Quantitative analysis of the potential use of a learning schedule for retrieving learning contexts

In this section, I address the research question – “How feasible is the adoption of a learning schedule for retrieving learning contexts from a quantitative perspective?” Two aspects are being examined in this question – 1) whether users can plan their schedule ahead, conform to it and keep it up-to-date, and 2) whether the location and available time can be retrieved from the learner’s diary. The data sample was divided into batch 1 and batch 2. This is because students from batch 2 did not note down their study-unrelated events, presumably as the time of the diary study coincided with the onset of their exams. I analyzed and present below whether there were any discrepancies between a) the planned and actual locations, and b) the planned and actual start and finish times. I also present below additional results obtained from the ‘diary-questionnaires’.

This question was answered from the viewpoint of potential users of the framework and whether they could conform to their planned schedule. Participants were asked to plan their schedule ahead and write down both their study-related and -unrelated events, at the beginning of each of the two days, as part 1 of the diary study. All three parts of the diary study are presented in Appendix B. These were also described in 3.3.1.

All 32 of the participants were able to plan their study-related events ahead for the two days required; this was demonstrated in part 1 of the diary study where students were given two diary schedule sheets each and asked to fill them in. Seven fields were required to be filled in for each event including a) whether it is study- related or unrelated, b) time (to and from), c) geographic location, d) type of location (e.g. library, home), e) task or activity, f) tick if completed or attended (after time has elapsed) and g) if not completed, state reason.

All of the participants from batch 1 noted down both study-related and study-

unrelated events. However, the batch 2 participants only planned out their study-

related events. A possible explanation of this was that the diary study coincided with the onset of their exam period; hence they were very busy attending revision lectures, classes and self revision, and omitted other study-unrelated events which they may have felt to be irrelevant and/or unimportant to them at that point in time.

A total of 275 events were recorded from the 32 students – 181 were study- related and 94 were study-unrelated. A total of 251 of the 275 events (91%) recorded by participants went as anticipated, implying that the events were either attended to or completed. Some 23 events (19 were study-related and four were study-unrelated)

were indicated not to have gone as anticipated by eight participants frombatch 1, an

batch 2 participant as not to have gone as anticipated and this was due to boredom.

Explanations for the events not having gone as anticipated include:

 For study-related events – a) their planned tasks required longer to be completed or were more complicated than expected, b) they were interrupted often, sick, tired or had low levels of productivity and decided either not to commence or to discontinue with the activity, c) their scheduled events were cancelled, delayed, postponed, rescheduled or exceeded the scheduled time and d) there were occurrences of delays in the transport that they had used.  For study-unrelated events – a) they changed their minds regarding their

planned activities that they had wished to carry out, for example from doing an assignment to answering emails, or decided to relax after a long day of study rather than doing more, b) the location of a meeting place with friends was changed and c) due to lack of time.

The following study-related and study-unrelated activities were scheduled by participants:

1. Study-related events – programming tasks, laboratory exercises, computer

projects, meetings with peers and supervisors, assignments, coursework, writing reports and thesis, attending lectures, seminars, language studies, research, exam revision and brainstorming.

2. Study-unrelated events – reading leisure books, watching news and TV,

writing emails, setting up software, chatting to friends online, travelling to university, sports, meeting friends, taking rests and breaks and eating.

Additional diary-planning information was obtained from the completed ‘diary-questionnaires’ including 1) whether they normally kept a diary to remind

followed the events as planned, and if not, whether they had a problem planning the events for the two days; and 2) whether they had any problems updating the diary schedule.

The aim was to ascertain respectively 1) whether the participants who did not normally keep a diary could successfully plan out their activities on paper for two days, and 2) if participants had experienced any problems in keeping their diaries updated. In addition, information was obtained about whether they usually followed their planned events, and whether participants who did not normally keep a diary could plan out their events for two days..

12 out of the 16 participants from batch 1indicated that they normally kept a

diary. One of these participants noted that they only kept the important events in their diaries. The remaining four participants who did not normally keep a diary noted that they had no problems in keeping and updating the diary for the duration of two days for the diary study. Only two out of 16 participants from batch 2 indicated that they

normally kept a diary. All of the 32 participants indicated that they did not have any problems keeping and updating the diary for the two days for the diary study.

The diary study results showed that, in general, participants did not have any problems planning, keeping and updating their planned events, at least for the duration of two days. This was supported by the interview study results where 27 out of the 37 participants (i.e. 73%) who had informed me of their regular paper- or electronic-based diary usage matched this result. Some 91% of the 275 events that had been scheduled had gone as anticipated in the diary study, whereas the remaining 9% had not, which was due to unforeseen circumstances. This is a relatively small percentage considering the large number of events that were recorded by a total of 32 participants. The hypothesis, shown below, is supported with a rate of 91%. This is

because I consider 91% of events recorded by 32 participants constitute a significantly large percentage, and therefore the hypothesis is supported.

H0: Users are able to plan their daily schedule ahead and conform to those

activities that they feel are important to them.

Generally speaking, a) the interview participants had made regular use of diaries for their time management of study events; and b) while the diary study participants’ mostly went about their schedules as anticipated, there may always be a small chance of discrepancies between their planned diary events and the actual events/tasks that they were to carry out. I conclude that the learning schedule approach can be used as a preliminary proactive source of retrieving the location and available time contexts of learners; however, additional methods should be in place to verify their actual location and time available.

2) Can the location and available time be retrieved from the learner’s diary?

I checked against the times and locations of participants’ scheduled study-related events for the two days noted in part 1 of the study against the times and locations indicated on the corresponding ‘diary entry’ sheets in part 2. ‘Diary entry’ sheets only

needed to be completed for each study-related event and not for study-unrelated events. Participants were asked to round their start and finish times to the nearest five minutes.

91% of participants’ events went as anticipated (see above); however, there were some discrepancies between the planned and actual start and finish times of the events, as described below. For the events which went as anticipated, the actual and

planned locations were consistent. Out of the total 157 completed diary entry forms, 109 were from participants ofbatch 1and 48 were from participants ofbatch 2.

Batch 1 – discrepancies between planned and actual start and finish times

The planned and actual start and finish times of 52 out of the 109 study-related events (47%) were matched. There were discrepancies between the actual and planned start and finish times of the remaining 57 events. These events were recorded from 12 out of the 16 participants. This means an average of 4.75% of the events from the 12 participants with discrepancies between the actual and planned start and finish times. These 57 events are classified into the following two categories of events.

 20 events werescheduled classes or meetings. These often started and finished five or 10 minutes earlier and/or later, with the occasional exception of finishing 35 minutes earlier. Participants often rounded the start and finish times of lectures to the hour in their diary schedules, when in actual fact, lectures at our university started at five minutes past the hour and finished at five minutes to the hour.

 37 events were self-study. Due to the nature of these events, it was assumed that participants gave themselves the flexibility of starting and finishing at an earlier or later time, when it was convenient for them. The actual start and finish times ranged from a start of 20 minutes earlier to 95 minutes later and from a finish of 105 minutes earlier to 115 minutes later (depicted in Figures 5.1- 5.3).

Figure 5.1: Actual start times of self-study events (participants of batch 1) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 F r e q u e n c y

Start Time (minutes)

Figure 5.2: Actual finish times of self-study events (participants of batch 1)

Finish times (minutes)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 115 earli er 30 earli er 25 earli er 20 earli er 10 earli er 5ea rlier on tim e 5la ter 10 late r 15 late r 20 late r 25 late r 30 late r 40 late r 45 late r 60 late r 80 late r 90 late r 100 late r 105 late r 110 late r F r e q u e n c y

As a result, the discrepancies between the actual and planned amount of time for the participants in batch 1 spent on their self-study events ranged from -110 to

Figure 5.3: Discrepancies between actual and planned amount of time for self- studies (participants of batch 1)

Discrepancy (minutes) 0 1 2 3 4 5 -110 -60 -50 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 25 60 65 70 80 85 110 F re q u e n c y

In Figures 5.1 to 5.3, it can be seen that participants had a later starting time for their self-study events than planned but generally not a later finishing time. This means that the actual studying times are less than those that were planned.

Batch 2 – discrepancies between planned and actual start and finish times

The actual and planned start and finish times of 44 out of 48 (92%) study-related events were matched, whereas the remaining four study-related events were not. The 44 events with matching actual and planned start and finish times were recorded by nine participants. One of the four events that did not match was a scheduled class and the remaining three events were self-studies; these were recorded by two participants. Five participants did not note down the actual start and finish times of their events on the ‘diary entry’ sheets; however common amongst these participants were two daily laboratory revision exercises classes, in preparation for their exams. I presumed that

due to the importance and urgency of these events, these participants had attended these events from start to finish.

3) Results from the ‘diary-questionnaires’

Participants were asked whether a) they were always doing the activities that they had planned at that location, and b) they were always in the location that they had planned. Note that one out of 16 participants from batch 1 had not completed the ‘diary-

questionnaire’.

 Batch 1 – a) 10 participants indicated that they had always carried out the activities that they had planned at the specified location, one participant usually did, one sometimes did and three did not always carry out the activities that they had planned at the location; b) 13 participants indicated that they were always in the location that they had planned and two noted that they occasionally would complete their previous activities together with their current one in the same location.

 Batch 2– a) 11 participants had always carried out the activities that they had planned at the specified location, one sometimes did, four participants did not always carry out the activities that they had planned at the location; b) eight, two and six participants, respectively, indicated that they were always,

sometimesandnotin the planned location.