Advertisement

Ambient intelligence in a smart classroom for assessing students’ engagement levels

  • Pyoung Won Kim
Original Research
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

The levels of student engagement refers to the degree to which students are immersed in learning when they are being taught in class. This paper deals with an ambient intelligence algorithm for a smart classroom; the algorithm provides information to the teacher by measuring the level of student engagement in real time. In this study, the algorithm for assessing student engagement levels has been presented; it evaluates the psychological states of students by measuring a thermal infrared image. The algorithm proposed in this study is innovative because it allows teachers to provide feedback to students while monitoring their students in real time. This study will provide the basis for applying the Internet of Things to the teaching and learning fields. Specifically, the measurement model for representing the student engagement level by using thermal infrared imaging is presented. The color of the teacher’s mobile phone application changes (like the traffic lights) in real time according to the immersion levels of the students in class.

Keywords

Engagement Immersion in class Intelligent algorithms Internet of things Thermal infrared image 

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by the Incheon National University Research Grant in 2017.

References

  1. Christenson SL, Reschly AL, Wylie C (2012) Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Corno L, Mandinach EB (1983) The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educ Psychol 18:88–108.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461528309529266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Figner B, Murphy RO (2011) Using skin conductance in judgment and decision making research. In: Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Kuehberger A, Ranyard R (2011) A handbook of process tracing methods for decision research. Psychology Press, New York, pp 163–184Google Scholar
  4. Finn JD (1989) Withdrawing from school. Rev Educ Res 59(2):117–142.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543059002117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Finn JD, Rock DA (1997) Academic success among students at risk for school failure. J Appl Psychol 82(2):221–234.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Finn JD, Pannozzo GM, Voelkl KE (1995) Disruptive and inattentive-withdrawn behavior and achievement among fourth graders. Elem Sch J 95(5):421–434.  https://doi.org/10.1086/461853 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fox S (2008) Human physiology. McGraw-Hill Companies, BostonGoogle Scholar
  8. Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH (2004) School engagement: Potential of the concept: state of the evidence. Rev Educ Res 74(1):59–109.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guan R, Wang X, Marchese M, Yang MQ, Liang Y, Yang C (2018) Feature space learning model. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-018-0805-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hui T, Sherratt R (2017) Towards disappearing user interfaces for ubiquitous computing: human enhancement from sixth sense to super senses. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-016-0409-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jeon G, Anisetti M, Bellandi V, Damiani E, Jeong J (2009a) Designing of a type-2 fuzzy logic filter for improving edge-preserving restoration of interlaced-to-progressive conversion. Inf Sci 179(13):2194–2207.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2009.01.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jeon G, Anisetti M, Lee J, Bellandi V, Damiani E, Jeong J (2009b) Concept of linguistic variable-based fuzzy ensemble approach: application to interlaced HDTV sequences. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 17(6):1245–1258.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2009.2026638 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jeon G, Anisetti M, Wang L, Damiani E (2016) Locally estimated heterogeneity property and its fuzzy filter application for scanning format conversion. Inf Sci 354(c):112–130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.03.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim PW (2018) Chameleon-like weather presenter costume composite format based on color fuzzy model. Soft Comput 22(5):1491–1500.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-017-2868-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim PW, Kim SA, Jung KH (2012) Electrocardiographic anxiety profiles improve speech anxiety. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 37:261–267.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-012-9199-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kim PW, Shin YS, Ha BH, Anisetti M (2017) Effects of avatar character performances in virtual reality dramas used for teachers’ education. Behav Inform Technol 36(7):699–712.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1275809 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lang A, Dhillon K, Dong Q (1995) Effects of emotional arousal and valence on television viewers’ cognitive capacity and memory. J Broadcast Electr Media 39(3):313–327.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08838159509364309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lang A, Shin M, Bradley SD, Wang Z, Lee S, Potter D (2005) Wait! Don’t turn that dial! More excitement to come! The effects of story length and production pacing in local television news on channel changing behavior and information processing in a free choice environment. J Broadcast Electr Media 49(1):3–22.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4901_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marton F, Saljo R (1976) On qualitative differences in learning-io outcome and process. Br J Educ Psychol 46(1):4–11.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meece JL, Blumenfeld PC, Hoyle RH (1988) Students’ goal orientation and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. J Educ Psychol 80(4):514–523.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.80.4.514 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nota G, Aiello R (2017) The interaction type approach to relationships management. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-017-0643-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schlechty PC (2001) Shaking up the schoolhouse: how to support and sustain educational innovation. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  23. Shi J, Wu J, Anisetti M, Damiani E, Jeon G (2017) An interval type-2 fuzzy active contour model for auroral oval segmentation soft computing. Soft Comput 21(9):2325–2345.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-015-1943-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Solar (2016) A cool, minimalist weather app for iOS. https://solar-weather.en.softonic.com/iphone. Accessed 8 May 2018
  25. Wang J, Wu J, Wu Z, Anisetti M, Jeon G (2018) Bayesian method application for color demosaicking. SPIE Opt Eng 57(5):053102.  https://doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.57.5.053102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Whitton N, Moseley A (2014) Deconstructing engagement: rethinking involvement in learning. Simul Gaming 45(4–5):433–449.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878114554755 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wu J, Anisetti M, Wu W, Damiani E, Jeon G (2016) Bayer demosaicking with polynomial interpolation. IEEE Trans Image Process 25(11):5369–5382.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2016.2604489 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Korean Language Education, College of EducationIncheon National UniversityIncheonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations