Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Study to minimize learning progress differences in software learning class using PLITAZ system

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study developed a system using two-phased strategies called “Pause Lecture, Instant Tutor-Tutee Match, and Attention Zone” (PLITAZ). This system was used to help solve learning challenges and to minimize learning progress differences in a software learning class. During a teacher’s lecture time, students were encouraged to anonymously express their desire to pause the lecture, or to take a short break, in order to catch up with a teacher’s lecture. A simple proportion of one-third of the class was found to be a suitable pause-lecture threshold to prevent learning progress differences from becoming too great as well as to provide enough peer tutorial resources. During students’ practice time, an instant tutor-tutee match strategy extended tutorial resources, which took 60% workload from the teacher. Meanwhile, the attention zone (AZ) strategy helped the teacher to identify students with low levels of learning progress, as AZ students who needed more attention. It was found that AZ student numbers had a negative relation to overall learning achievement. Furthermore, 49% of the identified AZ students who received PLITAZ strategies experienced improved learning progress over identified non-AZ students. Overall learning progress differences were significantly minimized with the Instant Tutor-Tutee Match and Attention Zone strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alavi, H. S., Dillenbourg, P., & Kaplan, F. (2009). Distributed awareness for class orchestration. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5794, 211–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. A. (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R., Boyle, C. F., & Reiser, B. J. (1985). Intelligent tutoring systems. Science, 228, 456–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, J., Black, E. P., & Rohr, J. (2009). An audience response system strategy to improve student motivation, attention, and feedback. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(2), 21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(2), 151–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chien, C. M. (2008). Applying peer tutoring to programming languages instruction platform. Taiwan: Unpublished dissertation of Yunlin University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Codework Systems (2010). Netop classroom management system. Codework Systems. Retrieved July 11, 2011 from http://www.codework-systems.com/products/netop/netop-vision/.

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2011). Stellar Deliverable 1.5. Retrieved Aug 22, 2011 from http://www.stellarnet.eu/kmi/deliverables/20110818_stellar___d1.5___trends-in-orchestration.pdf.

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2010). Technology for classroom orchestration. New science of learning cognition computers and collaboration in education. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkner, N. (2009). Is comprehension or application the more important skill for first-year computer science students? ERGO, 1(2), 15–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J., & Winterbottom, M. (2011). Peer-tutoring: What’s in it for the tutor? Educational Studies, 37(3), 321–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimes, T. (1990). Audio–video correspondence and its role in attention and memory. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(3), 15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. V., Lund, D., & Jackson, D. (1968). Effects of teacher attention on study behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harger, R. O. (1996). Teaching in a computer classroom with a hyperlinked, interactive book. IEEE Transaction on Education, 39(3), 321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyt, A., McNulty, J. A., Gruener, G., Chandrasekhar, A., Espiritu, B., Ensminger, D., et al. (2010). An audience response system may influence student performance on anatomy examination questions. Anatomical Science Journal, 3(6), 295–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y.-M., & Wu, T.-T. (2011). A systematic approach for learner group composition utilizing u-learning portfolio. Educational Technology & Society, 14(3), 102–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006). A social-cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 569–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, M., & Law, N. (2006). Peer helping of knowledge building through collaborative groups with differential learning experiences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(2), 123–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Y.-T., Huang, Y.-M., & Cheng, S.-C. (2010). An automatic group composition system for composing collaborative learning groups using enhanced particle swarm optimization. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1483–1493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 107–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcgrail, E. (2007). Laptop technology and pedagogy in the English language arts classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 59–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie, J. (2008). Getting attention in the laptop classroom. From Now On, 18(2).

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 117–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M., Alvarez, C., Mcfarlane, A., Gomez, F., Claro, S., & Radovic, D. (2009). Technology as small group face to face collaborative helping. Computer & Education, 52, 147–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosmalen, P., Sloep, P., Kester, L., Brouns, F., Croock, M., Pannekeet, K., et al. (2008). A learner support model based on peer tutor selection. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 74–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl, K. L., Hughes, C. A., & Schloss, P. J. (2010). The effect of differing audience response system question types on student attention in the veterinary medical classroom. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 37, 145–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 409–426.

  • Stuart, J., & Rutherford, R. J. D. (1978). Medical student concentration during lectures. The Lancet, 312(8088), 514–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart Technologies. (2011). SMART Sync classroom management software. Smart Technologies. Retrieved July 12, 2011 from http://smarttech.com/us/Solutions/Education+Solutions/Products+for+education/Software/SMART+Sync.

  • Taiwan Good (2011). TWG multimedia teaching broadcast system. Taiwan Good. Retrieved July 10, 2011 from http://www.twg.tw/index.php.

  • Tutty, J. I., & Klein, J. D. (2008). Computer-mediated instruction: A comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 101–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westera, W. (2007). Peer-allocated instant response (PAIR): Computational allocation of peer tutors in learning communities. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 10.

  • Wong, W. K., Chan, T. W., Chou, C. Y., Heh, J. S., & Tung, S. H. (2003). Reciprocal tutoring using cognitive tools. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 416–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xun, G. E., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for helping III-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work was supported in part by the National Science Council (NSC), Taiwan, ROC, under Grant NSC 98-2511-S-008-008-MY3, NSC and 98-2511-S-008-005-MY3. Besides, the researchers thanks to the editor Prof. J. Michael Spector and all the reviewers’ suggestions and comments that helped the researchers revise the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science & Information Engineering, National Central University, No. 300, Jhongda Rd., Jhongli City, Taoyuan County, 32001, Taiwan, ROC

    Jian-Jie Dong

  2. National Chia-Yi Girl’s Senior High School, NO. 243, Chuiyang Rd., Chiayi City, 60043, Taiwan

    Jian-Jie Dong

  3. Graduate School of Network Learning Technology, National Central University, No. 300, Jhongda Rd., Jhongli City, Taoyuan County, 32001, Taiwan, ROC

    Wu-Yuin Hwang

Authors
  1. Jian-Jie Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wu-Yuin Hwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wu-Yuin Hwang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dong, JJ., Hwang, WY. Study to minimize learning progress differences in software learning class using PLITAZ system. Education Tech Research Dev 60, 501–527 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9233-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9233-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation