2.5.1.4 Evaluation of performance in team

After processing parallel distributions of individual records of performance, low and high stakes assessments, and traits of information processing (Tables 1 and 2), a table will be made in order to analyze and evaluate by comparing performances of teams between success and ill-successes team (Team B and Team C).


#### Table 1. Criteria type I.


Table 2. Criteria type II. Dual Loop Theory: Eidetic Feedback Control and Predictive Feedback Control DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89681


#### Table 3.

2.5 Methods of analysis

Assistive and Rehabilitation Engineering

2.5.1 Quantitative analyses

2.5.1.2 Traits of information processing I

2.5.1.3 Traits of information processing II

2.5.1.4 Evaluation of performance in team

into emotional and non-emotion context (Table 3).

The calibration is done by comparing the average of response time to questionnaires by presenting sound voice or letters obtained in prototype experiments in the

The calibration is done by comparing the average of response time to questionnaires by presenting sound voice or letters obtained in practical experiments in

The calibration is done by comparing scatter diagrams of response time to questionnaires by presenting letters and standard reading time (sound voice) obtained in practical experiments in Eidetic and Adjusting types (Table 2), dividing

After processing parallel distributions of individual records of performance, low and high stakes assessments, and traits of information processing (Tables 1 and 2), a table will be made in order to analyze and evaluate by comparing performances of

Visual and Auditory types (Table 1), divided by the number of words.

teams between success and ill-successes team (Team B and Team C).

first and the second time, divided by the number of words.

2.5.1.1 Calibration

Table 1. Criteria type I.

Table 2. Criteria type II.

58

Comparison of elements between emotion and non-emotion.

#### 2.5.2 Qualitative analyses

After processing parallel distributions of individual traits of information processing (Tables 1 and 2), descriptions of answering questionnaires about psychological testing will be compared between two types of presentation and interpersonal communication in class or practical training (Team B and Team C).

Then, their differences will be discussed in order to clarify the effectiveness of collaborative learning.

## 3. Results

#### 3.1 Prototype experiment

Twenty-eight participants were the same members as the first and the second implementation on the same seat and the same display for each person. The experiments were conducted by representing counter-balanced by order. The results were obtained by analyzing the average of reaction time divided by number of words in a short sentence (Figure 7); both sound voice and letters were not significantly different between the first and the second experiments. The total average (first, second) of sound voice was (=2.69, =2.58) and letters (=2.32, =2.20). The correlation coefficients between response time and the number of words were not significantly different between the first and the second experiments, both representing questionnaires by sound voice and letters (Table 4).

From these results, it has been proved with reliability that the level of calibration was high enough to reproduce scientifically, regarding our measuring system. Concerning standard deviation, however, letters (SD = 0.93, SD = 0.85) was larger than sound voice (SD = 0.64, SD = 0.64) (Figure 5). Specifically, when the number of words was higher, the standard deviation of reaction time to letters became

#### Figure 7.

Comparison of response time between the first and the second experiments (left: presented by sound voice; right: presented by letters).


Table 4.

Examination of comparison between the first and the second response time.

larger. This means that there might be individual differences of information processing among students.
