Behavioral and Performance Indicators of Depression and Anxiety in Electronic Learning Systems
For educators and institutions, this provides a non-invasive way to identify students potentially experiencing mental health issues using existing LMS data, though it is incremental as it applies known methods to a new context.
This study found that behavioral and performance indicators from LMS logs, such as shifted temporal activity and shorter homework lead times, are significantly associated with depression and anxiety in university students, suggesting LMS data can serve as contextual markers for mental health strain.
This study investigates whether behavioral and performance indicators derived from a Moodle-based learning management system are associated with university students' depression and anxiety in two undergraduate Computer Engineering courses. Using a quantitative observational design, LMS event logs, academic records, and self-reported Beck Depression Inventory-II and Beck Anxiety Inventory scores from 97 students were integrated. A broad set of behavioral and performance indicators spanning temporal engagement, session structure, deadline-related behavior, page-refresh patterns, and LMS navigation was extracted from raw event logs and analyzed using descriptive statistics, independent-samples t-tests with Benjamini-Hochberg FDR correction, effect sizes, and Spearman correlations; inventory scores were confirmed invariant by sex and academic year. Several indicators were significantly associated with depression and anxiety. Higher depression was associated with shifted temporal activity patterns, longer session durations, and shorter homework submission lead times, while higher anxiety was associated with concentrated temporal engagement and session-based differences. These findings suggest that routine LMS data can provide meaningful behavioral signals related to student well-being and may support earlier educational awareness of students who experience mental-health-related strain. At the same time, such indicators should be interpreted as contextual and non-diagnostic markers rather than as substitutes for clinical assessment.