Appendix 1

and examined by analyzing the results of experiments. The data were gathered students' response time, using psychological questionnaires (Figures 4 and 5) and their records of performances in collaborative learning class and analyzed by the

1.The prototype experiments were conducted by representing counter-balanced by order. The results of analyzing the average of reaction time divided by number of words in a short sentence (Figure 7) in both sound voice and letters were not significantly different between the first and the second experiments. Therefore, it has been proved with reliability that the level of calibration was high enough to reproduce scientifically, regarding our measuring system.

2.The response time to questionnaires of sound voice presentation was strongly correlated to the number of words which consist of a short sentence of questionnaires. In presenting letters case, the average of correlation

coefficients was weaker and dispersed than those of sound voice (Figure 7). From these results, it was supposed that there were individual differences during information processing while students were reading silently. Then, their response time was categorized by the strength of correlation coefficients

It was found out that the average of response time depending on types was different between each other. In the case of Auditory type, the average of response time was significantly longer than those of Visual type (Table 5 and Figure 8).

3.Next, when the sentences were divided into two categories, emotion and nonemotion, there were found different phenomena among students, regarding

Results of tests, the significant differentiation of reaction time between emotion and non-emotion context for

way of parallel distributed processing. The results were as follows:

Assistive and Rehabilitation Engineering

with the number of words (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 6.

Table 7.

66

Comparison scores between teams.

Adjusting type.

