical Framework and Deep Learning Approach Using NeuroParkNet