| Literature DB >> 23202042 |
Chia-Cheng Hsu1, Hsin-Chin Chen, Yen-Ning Su, Kuo-Kuang Huang, Yueh-Min Huang.
Abstract
A growing number of educational studies apply sensors to improve student learning in real classroom settings. However, how can sensors be integrated into classrooms to help instructors find out students' reading concentration rates and thus better increase learning effectiveness? The aim of the current study was to develop a reading concentration monitoring system for use with e-books in an intelligent classroom and to help instructors find out the students' reading concentration rates. The proposed system uses three types of sensor technologies, namely a webcam, heartbeat sensor, and blood oxygen sensor to detect the learning behaviors of students by capturing various physiological signals. An artificial bee colony (ABC) optimization approach is applied to the data gathered from these sensors to help instructors understand their students' reading concentration rates in a classroom learning environment. The results show that the use of the ABC algorithm in the proposed system can effectively obtain near-optimal solutions. The system has a user-friendly graphical interface, making it easy for instructors to clearly understand the reading status of their students.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23202042 PMCID: PMC3545613 DOI: 10.3390/s121014158
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Flow chart of the ABC algorithm.
Notations and variables used in the fitness function.
| The selection of the student 1 ≤ | |
| The matrix, the information of center position of the eyes' point of student | |
| The element of matrix | |
| The matrix, the information about the reading fixation of the student | |
| The element of matrix | |
| The reading fixation rate of student | |
| The strength of the relationship between the level of reading fixation and the concentration of the students. | |
| The matrix, the heart rate of student | |
| The element of matrix | |
| The average heart rate of student | |
| Δ | The variation of the heart rate of student |
| The strength of the relationship between the heart rate and the concentration of the students. | |
| The matrix, the blood oxygen for student | |
| The element of matrix | |
| The matrix, the transformed blood oxygen for the student | |
| The element of matrix | |
| Δ | The variation of blood oxygen for student |
| The strength of the relationship between blood oxygen and the concentration of the students. | |
| The fitness function used for the reading concentration monitoring system. |
Figure 2.Framework of the reading concentration monitoring system.
Figure 3.Procedure of the reading concentration monitoring system.
Figure 4.Detection function of the reading concentration monitoring system.
Figure 5.A student using the proposed system.
Figure 6.Results of the reading concentration monitoring system.
Figure 7.Reading status of an individual student.
Comparison of average best fitness values for the random search method and the ABC algorithm.
| 20/1,000 | 20/2,000 | 100/1,000 | 100/2,000 | ||
| 150 | 0.8905 | 0.0062 | 0.0060 | 0.0060 | 0.0060 |
| 300 | 0.8977 | 0.0327 | 0.0179 | 0.0098 | 0.0079 |
| 450 | 0.8880 | 0.0932 | 0.0343 | 0.0471 | 0.0208 |
| 600 | 0.9063 | 0.1573 | 0.0620 | 0.1137 | 0.0441 |
| 750 | 0.9021 | 0.2592 | 0.0853 | 0.2287 | 0.0499 |
| 900 | 0.8951 | 0.3243 | 0.0964 | 0.3168 | 0.0787 |
| 1,050 | 0.9177 | 0.4011 | 0.1307 | 0.3749 | 0.1068 |
| 1,200 | 0.9056 | 0.4533 | 0.1572 | 0.4216 | 0.1376 |
| 1,350 | 0.9240 | 0.4814 | 0.2051 | 0.4748 | 0.1940 |
| 1,500 | 0.9132 | 0.5239 | 0.2698 | 0.5152 | 0.2478 |
Comparison of average execution time values for the random search method and the ABC algorithm.
| 20/1,000 | 20/2,000 | 100/1,000 | 100/2,000 | ||
| 150 | 0.0782 | 0.2858 | 0.5515 | 1.4094 | 2.7547 |
| 300 | 0.1563 | 0.6217 | 1.1781 | 3.0375 | 5.8640 |
| 450 | 0.2343 | 0.9409 | 1.7969 | 4.6500 | 9.0484 |
| 600 | 0.3110 | 1.3546 | 2.5218 | 6.8343 | 12.4750 |
| 750 | 0.3890 | 1.8109 | 3.0844 | 9.1328 | 15.1594 |
| 900 | 0.4703 | 2.2734 | 3.7375 | 11.4654 | 18.5890 |
| 1,050 | 0.5437 | 2.7811 | 4.6000 | 13.9204 | 22.8953 |
| 1,200 | 0.6219 | 3.2548 | 5.4141 | 16.3031 | 27.1750 |
| 1,350 | 0.7000 | 3.7563 | 6.3578 | 18.7671 | 31.8344 |
| 1,500 | 0.7781 | 4.2156 | 7.2485 | 21.1874 | 36.4359 |
Figure 8.Average best fitness values with 2,000 iterations and different numbers of bees.
Figure 9.Average execution time values with 2,000 iterations and different numbers of bees.
Figure 10.Average best fitness values with 20 bees and different numbers of students.
Figure 11.Average execution time values with 20 bees and different numbers of students.