Science for Education Today, 2026, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 183–204
© Lizunkov V. G., Razumnikov S. V., Politsinskaya E. V., 2026
UDC: 
612.8+004.81+37.026+316.628

Dynamics of students’ cognitive engagement in the educational process: Assessment based on the analysis of biometric indicators under various formats of academic workload

Lizunkov V. G. 1 (Yurga, Russian Federation), Razumnikov S. V. 2 (Tomsk, Russian Federation), Politsinskaya E. V. 2 (Tomsk, Russian Federation)
1 Tomsk Polytechnic University Yurga Institute of Technology
2 National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University
Full text (Open Access) — Downloaded 26
Abstract: 

Introduction. The article addresses the problem of declining cognitive engagement among students in the educational process, which negatively affects the quality of professional preparation and the formation of required competencies. Traditional methods of analysis (surveys, observation) do not allow obtaining an objective picture of the dynamics of the cognitive state during a lesson, which complicates scientifically grounded design of the educational process. The purpose of this article is to identify patterns in the dynamics of students’ cognitive engagement in various formats of educational activities based on the analysis of biometric indicators.
Materials and Methods. The study was conducted at the National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University during the spring semester of the 2025/2026 academic year (sample N=120). A pedagogical experiment (action research) was carried out with the participation of 120 senior students. Continuously recorded biometric parameters (heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, and skin temperature) were used as objective indicators of engagement. For integral assessment, a weighted engagement index was calculated. ANOVA, Student’s t-test, and Pearson correlation analysis were applied.
Results. The authors identified statistically significant differences in students’ physiological reactions depending on the format of educational activities: practical classes cause maximum activation (index 0.78), while lectures cause minimum activation (0.42). A cyclic dynamics of attention during a 90-minute lesson was established, with a characteristic drop in concentration in the middle of the class. It was proven that the cyclic structure of the lesson prevents this dip through the alternation of work formats. It was experimentally confirmed that the introduction of the cyclic lesson structure significantly (p < 0.001) increases the integral engagement index (up to 0.76) and ensures better knowledge retention. Students in the experimental group outperformed students in the control group by 27 points when testing residual knowledge after 14-day period.
Conclusions. The identified patterns in the dynamics of students’ cognitive engagement in various formats of educational activities (lecture, practical class, project work) based on the analysis of biometric indicators create a scientific basis for designing classes synchronized with the natural cycles of brain performance. The proposed lesson structure facilitates the transition from passive perception of information to active cognitive activities and the formation of sustainable knowledge.

Keywords: 

Cognitive engagement; Biometric indicators; Lesson structure; Educational process.

For citation:
Lizunkov V. G., Razumnikov S. V., Politsinskaya E. V. Dynamics of students’ cognitive engagement in the educational process: Assessment based on the analysis of biometric indicators under various formats of academic workload. Science for Education Today, 2026, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 183–204. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2605.09
References: 
  1. Bergdahl N., Bond M., Sjöberg J., Dougherty M., Oxley E. Unpacking student engagement in higher education learning analytics: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 2024, vol. 21, pp. 63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00493-y
  2. Kozanitis A., Nenciovici L. Effect of active learning versus traditional lecturing on the learning achievement of college students in humanities and social sciences: A meta-analysis. Higher Education, 2023, vol. 86, pp. 1377-1394. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00977-8
  3. Pascarella E. T., Seifert T. A., Blaich C. How effective are the NSSE benchmarks in predicting important educational outcomes? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 2010, vol. 42 (1), pp. 16-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380903449060
  4. Coates H. The value of student engagement for higher education quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 2005, vol. 11 (1), pp. 25-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320500074915
  5. Burkova S. A. Student engagement in the educational process at university. Ogarev-online, 2025, vol. 13 (3), pp. 248-259. (In Russian) URL:  https://elibrary.ru/nchkgq DOI: https://doi.org/10.18384/2310-7219-2025-3-248-259
  6. Garashkina N. V., Druzhinina A. A. Cognitive engagement involvement as a basis for designing the educational process in the preparation of students of pedagogical directions. Higher Education in Russia, 2023, vol. 32 (1), pp. 93-109. (In Russian) URL:  https://elibrary.ru/jdktod DOI: https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2023-32-1-93-109
  7. Druzhinina A. A., Garashkina N. V. Specifics of future teacher’s AI literacy formation: Assessment of value-ethical reflection. Science for Education Today, 2026, vol. 16 (3), pp. 145-166. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/azrwbg  DOI: https://doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2603.07
  8. Freeman S., Eddy S. L., McDonough M., Smith M. K., Okoroafor N., Jordt H., Wenderoth M. P. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2014, vol. 111 (23), pp. 8410-8415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
  9. Semiletova A. N. Active learning: A new perspective on teaching in the modern world. Bulletin of Practical Psychology of Education, 2024, vol. 21 (4), pp. 152-164. (In Russian) URL:  https://elibrary.ru/mllrnr DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/bppe.2024210414

10. Lyutova-Roberts E. K., Monina G. B. The use of active teaching methods in higher and secondary educational institutions: the experience of English-speaking countries. Comprehensive Studies of Childhood, 2021, vol. 3 (2), pp. 109-114. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/wxpnyd DOI: https://doi.org/10.33910/2687-0223-2021-3-2-109-114

11. Shangareeva Z. A., Sannikova A. V., Mananova A. F., Larina A. V., Yusupova R. R., Shangareev R. Z. Application of active methods in training students and residents. Modern Problems of Science and Education, 2024, no. 2, pp. 80. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/lovvsr DOI: https://doi.org/10.17513/spno.33395

12. Song S. J., Tan K. H., Awang M. Generic digital equity model in education: Mobile-assisted personalized learning (MAPL) through e-modules. Sustainability, 2021, vol. 13 (19), pp. 11115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911115

13. Murad D. F., Heryadi Y., Isa S. M., Budiharto W. Personalization of study material based on predicted final grades using multi-criteria user-collaborative filtering recommender system. Education and Information Technologies, 2020, vol. 25 (6), pp. 5655-5668. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10238-9

14. Fan E., Bower M., Siemon J. Comparing cognitive load during video versus traditional classroom instruction based on heart rate variability measures. Computers & Education, 2026, vol. 241, pp. 105487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105487

15. Sazuka N., Katsumata K., Komoriya Y., Oba T., Ohira H. Association of brain-autonomic activities and task accuracy under cognitive load: A pilot study using electroencephalogram, autonomic activity measurements, and arousal level estimated by machine learning. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2024, vol. 18, pp. 1272121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2024.1272121

16. Nikolaeva T. M., Golubeva E. K., Yarchenkova L. L. Effect of physical activity on heart rate variability during mental activity depending on the sensitivity of sympathetic centers in students. Modern Issues in Biomedicine, 2024, vol. 8 (2). (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/bbrqda

17. Novikova I. I., Romanenko S. P., Lobkis M. A., Ivleva G. P., Zubtsovskaya N. A., Savchenko O. A., Sorokina A. V. Functional state of schoolchildren’s adaptation system in conditions of separation from mobile communication devices. Science for Education Today, 2020, vol. 10 (5), pp. 178-195. (In Russian)  URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/GXLRGO  DOI: https://doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2005.10

18. Baiguzhin P. A., Shibkova D. Z., Aizman R. I. Factors affecting psychophysiological processes of information perception within the context of education informatization. Science for Education Today, 2019, vol. 9 (5), pp. 48-70. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/voojcl DOI: https://doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.1905.04

19. Shibkova D. Z., Baiguzhin P. A., Gerasev A. D., Aizman R. I. The impact of digital learning technologies on functional and psychophysiological responses of the organism: An analytical literature review. Science for Education Today, 2021, vol. 11 (3), pp. 125-141. (In Russian) URL:  https://www.elibrary.ru/NJGXXQ DOI: https://doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2103.07

20. Baiguzhin P. A., Sashenkov S. L. Reactivity of the nervous system in female students under cognitive load at mental and physical fatigue. Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 2025, vol. 13 (1), pp. 5-16. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/TTXBSC DOI: https://doi.org/10.37482/2687-1491-Z224

21. Firth J. Boosting learning by changing the order and timing of classroom tasks: Implications for professional practice. Journal of Education for Teaching, 2021, vol. 47 (1), pp. 32-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1829965

22. Sweetman D. Making virtual learning engaging and interactive. FASEB BioAdvances, 2021, vol. 3 (1), pp. 11-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1096/fba.2020-00084

23. Tobin B., Farren M., Crotty Y. Impacting teaching and learning through collaborative reflective practice. Educational Action Research, 2025, vol. 33 (5), pp. 756-776. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2024.2394933

24. Kochan N. V., Ten V. H., Pushkareva I. Y. Social engagement of youth as a manifestation of a subjective position: Evaluating the value of involvement in socially significant activities. Science for Education Today, 2026, vol. 16 (2), pp. 97-120. (In Russian)  URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/umizv  DOI: https://doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2602.05

25. Mulyono H., Suryoputro G. The use of social media platform to promote authentic learning environment in higher education setting. Science for Education Today, 2020, vol. 10 (2), pp. 105-123. URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/ogralp DOI: https://doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2002.07

26. Alkabbany I., Ali A. M., Foreman C. W., Tretter T. R., Hindy N. C., Farag A. A. An experimental platform for real-time students engagement measurements from video in STEM classrooms. Sensors, 2023, vol. 23 (3), pp. 1614. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s23031614

27. Sailer M., Homner L. The gamification of learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 2020, vol. 32, pp. 77-112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w

28. Volkova T. G., Talanova I. O. Gamification: Problems and trends. Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin, 2022, no. 5, pp. 26-33. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/hggytn DOI: https://doi.org/10.20323/1813-145X-2022-5-128-26-33

29. Zolkina A. V., Lomonosova N. V., Petrusevich D. A. Gamification as a tool of enhancing teaching and learning effectiveness in higher education: Needs analysis. Science for Education Today, 2020, vol. 10 (3), pp. 127-143. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/tqwrio DOI: https://doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2003.07

30. Chang B. Reflection in learning. Online Learning, 2019, vol. 23 (1), pp. 95-110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1447

 

Date of the publication 31.10.2026