Download - Educational Technology & Society

classmates or left their seats during class. Only 13 percent of the students stated that they did not chat with
classmates or leave their seats during class. In answer to question 3, “I have done something irrelevant during class,”
36.7 percent of the students admitted that they had done something irrelevant during class, while only 10 percent
stated that they had done nothing irrelevant during the class. The questionnaire results reveal that in the distance
education, without any detection reinforcement mechanism, most of the students were inattentive and would easily
chat, leave their seats, or do something irrelevant.
An in-depth interview was held with ten students on question A-1, “Under what circumstances were you inattentive
during class?” All ten students held the same opinion: that in a learning procedure like this, the teacher could not see
the condition of the students and therefore would not be able to detect students chatting or leaving their seat for a
while. Because being inattentive to the course would not influence the participation grade, the students could easily
play truant.
In stage B, the experiment was conducted using the proposed detection reinforcement mechanism. In response to
question 1, “I was attentive during class,” the percentage of students who still considered themselves to be inattentive
fell to 10 percent, representing a reduction of 33 percent in comparison with the percentage in stage A, while 48.3
percent of the students considered themselves to be attentive during class, a rise of 30 percent in comparison with the
percentage in stage A. The comparison results show that the proposed detection reinforcement mechanism increases
the attention of the students in learning. In answer to question 2, “I have chatted with classmates or left my seat
during class,” only 3 percent of the students admitted chatting or leaving their seats, a reduction of 48.7 percent from
the percentage in stage A, while 63 percent considered that they did not do so, an increase of 50 percent in
comparison with the percentage in stage A. In response to question 3, “I have done something irrelevant during the
class,” only 3 percent of the students still admitted doing other things, a reduction of 33 percent from the percentage
in stage A, while 65 percent of the students considered that they did not do so, a rise of 55 percent in comparison
with the percentage in stage A. The comparison between stages A and B confirm that the proposed detection
reinforcement mechanism discourages students from chatting, leaving their seats, or doing irrelevant activities during
learning.
From the in-depth interview on question A-2, “Did the warning feedback of the teacher make you more attentive in
class?” nine of the ten students agreed that the warning feedback from the teacher made them more attentive to the
course. However, one student still showed no concern for the teacher’s warning. In response to A-3, “Did the
encouraging feedback of the teacher make you more attentive in class?” Six students agreed that the encouraging
feedback from the teacher helped them to become more attentive in class. The answers to these two interview
questions indicate that teachers can increase the learning attention of their students by giving them timely feedback
in class.
In distance education, students who are not self-disciplined enough easily exhibit inattentive behavior, thus reducing
the learning results of distance education. Consequently, most current distance education programs are designed for
adults, undergraduate learners or above, and do not yet replace the at-school curriculum designed for younger
students. This is because such distance education focuses only on knowledge learning and provides no effective
guidance. The effect of this experiment is particularly significant for elementary school students with little selfdiscipline.
All ten interviewed students agreed, after a further interview, that they should not let themselves become
distracted in class, because they would be given warning messages by the teacher if they were inattentive.
Comparison results reveal that the proposed mechanism made students feel that the teacher was observing their
learning, thus encouraging them to be attentive in class.
Table 6 lists the fatigue frequency and paired t-test results of stages A and B of Round 2.
Table 6. Table of fatigue frequency and t-test, Round 2
No. Stage A Stage B t value significance
(two-tailed)
1 2 3 4 5 standard
deviation
1 2 3 4 5 standard
deviation
4 3 22 23 10 2 0.91 2 10 32 15 1 0.72 −1.83 0.072
5 0 4 21 26 9 0.82 0 4 23 25 8 0.80 −1.76 0.083
6 8 19 26 7 0 0.87 9 23 23 5 0 0.85 −2.05 0.045
32