University Teachers’ Use of Smart Classrooms: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Catherine Yang and Version 1 by Xueqin Fang.

Enhancement or Impediment? How University Teachers’ Use of Smart Classrooms Might Impact Interaction Quality. Advanced technological applications increase the quality of classroom interactions, particularly those involving student–teacher (ST) interactions, although it has a lower effect on the social–emotional outcomes of student–student (SS) interactions. 

  • smart classroom
  • e-learning
  • technology usage
  • ICT

1. Introduction

It has been identified that education is a key element in promoting the sustainable development of many aspects of society. However, faced with the current complexities of society and the natural environment, as well as the uncertainty of the future, there is an urgent need to shape a peaceful, just, and sustainable future, which requires that education itself be transformed [1] and that young generations acquire 21st century competencies [2]. On the other hand, in the information age, recent studies have shown that technology has an influence on education reform in many ways, and it can provide support for education reform and improve teaching quality [3,4][3][4] (pp. 27–32). First, the development of technology affects ourthe educational aims and objectives. Second, the use of technology improves educational ecologies and contexts of learning. Third, technology promotes the innovation of teaching modes. Fourth, technology-enabled teaching, experimentation, and management have improved teaching management [5]. Fifth, the use of technology can improve students’ learning efficiency, in that technology expands students’ learning resources and broadens their learning space, which enables students to learn more and faster. Sixth, the use of technology promotes teacher development by improving teachers’ learning efficiency, enriching their learning resources, and promoting the innovation of teachers’ teaching concepts and methods [6].

2. Smart Classroom

The embedding of the idea of “Smart” in the term Smart Classroom is itself intriguing and most likely arises from joint usage of smart technology. The “Smart Classroom,” as a technology capable of affecting classroom interaction, usually refers to a physical classroom that integrates advanced forms of educational technology to increase the instructors’ ability to facilitate students’ learning and their ability to participate in learning experiences beyond the possibilities of traditional classrooms [17,23,24][7][8][9]. The educational technology includes flexible hardware devices (such as computers, mobile terminals, electronic whiteboards, presentation equipment, and activity desks and chairs) and more interactive software with artificial intelligence (such as online interactive platforms, learning management systems, face recognition, and emotional recognition) [25][10]. From a theoretical perspective, the Smart Classroom architecture and philosophies are based on constructivist learning theories [26][11], which emphasize students’ self-development via social interactions [27][12] (pp. 1–14). As a result, the term “Smart” may thus refer to the ability to maintain a high degree of classroom involvement throughout the learning process, which emphasizes the exploration of interactions as an important point in studies of this phenomenon. According to Yau et al. (2003) [28][13], Yu et al. (2022) [29][14], and Yuan (2022) [30][15], Smart Classrooms are intended to improve teacher–student interactions to thus improve the teaching and learning experience. Based on constructivism, Garrison (2007) [31][16] proposed a Community of Inquiry (CoI) model to understand and guide online learning experiences. He believes that community cooperative learning and interaction, including social, cognitive, and teaching, are of great significance for students’ advanced learning. Therefore, technology can promote teaching and student learning in these aspects based on the CoI model. Huang et al. (2012) [32][17] also proposed a “SMART” concept model with the five dimensions of “Showing”, “Managing”, “Accessing”, “Real-time feedback”, and “Testing”, as a framework for the impact of technology on teaching and learning. Researchers further think that Smart Classrooms may improve the presentation of educational information, make it easier for students to acquire learning resources, encourage engagement in classes [17][7], help teachers assess student learning [32][17] and take charge of in-classroom teaching [33][18], and provide better interactions and better physical environments [34][19].

3. The Influence of Technology on Classroom Interaction Quality

The term classroom interaction is generally understood to mean the communication between teacher and students and between students themselves [35][20] (pp. 3–12). It is believed that quality interaction can enhance the classroom atmosphere, as well as promote students’ learning behaviours and engagement, and thus improve the quality of classroom teaching [29,36][14][21]. Researches have identified the influence of both a single technology and Smart Classroom on classroom interaction quality. Some previous research has focused on the influence of interactive whiteboards (IWBs), with evidence from studies by Smith et al. (2006) [37][22], Manny-Ikan et al. (2011) [38][23], and Hall and Higgins (2005) [39][24] indicating that the versatility and multimedia functions of IWBs and the “theatrical tension” that they bring to the classroom help to attract students and increase their interest and engagement. Technology can be used to improve the interactions between the instructor and the students, or in-group collaboration among the students [28][13]. Some studies, however, also indicated that such student participation was short-lived and that the advantages of IWBs were lost, where the class lacked higher-order thinking skills [38][23]. Knowledge and understanding of technology were also seen to affect teachers’ use of IWBs and, consequently, their confidence in teaching [40][25], suggesting that the quality of the resulting interactions may also be affected. Raman et al. (2014) [41][26] pointed out that IWB acceptance among teachers or students further affects the quality of teaching, while Glover, Miller, and Averis (2007) [42][27] noted that the interactive function of IWBs was maximized to differing extents based on teachers’ personal technical and pedagogic fluency. Other research has focused on personal response systems (PRS) and group response systems (GRS), such as clickers, with the findings suggesting that these help to break up traditional lecture models by promoting learner-centred active learning and to increase student participation and student–teacher interaction by removing students’ fear of public mistakes or embarrassment [43,44,45,46][28][29][30][31]. And, it was found that, with the use of tablet PCs, response systems can improve individual students’ participation and interaction in various group sizes [47][32]. As a result, it is becoming accepted that technological interventions can have an influence on classroom engagement, though the effect is often associated with the degree of involvement. It is critical to understand that it is inappropriate to examine the impact on interaction in new Smart Classrooms by separately examining the impact of some single technology, as He and Li (2009) [48][33] (p. 103) argue that the development of educational technology is cumulative, with previous generations of technology coexisting with new generations. A Smart Classroom is a comprehensive technical system where the function of the whole can exceed that of the sum of its parts. In this sense, Smart Classrooms must be seen as multilevel technology systems containing co-existing generations of technology: these commonly include the simple multimedia environment represented by projection, the interactive multimedia environment represented by the IWB, and the interactive teaching system represented by intelligent terminal technology [49][34]. Some researchers have suggested that the use of full Smart Classrooms can promote interaction in primary and secondary schools. Wang et al. (2016) [50][35] analysed 54 English classes in Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen using an interactive analysis scale, finding that Smart Classrooms supported classroom interactions, improving its frequency and enriching its content. The use of Smart Classrooms also enhances the dynamic, effective, and harmonious interaction between teachers and students, thus enabling technology to reinforce the impact of students’ involvement in learning and intelligence with regard to academic performance [16,18,51][36][37][38]. Some scholars also consider that smart technologies may help to improve interactions, with which teachers will be able to choose more suitable ways of teaching (i.e., online, face-to-face, or blended) to meet different types of needs [17][7], and to extend the limitations of time and space for learning [52][39]. In a Smart Classroom, students have more opportunities to explore, create, display, and evaluate with the support of smart technology. Teachers can also use technology to present content, detect students’ learning statuses, diagnose the teaching process, and adjust their teaching method in a timely manner [53][40]. The impact of Smart Classrooms on interaction may, however, differ at different stages of education. The use of Smart Classrooms has led to a significant increase in teacher–student interactions at the K12 level, helping to improve the quality and efficiency of teacher–student interactions [54][41]. At the primary school level, Jo and Lim (2015) [55][42] compared the interaction within two lessons in South Korean and found that lessons in Smart Classrooms involved more indirect teaching, a higher question ratio, and less lecture-style teaching. However, it is questionable whether interactions at the university level are positively influenced by Smart Classroom use, as in comparison with research carried out at primary and secondary schools, there are much fewer studies on the influence of Smart Classrooms on interaction at the university level. Chen, Chang, and Chien (2015) [56][43] used the “Speech-Driven PowerPoint” (SDPPT) system to enhance interactions at a Taiwanese university, determining that student enjoyment and motivation increased with such use, and Jiang et al. (2018) [57][44] showed that the amount of classroom interaction in Smart Classrooms in mainland China generally increased, although the levels of technology used by teachers were quite different. However, there is some controversy. Li, Liang, and Xue (2018) [58][45] suggested that Smart Classrooms did not significantly improve class interaction and that such technology was mainly used to support teacher-centred teaching. Furthermore, although the existing literature provides some overview of the interactions facilitated through the use of technology, the specific relationship between Smart Classrooms and interaction quality in university classrooms remains unknown, and any discussion of the impact of layered technology systems on interaction is thus lacking.

4. Instrument to Analyse Classroom Interaction Quality

It may be difficult to quantify the classroom interaction quality, and the only way is through some kind of standardized observation method [59][46]. Hence, the development of classroom observation instruments, such as an observation framework and scale, may be required to measure the quality of interactions. A great deal of research has gone into developing instruments to analyse classroom interactions based on different criteria for “quality interactions”. There are mainly two kinds of interactions in educational relationships, defined as student–teacher (ST) and student–student (SS). An analysis of ST interactions tends to focus on evaluating the quality of teachers’ influence on and support of students. Flanders (1963) [60][47] assumed that teachers typically exerted their influence on students by means of verbal statements and thus proposed the “Flanders System of Interaction Analysis” (FSIA) to analyse both teacher talk and student talk. Pianta, Hamre, and Allen (2012) [61][48] instead divided teacher support into the domains of emotional support, classroom organization, and instrument support, thus developing the “Classroom Assessment Scoring System” (CLASS), which includes 11 dimensions based on the various domains to evaluate the effectiveness of interactions between teachers and children. As Johnson (1981) [62][49] noted, however, in addition to ST interactions, SS interactions are also necessary for students’ achievement, socialization, and healthy development. Kumpulainen and Wray (2001) [63][50] thus proposed the “Analytical Framework of Peer-group Interaction” (AFPI) to analyse SS interactions from sociocultural and sociocognitive perspectives. Hillman, Willis, and Gunawardena’s (1994) [64][51] research incorporated the learner–interface interaction into the instrument used to analyse interaction, while Gu and Wang (2004) [65][52] adapted FSIA by adding items to increase the focus on students’ behaviour and student–technology interactions, thus proposing the “Information Technology-based Interaction Analysis System” (ITIAS) to analyse interactions in the classroom in a manner integrated with information and communications technology (ICT) use. Mu and Zuo (2015) [66][53] similarly took ICT into consideration when proposing the “Teaching Behavior Analysis System” (TBAS), which was used to observe teacher and student behaviours, ST interactions, and the use of media in class. Wang et al. (2016) [50][35] similarly developed the “Smart Classroom-based Interaction Analysis System” (SCIAS) for primary and secondary schools, which includes an analysis of basic information, classroom facilities, and interactive processes. Other research has focused on constructing an analysis instrument to consider interactions from the perspective of the learning process. Henri (1992) [67][54] proposed an analytical model that emphasized five dimensions of the learning process in a computer-mediated communications (CMC) environment: these were participation, interaction, social, cognitive, and metacognitive. After examining this model and other studies, Sing and Khine (2006) [68][55] then concluded that the most commonly used interaction dimensions were participation, cognitive processing, and social interaction. Due to the variety of different contexts in which these instruments were developed, they cannot be used to analyse the quality of interactions in university Smart Classrooms without alteration, however. FSIA and CLASS do not include sufficient indicators of SS interaction, as they are mainly aimed at evaluating ST interactions, while CLASS is most appropriate for early childhood education. Similarly, the instruments proposed by Henri, and Sing and Khine are predominantly used to evaluate interactions in distance education, rather than prioritizing face-to-face interactions, while ITIAS, TBAS, and SCIAS are largely used in primary and secondary schools and also do not focus on the quality of interactions. As a result, based on the research above, a novel framework adapted to university classroom interaction assessment needs to be developed.

References

  1. International Commission on the Futures of Education. Reimagining Our Futures Together: A New Social Contract for Education, 1st ed.; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Paris, France, 2021; pp. 1–6.
  2. The Definition and Selection of Key Competencies: Executive Summary. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367 (accessed on 31 October 2023).
  3. Burbules, N.C.; Fan, G.; Repp, P. Five trends of education and technology in a sustainable future. Geogr. Sustain. 2020, 1, 93–97.
  4. Lin, C. Modern Educational Technology Teaching Reform in the Internet Era, 1st ed.; China Books Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2019; pp. 27–32.
  5. Lamb, A.J.; Weiner, J.M. Technology as Infrastructure for Change: District Leader Understandings of 1:1 Educational Technology Initiatives and Educational Change. J. Educ. Admin. 2021, 59, 335–351.
  6. Sergeeva, M.G.; Yulina, G.N.; Lukashenko, D.V.; Egorova, L.A.; Bazarov, P.R. Promising Educational Technologies for Professional Training. J. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 8, e691.
  7. Selim, H.M.; Eid, R.; Agag, G. Understanding the role of technological factors and external pressures in Smart Classroom adoption. Educ. Train. 2020, 52, 1–28.
  8. Niemeyer, D. Hard Faction on Smart Classroom Design: Ideas, Guidelines, and Layouts. Available online: http://rowman.com/ISBN/9780810843592 (accessed on 31 October 2023).
  9. Social Behaviors and Learning in Smart Communities. Preface of the Special Issue International Journal of Interaction Design & Architecture(s). Available online: http://hal.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/hal-01226347 (accessed on 31 October 2023).
  10. Zhan, Z.; Wu, Q.; Lin, Z.; Cai, J. Smart Classroom environments affect teacher-student interaction: Evidence from a behavioural sequence analysis. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 37, 96–109.
  11. MacLeod, J.; Yang, H.H.; Zhu, S.; Li, Y. Understanding students’ preferences toward the Smart Classroom learning environment: Development and validation of an instrument. Comput. Educ. 2018, 122, 80–91.
  12. Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes; Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., Souberman, E., Eds.; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978; pp. 1–14.
  13. Yau, S.S.; Gupta, S.; Karim, F.; Ahamed, S.I.; Wang, Y.; Wang, B. Smart Classroom: Enhancing collaborative learning using pervasive computing technology. In Proceedings of the 2003 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Nashville, TN, USA, 22 June 2003; Available online: https://peer.asee.org/12230 (accessed on 31 October 2023).
  14. Yu, H.; Shi, G.; Li, J.; Yang, J. Analyzing the Differences of Interaction and Engagement in a Smart Classroom and a Traditional Classroom. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8184.
  15. Yuan, Y. Quantitative analysis of Chinese classroom teaching activity under the background of artificial intelligence. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 27, 11161–11177.
  16. Garrison, D.R.; Arbaugh, J.B. Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet High. Educ. 2007, 10, 157–172.
  17. Huang, R.; Hu, Y.; Yang, J.; Xiao, G. Concept and Characteristics of the Smart Classroom. J. Open Educ. Res. 2012, 18, 22–27.
  18. Zhu, Z.; Xu, F.; Gao, X. Research on school intelligent classroom management system based on Internet of Things. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 166, 144–149.
  19. Saini, M.K.; Goel, N. How smart are Smart Classrooms? A review of Smart Classroom technologies. ACM Comput. Surv. 2020, 52, 1–28.
  20. Heron, M.; Dippold, D. Overview of classroom interaction: Definitions, models, practices and challenges. In Meaningful Teaching Interaction at the Internationalised University, 1st ed.; Dippold, D., Heron, M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; Chapter 1; pp. 3–12.
  21. Kaufmann, R.; Vallade, J.I. Exploring connections in the online learning environment: Student perceptions of rapport, climate, and loneliness. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 10, 1794–1808.
  22. Smith, F.; Hardman, F.; Higgins, S. The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. Br. Educ. Res. J. 2006, 32, 443–457.
  23. Manny-Ikan, E.; Dagan, O.; Tikochinski, T.; Zorman, R. Using the Interactive White Board in Teaching and Learning–An Evaluation of the Smart Classroom Pilot Project. Interdiscip. J. e-Ski. Lifelong Learning 2011, 7, 191–198.
  24. Hall, I.; Higgins, S. Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboards. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2005, 21, 102–117.
  25. Martin, S.F.; Shaw, E.L.; Daughenbaugh, L. Using smart boards and manipulatives in the elementary science classroom. Techtrends Tech. Trends 2014, 58, 90–96.
  26. Raman, A.; Don, Y.; Khalid, R.; Hussin, F.; Omar, M.S.; Ghani, M. Technology acceptance on Smart Board among teachers in Terengganu using UTAUT model. Asian J. Soc. Sci. 2014, 10, 84–91.
  27. Glover, D.; Miller, D.; Averis, D.; Door, V. The evolution of an effective pedagogy for teachers using the interactive whiteboard in mathematics and modern languages: An empirical analysis from the secondary sector. Learn. Media Technol. 2007, 32, 5–20.
  28. Caldwell, J. Clickers in the Large Classroom: Current Research and Best-Practice Tips. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 2007, 6, 9–20.
  29. Gauci, S.; Dantas, A.; Williams, D.; Kemm, R. Promoting student-centered active learning in lectures with a personal response system. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2009, 33, 60–71.
  30. Knight, J.K.; Wood, W.B. Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol. Educ. 2005, 4, 298–310.
  31. Sprague, W.E.; Dahl, D.W. Learning to click: An evaluation of the personal response system clicker technology in introductory marketing courses. J. Mark. Educ. 2010, 32, 93–103.
  32. Jones, C.; Connolly, M.; Gear, A.; Read, M. Group interactive learning with group process support technology. Brit. J. Educ. Technol. 2001, 32, 571–586.
  33. He, K.; Li, W. Educational Technology, 2nd ed.; Beijing Normal University Press: Beijing, China, 2009; p. 103. Available online: http://book.ucdrs.superlib.net/views/specific/2929/bookDetail.jsp?dxNumber=000006717835&d=DB7E88D3919BB92D573679FF7E74955C&fenlei=0705011207 (accessed on 31 October 2023).
  34. Lin, L. On the development of multimedia classrooms. Open Educ. Res. 2000, 5, 15–18.
  35. Wang, X.; Huang, R.; Wang, M. Analysis of interpersonal interaction in the primary and secondary smart classrooms. e-Educ. Res. 2016, 37, 111–116.
  36. Malik, N.; Shanwal, V.K. A comparative study of academic achievement of traditional classroom and Smart Classroom technology in relation to intelligence. Educ. Quest 2015, 6, 27–30.
  37. Dai, Z.; Sun, C.; Zhao, L.; Zhu, X. The Effect of Smart Classrooms on Project-Based Learning: A Study Based on Video Interaction Analysis. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2023, 3, 1–14.
  38. Mendini, M.; Peter, P.C. Research Note: The Role of Smart Versus Traditional Classrooms on Students’ Engagement. MER 2019, 29, 17–23.
  39. Jian, H.-S.; Hong, L. Explore the effective use of multimedia technology in college physics teaching. Energy Procedia 2012, 17, 1897–1900.
  40. Zhang, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Bai, Q.; Li, X.; Zhu, Y. Study on interactive behavior characteristics of primary school mathematics teaching in Smart Classroom environment. e-Educ. Res. 2016, 6, 43–48.
  41. Zhan, Z.; Wu, Q.; He, W.; Cheng, S.; Lu, J.; Han, Y. K12 teacher-student interaction patterns in the Smart Classrooms. Int. J. Innov. Learn. 2021, 29, 267–286.
  42. Jo, J.; Lim, H. A Study on Effectiveness of Smart Classrooms Through Interaction Analysis. Adv. Sci. Lett. 2015, 21, 557–561.
  43. Chen, C.; Chang, Y.; Chien, Y.; Tijus, C.; Chang, C. Incorporating a Smart Classroom 2.0 Speech-Driven PowerPoint System (SDPPT) into university teaching. Smart Learn. Environ. 2015, 7, 2.
  44. Jiang, L.; Mao, Q.; Wan, Z. Research on the performance of classroom teaching reform in the Smart Classroom: An analysis based on classroom reaching behaviors. Chin. J. ICT Educ. 2018, 6, 52–58.
  45. Li, L.; Liang, W.; Xue, F. Analysis of the current situation of interactive teaching in Smart Classrooms: A case study of primary mathematics lessons. e-Educ. Res. 2018, 39, 115–121.
  46. Smith, F.; Hardman, F. Using computerised observation as a tool for capturing classroom interaction. Educ. Stud. 2003, 29, 39–47.
  47. Flanders, N. Intent, Action and Feedback: A Preparation for Teaching. J. Teach. Educ. 1963, 14, 251–260.
  48. Pianta, R.C.; Hamre, B.K.; Allen, J.P. Teacher-student relationships and engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 365–386.
  49. Johnson, D.W. Student-student interaction: The neglected variable in education. Educ. Res. 1981, 10, 5–10.
  50. Kumpulainen, K.; Wray, D. Classroom Interactions and Social Learning: From Theory to Practice, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 31–40.
  51. Hillman, D.C.; Willis, D.J.; Gunawardena, C.N. Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. Am. J. Distance Educ. 1994, 8, 30–42.
  52. Gu, X.; Wang, Y. Support teachers development with IT-based interaction analysis system in Class. China Educ. Tech. 2004, 7, 18–21.
  53. Mu, S.; Zuo, P. Research on the analysis method of classroom teaching behavior in information-based environment. e-Educ. Res. 2015, 36, 62–69.
  54. Henri, F. Computer conferencing and content analysis. In Collaborative Learning through Computer Conferencing: The Najaden Papers, 1st ed.; Kaye, A., Ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1992; pp. 117–136.
  55. Sing, C.C.; Khine, M.S. An analysis of interaction and participation patterns in online community. J. Educ. Tech. Soc. 2006, 9, 250–261.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback