Alfoudari 2021 - Computers Education

Computers & Education 173 (2021) 104282
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu
Understanding socio-technological challenges of smart classrooms

using a systematic review
Aisha M. Alfoudari *, Christopher M. Durugbo, Fairouz M. Aldhmour
Department of Innovation and Technology Management, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Smart classrooms are paradigm innovations for enhanced learning behavior in digital learning
Smart classroom environments. These environments offer benefits for inclusive and virtual learning, underscoring
Systematic review the need for assessments of current practices. Although research on smart classrooms propose
Socio-technological challenges
models and systems for enhancing socio-technological integration, knowledge on socio-
Technology-supported learning
technological challenges of smart classrooms remains limited. This article applies a systematic
review methodology in line with the PRISMA protocol and analyzes current social and techno
logical challenges based on 105 articles published between 2000 and 2019. The review identifies
social challenges that facilitate personalization for external factors and teaching methods, stim
ulate learner-oriented content, instructor, peer, and technology forms of engagement, and boost
interactivity depending on the willingness of learners and instructors. The review also finds
technological challenges that concern designing learning environments and integrating intelligent
systems, analytical tools and analysis, system models and ontology, and mobile and social media
applications. The review suggests areas for future research involving smart classroom design for
continuity and consistency, quality attributes of smart classrooms, efficiency and sustainability of
smart classroom infrastructure, and the development of a smart classroom modelling language.
1. Introduction
Everyday life remains progressively digitized and interconnected in terms of information and technology use, triggering an evo
lution in learning behavior. Noticeably, digital natives increasingly turn towards digital devices to enhance their learning (Barak,
2018), as older forms of communication become more marginalized in favor of smart technologies. While online and offline envi
ronments have for the most part evolved in leaps and bounds, the classroom is still a relatively traditionally configured space that is
limited in reflecting the evolution of society and culture. In response to this limitation, educators underscore trends towards ‘smart
classrooms’ as socio-technological solutions (Uskov, Bakken, & Pandey, 2015, pp. 3–14) for addressing the evolving needs of learners
and teachers. Smart classrooms are modern learning environments that integrate and use emerging technologies such as the Internet of
Things (IoT), wireless networks, mobile technology, and cloud computing (Huang, Su, & Pao, 2019). Yet, literature lacks a review that
systematically analyzes the existing social and technological challenges of smart classrooms. This paucity is the motivation for this
article.
This article analyses the state-of-the-art of literature on smart classrooms. The aim is to investigate social and technological
challenges of smart classroom research using a systematic approach, and to analyze research efforts aimed at confronting these
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: aishamdf@agu.edu.bh (A.M. Alfoudari).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104282
Received 15 June 2020; Received in revised form 3 July 2021; Accepted 5 July 2021
Available online 7 July 2021
0360-1315/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.M. Alfoudari et al. Computers & Education 173 (2021) 104282
challenges with a view to setting a research agenda for future studies. Although recent reviews of smart learning environments address
problems such as technology evaluation (Lai & Bower, 2019), student engagement (Schindler, Burkholder, Morad, & Marsh, 2017),
technology-supported peer assessment (Fu, Lin, & Hwang, 2019), and the use of smart boards (Mun & Abdullah, 2016, pp. 120–125),
literature is limited in capturing and presenting the range of underpinning socio-technological challenges of smart classrooms.
Accordingly, this review seeks to capture the range of socio-technological factors that researchers (e.g., Yang, Pan, Zhou, and Huang
(2018), Cebrián, Palau, and Mogas (2020), and Takawale and Kulkarni (2016)) consider significant for determining learning paths and
fostering equal opportunity within smart classrooms. These factors relate to the assumptions that technology use creates opportunities
to support individual and collaborative learning, and the notion that identifying socio-technological challenges facing smart class
rooms is vital to realizing the potential of smart classrooms, serves as the main premise for this review.
Theoretically, this review contributes to and advances knowledge regarding smart classroom systems in two ways. First, the review
shed light on the technological imperatives of smart classrooms, which offer support for the effective display of teaching content,
streamlined management of classrooms, and convenient access of learning resources (Aguilar, Valdiviezo, Cordero, & Sánchez, 2015,
pp. 471–477; Yang et al., 2018). Furthermore, there is evidence that smart classrooms, based on well-researched principles, could
facilitate easy transitions to distance and virtual learning (Munawar, Toor, Aslam, & Hamid, 2018). Rapid developments in virtual
technologies with prospects for virtual learning continue to show immense potential for future growth (Lee, Lee, & Park, 2013), further
underscoring the importance of this smart classroom review. Second, the social dimensions of this study add to the discourse on in
clusive and supportive learning, which seeks to incorporate diverse learners with different educational needs (Chaudhary, Agrawal, &
Jharia, 2014; Kim, Soyata, & Behnagh, 2018). In this context, the application of smart classroom technology and its integration with
digital learning platforms promises a high degree of adaptation and improvements in the educational experience for those with varied
educational needs (Bakken, Uskov, Penumatsa, & Doddapaneni, 2016, pp. 15–27; Uskov et al., 2015, pp. 3–14). The suggestion is that
educators could harness insights from the review on complexities associated with the social interaction and technology applications for
enhanced management of technology and inclusivity in education.
Practically, transformational changes towards smart classrooms hinge on readiness assessments that facilitate effective technology
use and this review fills gaps in knowledge on the main constructs demanded of such changes. In the context of current research
addressing readiness through evaluations and assessment of requirements for smart classrooms (Cebrián et al., 2020; Lai & Bower,
2019; MacLeod, Yang, Zhu, & Li, 2018; Mohamed & Lamia, 2018; Zhu, 2020, pp. 363–369), this review sheds the spotlight on existing
measures needed to counter challenges identified in previous studies. Furthermore, smart classrooms as learning environments add
value to education by affording learners with personalized, intelligent, and adaptive learning settings. These learning environments
aid in reducing the cognitive load of students, and enhancing ontological construction and sense making among learners (Al-Qirim,
2011). Additionally, emerging gaps in existing literature could serve as the basis for improving prompt decision making and learning in
flexible and technology-supported interactive environments (Mohamed & Lamia, 2018; Zhu, 2020, pp. 363–369). Although evidence
in favor of the teaching and learning benefits of smart classrooms is overwhelmingly positive, studies such as Ekşi and Yeşilyurt (2018)
show that several schools lack these capabilities due to limited funds and investment. Consequently, there is a need to uncover op
portunities for more economical designs for smart classrooms. This is because technology-inspired reconfiguration of schools and
classrooms is inevitable, and educators will have to confront new challenges that accompany the ubiquitous use of mobile devices and
continued growth and evolution of the smart classroom concept.
For this review, the interest is on identifying social and technological challenges associated with smart classrooms through
analyzing the objectives, methodologies, theories, and domains of existing research on smart classrooms. Using insights from the
review, this article also intends to shed light on potential future trends for multi-disciplinary and multi-faceted development of smart
classrooms. The intention is to advance the field by uncovering new areas for future research. Thus, the research questions guiding this
review are:
RQ1. What social challenges influence how smart classrooms are developed?
RQ2. How do smart classroom studies address technological challenges between learners and instructors?
The remainder of the review proceeds as follows. Section 2 provides a definition of smart classroom; Section 3 introduces the review
methodology while Section 4 and 5 identify the factors of the smart classroom both social and technological. Section 6 outlines some
possible ideas for future research on smart classrooms.
1.1. Smart classrooms: A definition
Due to increasing sophistication of learning environments, the definition of a smart classroom has evolved over time in the
literature. For a start, Uskov et al. (2015, pp. 3–14) note that the definition had its first phase between 2001 and 2007, and essentially
involved delineating smart classrooms as traditional face-to-face learning with technological enhancements of the Internet and a
central viewing screen. The second phase, i.e., 2008 to the current time, incorporates mobile devices and analytics for more interactive
classroom styles. Aguilar et al. (2018; p. 693) provide an inclusive definition that reflects this phase suggesting that smart classrooms
take advantage of “different technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), ubiquitous, and cloud paradigms, among others, in order
to improve the learning process”. Although varied definitions exist for smart classrooms (Abdel-Basset, 2019; Mathioudakis et al.,
2014), there is a scholarly consensus that modern smart classrooms are managed digital environments where numerous tasks (e.g.,
teaching, discussion, and evaluation) can take place, assisted (and never hindered) by technology for seamless learning experiences
(Yang, 2015).
2
Underpinning several definitions for smart classrooms are technical and technology-based conceptualizations proposed within
studies. For instance, Kalaiselvi and Jayashri (2017) consider smart classrooms as a technology-supported learning environment,
Radosavljevic, Radosavljevic, and Jelic (2019) emphasize the use of an intelligent environment, and Zheng, Yang, Feng, Fu, and Shi
(2019) posit on the incorporation and integration of intelligent teaching, learning, and living environments. Li, Yang, and MacLeod
(2018), Aguilar, Buendia, Pinto, and Gutiérrez (2019), Krummheuer, Rehm, Lund, and Nielsen (2018), Oommen (2012), Cho, Park,
Nam, Ahn, and Lee (2012), Mir and Abdou (2005), and Thomas, Parsons, and Whitcombe (2018) consider smart classrooms as formed
based on the technical incorporation of any kind of technology in the learning process. Similarly, MacLeod et al. (2018) and Pingxiao
(2017) specify smart classrooms as physical classrooms integrating educational technologies that increase instructors’ ability to
facilitate students’ learning. Examples of educational technologies include computers, screens, laptop connectors, specialized soft
ware, assistive devices, IoT, and context-aware computing (Huang et al., 2019; Mendini & Peter, 2018; Temkar et al., 2016). There are
also technical specifications to include 3G and 4G for a classroom to be considered smart (Alelaiwi et al., 2015), which support the
depiction of smart classrooms as complete technical systems that utilize intelligent equipment, situational awareness technology,
high-speed mobile Internet, and monitoring facilities of energy network for enhancing overall campus security (Zheng et al., 2019).
These viewpoints suggest that the presence of technology is a constant tenet in most definitions, with focus on users such as instructors
and learners.
Another factor in conceptualizing and defining smart classrooms is the vital role of technological advances. Original conceptu
alizations of smart classrooms tended to focus on interactive whiteboards as centerpieces for smart classrooms (Blau, 2011; Yildirim,
2016). However, this idea has evolved vastly to consider connectivity between devices (Timms, 2016) and collaboration between
learners (Lui, Tissenbaum, & Slotta, 2011). These changing potentials serve as the impetus for educators portraying and arguing for the
smart classroom as a fulcrum for distance learning, something truly relevant in the era of online learning (Pishva & Nishantha, 2008).
For some educators (Augusto, 2009; Bakken et al., 2016, pp. 15–27), the focus is on analytics and smart objects such as those involved
in ambient intelligence, as learning enhancing parameters. Other scholars highlight smart classroom as a conceptual learning envi
ronment rather than the mere physical space. This focus offers prospects for scalable learning in a space that “employs learning analytic
techniques to allow students’ physical interactions and spatial positioning” (Slotta, Tissenbaum, & Lui, 2013, pp. 270–274, p. 271). For
some authors such as Lui et al. (2011), the focus is on spaces that are inherently collaborative, and the concept of smart classroom
entails “new forms of learning, where students collaborate within their classroom or across multiple classrooms” (p. 430). Thus, the
connectivity attributed to technological advancements creates opportunities for smart classroom to enrich teaching and learning.
Furthermore, evidence suggests that technological advances for smart classrooms continue to attract the attention of researchers with
evidence suggesting exponential increases in related-research publications, as shown by Fig. 1. This trend mirrors insights suggesting
positive links between smart classroom use and improved outcomes (Lui & Slotta, 2014; Sevindik, 2010), positive attitudes (Oommen,
2012; Young, 2009), inquiry designs (Slotta et al., 2013, pp. 270–274) and information clarity (Davidovitch & Yavich, 2017) for
learners. Others such as Yang et al. (2018) and Naidu, Singh, Hasan, and Hadrami (2017) suggest smart classrooms offer notable
benefits to learners over traditional, non-digitized classrooms. These generally positive results stem from current technological
classroom investment, which is expected to still rise in the future.
Literature also contains social- and pedagogical-based conceptualizations for smart classrooms. For instance, Li et al. (2018) posit
on smart classrooms as a way of improving learners’ socialization and achievement. Dai (2019) proposes the utilization of optimal
knowledge attained through teaching content, convenient acquisition of learning resources, and deep interaction during classroom
teaching, Di, Danxia, and Chun (2019) consider smart classrooms as avenues for enhanced higher-order thinking, while Li, Yang,
MacLeod, and Dai (2019) suggest that smart classrooms offer paths for increasing active learning processes while emphasizing flex
ibility for different types of instructional delivery. Bautista and Borges (2013) present a socio-technological imperative for smart
classrooms as environments that facilitate “collaborative learning, project-based learning, curricular globalization, students’ auton
omy, and educational co-responsibility” (p. 19). Other framings rooted in social and pedagogical considerations include support for
Fig. 1. Trend in smart classroom research (Source: Scopus).
3
interactive content and suggestions (Temdee, 2019), and learning experiences in social constructs (Papadakis, Tsalera, & Samarakou,
2019).
Considering these different existing technological, technical, analytical, interactive, social, and pedagogical conceptualizations,
this review puts forward the following definition:
A smart classroom is a learning environment that technically integrates intelligent technologies and analytically facilitates
collaborative spaces for socially enhanced learning pedagogies and higher-order thinking to optimize content presentation, convenient
access of learning resources, interactivity of teaching and learning, and classroom layout and management.
Informed by the proposed definition, this review highlights socio-technological aspects of smart classrooms that facilitate their
effective use and practice. The focus of this review is on smart classroom as a learning space that is growing every day in relevance and
importance in the ambit of education (Li, Feng, Zhou, & Shi, 2009). This space incorporates smart devices, data analysis, and modeling
with the integration of data across platforms and devices, and with prospects for creative and innovative learning behavior. Thus, the
rationale for this review is that a future research agenda drawing on current socio-technological challenges in research can contribute
to a better technological, technical, analytical, interactive, social, and pedagogical understanding of smart classrooms as learning
spaces.
2. Methodology
This article adopts a systematic review methodology (Randolph, 2009) that involves formulating specific questions and stages of
identification, selection, and critical appraisal of available research studies. Thus, systematic reviews prioritize equality, coverage, and
accessibility when conducting data analyses, over multiple grey literature, and databases, to ensure the reproducibility and replica
bility of results in subsequent studies. Accordingly, systematic reviews require well-thought-out strategies for searching relevant data
sources with primary foci on defining and answering the research questions. Ultimately, the researcher identifies various forms of
information for eventual critique within a defined framework (Grant & Booth, 2009). Thus, research strategies, review terms, and
limitations are central to the systematic literature review.
Adopting a defined plan or protocol is a key feature of the systematic review methodology (Pittway, 2007), and this review applies
the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol (Moher et al., 2015; Shamseer et al.,
2015), which provides guidelines for reporting systematic reviews. Appendix I shows the PRISMA checklist for the review containing
10 unchanged items, 6 added items, 1 modified item, and 9 omitted items. This review involves three phases: selection, evaluation, and
synthesis. Studies (e.g., Scott et al. (2019)) show that these main phases follow the identification of study objectives and questions, and
that the methodical nature of these stages is in keeping with the systematic review methodology (Pittway, 2007; Randolph, 2009). This
systematic approach was necessary for synthesizing the existing evidence on the socio-technological aspects of smart classrooms. The
systematic review process as shown by Fig. 2 focuses the review on theoretical and empirical research articles on smart classrooms and
Fig. 2. Review flowchart showing (a) overall review process, and (b) process for selecting, screening, and filtering review sources.
4
Table 1
Overview of methodologies in reviewed articles.
Methodology Overview References
Questionnaire Using surveys to collect data about smart classrooms and to gain Li et al. (2018),
information and insights on smart classroom situations and Alghamdi and
acceptance Altameem (2019), Di
et al. (2019),
Papadakis et al.
(2019), Sardinha,
Almeida, and Barbas
(2017),
Leekitchwatana and
Pimdee (2017),
Oommen (2012),
Schick (2005).
Case study Exploring smart classroom phenomena and concepts Wang, Li, and Li
(2019), Dutta, Roy,
and Chowdhury
(2018), Godlewska
et al. (2019),
Radosavljevic et al.
(2019), Dai (2019),
Saraubon (2019),
Tlili et al. (2019),
Cheong et al. (2019),
Sánchez, Aguilar,
and Exposito (2018),
Aguilar, Cordero,
and Buendía (2017),
Aguilar, Sánchez,
et al., 2017,
MacLeod et al.
(2018), Yu and Qi
(2018),
Chamba-Eras and
Aguilar (2017),
Uzelac, Gligoric, and
Krco (2015),
Al-Qirim (2011),
Sevindik (2010),
Bose (2003),
Ojedokun (2003),
Peled (2000).
System analysis Developing systems and system models for smart classrooms Delfin, Reddy,
Sharma, and Nair
(2019), Chatti and
Muslim (2019),
Zheng et al. (2019),
Uzelac, Gligorić, and
Krčo (2017), Kim
et al. (2018),
Kalaiselvi and
Jayashri (2017),
Said and Albagory
(2016), Chan,
Othman, and Abdul
Razak (2017), Zhang
(2016), Lee (2015),
Shi, Xie, Xu, Shi,
et al. (2003).
Multi-methodology Using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to Kim (2018), Dong
study smart classrooms. et al. (2019), Gupta,
Ashwin, and Guddeti
(2019), Anil and
Moiz (2019),
Thomas et al. (2018),
Huang et al. (2019),
Chauhan, Goswami,
and Patel (2019),
Hasan et al. (2019),
Mendini and Peter
(continued on next page)
5
Table 1 (continued )
(2018), Aguilar et al.

(2019), Temdee
(2019), Wogu et al.
(2019), Khan et al.
(2019), Dos Santos
(2019), Koulocheri
and Xenos (2019),
Vasanthapriyan and
Randima (2019), Li
et al. (2019),
Aldulaimi, Kadhim,
and Alfaras (2018),
Ghaem Sigarchian
et al. (2017),
Thiyagarajan,
Senthilkumar, and
Karthikeyan (2018),
Miraoui (2018),
Väljataga and Mettis
(2018), Cheong and
Koh (2018), Tlili,
Essalmi, Jemni,
Kinshuk, and Chen
(2018),
Krummheuer et al.
(2018), Munawar
et al. (2018),
Benakli, Kostadinov,
Satyanarayana, and
Singh (2016),
Pirahandeh and Kim
(2015), Choi and Suk
(2016), Pingxiao
(2017), Jo and Lim
(2015), Gligoric,
Uzelac, Krco,
Kovacevic, and
Nikodijevic (2015),
Kumara,
Wattanachote,
Battulga, Shih, and
Hwang (2015),
Gaeta, Gaeta,
Guarino, and
Miranda (2015),
Terziyan,
Golovianko, and
Shevchenko (2014),
Chunyan, Yulian,
and Zhimei (2014),
Park and Hyun
(2014), Lui and
Slotta (2013),
Mathioudakis et al.
(2014), Shen, Wu,
and Lee (2014), Lee
and Cho (2013), Han
and Youn (2013),
Cho et al. (2012),
Leonidis, Margetis,
Antona, and
Stephanidis (2010),
Suo, Miyata,
Morikawa, Ishida,
and Shi (2009), Li
et al. (2009), Wang
(2008), Qin, Shi, and
Suo (2007), Snow,
Pullen, and
6
McAndrews (2005),
Mir and Abdou
(2005), Shi, Xie, Xu,
Shi, et al. (2003),
Yau, Wang, and
Karim (2002), Sun
(2016), Zhou (2016),
Hwang, Yun, Park,
and Moon (2016),
Jou and Wang
(2019), Capuano and
Toti (2018), Lin
(2018), Alelaiwi
et al. (2015).
Other methods Using non-conventional approaches to study smart classroom Tissenbaum and
such as design studies, prototype model integration, monitoring Slotta (2019), Rao,
learning processes, observation studies, ex-post factor method, Iskandar, and
Derrida’s critical method, analytical interviews, primary Mokhtar (2019),
experiments, co-design methods, and holarchy methodology Ouf, Abd Ellatif,
(multilevel group hierarchy). Salama, and Helmy
(2016), Kinshuk,
Chen, Cheng, and
Chew (2016), Timms
(2016), Rajesh and
Reena (2015),
Bautista and Borges
(2013).
smart learning environment. Following these phases, the researcher sifts through the literature before appraising and combining the
findings reported by previous researchers (Foltýnek, Meuschke, & Gipp, 2019).
2.1. Selection phase
The selection phase involves formulating keywords depending on the topic of interest. This phase involves interchanging words to
expand the search base for the topic as noted by Dewett and Jones (2001). The keywords for this systematic review are, “smart
classroom”, “smart class room”, and “smart learning environment”. These keywords represent the main terms applicable in this study.
This phase adopts Scopus, a widely accepted search engine database (accessible at www.scopus.com) and applies the previously
formulated search strings as keywords to search for and identify sources.
2.2. Evaluation phase
The evaluation phase entails screening returned results for context and relevance. Screening and selection for the review focuses on
peer-reviewed journal publications in line with related reviews and content related to the topic of interest. Inclusion criteria was set as
a peer-reviewed article in the English language published from January 2000 to December 2019. The evaluation also ensures the
included studies are relevant to the search terms and study context. The exclusion criteria apply to studies in journal articles that do not
involve smart classroom research explicitly e.g., studies that mention smart classrooms as a side topic and those that do not discuss or
explore details of smart classrooms. This phase also excludes studies failing to meet the set inclusion criteria. Due to the scope, the
review excludes opinion pieces, commentaries, editorials, discussions, papers, and presentations without associated papers.
Screening of titles, abstracts, and contents enable this phase to refine and reduce the results from 1328 to 105 articles. Main
publication outlets contained in the review include Computers & Education, Computers in Human Behavior, Interactive Learning Envi
ronments, IEEE Access, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Telematics and Informatics, IEEE Pervasive Computing, and
Instructional Science. Methodologies in the sources, as shown in Table 1, include surveys, case studies, system analysis, multi-
methodologies, and other studies such as experimentations and co-design methods.
2.3. Synthesis phase
The synthesis phase involves analyzing the 105 selected sources to extract relevant information concerning smart classrooms. For
the analysis, the interest was specifically on socio-technological challenges and the contexts for these challenges within studies, in line
with the research questions. Here, the process involved examining the different aspects of the gathered studies such as the study design,
smart classroom terms used, the timing of data collection, theory, intervention type, intervention recipient, and target outcomes. The
motivation for the analysis was to offer contexts for the identified themes and to understand the scope of current research. For the
7
Table 2
Overview of themes and concepts of technological challenges within reviewed studies.
Themes Concepts Overview Technology focus References
Designing Technological Bolstering acceptance, Prescription guideline for Peled (2000), Cheong and Koh
learning affordance implementation, and execution of integration, interfacing, diagnosis (2018), Benakli et al. (2016), Lin
environments technology through focus on smart learning, and ontology-driven (2018), and Terziyan et al. (2014).
affordances for digital ecosystem
Using smart tools Using technological tools to Hydra simulation suite, Audience Yu and Qi (2018), Dong et al. (2019),
personalize and customize learning Response System, beacon Saraubon (2019), Dai (2019), and
environments technology, fingerprint recognition, Al-Qirim (2011).
smartboards and whiteboard
technologies, Internet-of-Things,
and mobile technologies.
Functioning e- Redesigning, applying, and WebCT, TORM, AMTM, and Ojedokun (2003) and Shi, Xie, Xu,
learning tools evaluating fully functioning e- SameView Software Shi, et al. (2003).
learning tools
Novelty and Developing novel smart classroom EPUB 3-based, Hybrid e-TextBook, Ghaem Sigarchian et al. (2017) and
paradigms concepts and the e-Learning lab Bose (2003).
Developing designs that merge Smart Learning environment (SLE), Thomas et al. (2018), Chauhan et al.
learning environments Smart Virtual Interactive (2019), Snow et al. (2005), and
Environment for Work (SVIEW), Capuano and Toti (2018).
Media Repository and Delivery
System (LMRDS), Network
EducationWare (NEW), and “eJRM”
Cultural contexts Considering the underpinning Expert support, context -awareness, Gaeta et al. (2015), Li et al. (2019),
and individual contexts for learning by analyzing connectedness, & interactive Godlewska et al. (2019), Temdee
needs the underpinning rhetorical response (2019), Li et al. (2018), and Zhang
structure, learning spaces and (2016).
instructional responsibilities
Integrating Energy Developing a smart learning Protocols that automatically shut Pirahandeh and Kim (2015), Zheng
intelligent consumption environment for managing energy down to conserve energy, air et al. (2019), Thiyagarajan et al.
systems consumption and storage conditioning management, and (2018), and Radosavljevic et al.
interactive database systems using (2019).
AmR and QR codes
Security Securing learning environments and Fingerprint recognition, algorithmic Chauhan et al. (2019), Khan et al.
proposing biometric identification authentication mechanism, face (2019), and Lee (2015).
to detect and deter unauthentic and recognition, and Secure
false academic practices. authentication schemes for cloud
computing environments
Automation Incorporating intelligence to Completion time of courses, learning Miraoui (2018), Aguilar et al.
automate various processes within plans, attendance management, face (2019), Shen et al. (2014), Delfin
smart classrooms recognition, NFC, IoT integration, et al. (2019), Dutta et al. (2018),
electricity consumption control, Vasanthapriyan and Randima
joint attendance and energy control, (2019), Chan et al. (2017), and Khan
and real-time lightning conditions et al. (2019).
Intelligence Using multi-intelligence Monte Carlo simulations, network Cheong et al. (2019),
integration technologies that apply deep simulator in remote and virtual labs, Said and Albagory (2016), Lui and
learning and analysis for both real middleware integration, augmented Slotta (2013), Cho et al. (2012),
time information and emotion reality, machine learning, sound- Sánchez et al. (2018), Chamba-Eras
recognition absorbing material, gestures and and Aguilar (2017), Gligoric et al.
body movement, automatic (2015), Mir and Abdou (2005),
attendance system (Radio Frequency Kumara et al. (2015), Chunyan et al.
Identification (RFID) attendance), (2014), Chan et al. (2017),
(WSN Energy Saving System), Mathioudakis et al. (2014), Timms
emotionally aware (emotion (2016), Leonidis et al. (2010),
recognition), context-aware, image Vasanthapriyan and Randima
comparison algorithms, streaming (2019), Kim (2018), Kim et al.
servers, task recognition, and learner (2018), Qin et al. (2007), Han and
personality modeling Youn (2013), Uzelac et al. (2017),
Delfin et al. (2019), Khan et al.
(2019), and Tlili et al. (2019).
Proposing system System design Developing fundamental Intelligent Electronic Laboratory (IE- Munawar et al. (2018), Anil and
models and architectures for smart classroom Laboratory) system, Dynamic Moiz (2019), Tissenbaum and Slotta
ontologies systems Individual Learning plan (DLPG), co- (2019), Huang et al. (2019), Dutta
design process team, context-aware et al. (2018), Kalaiselvi and Jayashri
smart classrooms, ubiquitous (2017), Ouf et al. (2016), and
computing environment, e-learning Krummheuer et al. (2018).
ecosystem frameworks, and smart
learning ecosystems.
Technology Pedagogical collaborative learning, Bautista and Borges (2013), Alelaiwi
integration students’ autonomy, educational co- et al. (2015), Alghamdi and
8
Themes Concepts Overview Technology focus References
Adopting deployment strategies responsibility, the use of 3G and 4G Altameem (2019), Rao et al. (2019),
that emerge from intersections technology, IoT and RFID, i- and Jou and Wang (2019).
between design and ergonomics classroom, and simulated learning.
Applying analytic Assessment and Assessing the determinants of smart Analytical tools (learning and Wang et al. (2019), Di et al. (2019),
tools and adoption classroom adoption and appraising networking analytics), hierarchical Chatti and Muslim (2019), Aguilar
analysis behavioral benefits linear models, Ex-post factor et al. (2019), Tlili et al. (2018),
method, Derrida’s critical method, Koulocheri and Xenos (2019),
Taguchi’s grey relational method, Leekitchwatana and Pimdee (2017),
facial expression, and Flanders’s Wogu et al. (2019), Thiyagarajan
Interaction Analysis. et al. (2018), Gupta et al. (2019), and
Jo and Lim (2015).
Measuring Using analytical approaches to Learner preferences derived from Aguilar et al., 2017, MacLeod et al.
Preferences assess and measure preferences experiments and surveys, measures (2018), Choi and Suk (2016), Jo and
toward smart classrooms and values captured by smart Lim (2015), Pingxiao (2017), Uzelac
devices, and literature-based et al. (2017), Kinshuk et al. (2016),
analysis of technologies. Schick (2005), and Wang (2008).
Supporting mobile Mobile and social Offering support for mobile and SMS software, APP and TCP server, Suo et al. (2009),
and social media social media application real-time mobile support, and color- Dos Santos (2019), Delfin et al.
media applications coded systems. (2019), Zheng et al. (2019), and Kim
applications (2018).
Intelligent mobile Integrating context-aware Context-aware computing, Huang et al. (2019), Dutta et al.
applications computing into mobile apps and NoiseSense, RFID, Learning Media (2018), Saraubon (2019), Lee and
technologies Repository and Delivery System Cho (2013), Hwang et al. (2016),
(LMRDS), Raspberry Pi 3B+, mobile Väljataga and Mettis (2018), and
devices, multi-modal and device- Gligoric et al. (2015).
independent mobile service, and
mobile device-based authoring tool.
Conceptual Proposing conceptual models for -Agent-based and context-aware Qin et al. (2007) and Yau et al.
models incorporating mobile technologies service for smart environment that (2002, pp. 233–238).
in smart classrooms integrates mobile technology and
adopts a formal context model.
-Modelling that integrates
probabilistic logic (FOPL) and web
ontology language (OWL)
ontologies.
-Situation-aware application
software that uses reconfigurable
context-sensitive middleware.
synthesis phase, the review mainly applies thematic analysis to evaluate, classify, and outline themes in the journal articles. Using
thematic analysis as part of the systematic review methodology enables researchers to discover information from qualitative data
(Clarke & Braun, 2016) and to develop deep understanding and insights into the gathered data. Insights from the gathered data inform
interpretations and investigators tend to correlate the frequency of a theme within a spectrum of content. This form of analysis
typically exhibits a substantial degree of intricacy and accuracy, which helps to ameliorate meaning for a research (Guest, MacQueen,
& Namey, 2012, pp. 3–20). The thematic analysis for this review entails data reduction in three distinct steps (Guest et al., 2012;
Nowell, Norris, White, & Moules, 2017): (i) reading the data repeatedly (twice for this review) for preparedness to identify possible
themes within the document and for familiarity with the data to gain deeper understanding of content (performed by the corre
sponding author), (ii) generating initial codes that reflect concepts related to the study questions (reviewed and done by the
co-authors), and (iii) creating the themes through marking different and relevant sentences along with rereading content to confirm
and contrast different themes (done by co-authors).
An assessment of the reliability and validity of developed themes (Herzog, Handke, & Hitters, 2019) follows the data reduction
steps and a fellow researcher was co-opted to help in reviewing the documents and comparing the developed themes. Using the
reduction and assessment steps, the synthesis phase clusters and outlines the findings into social and technological challenges, fol
lowed by discussions on a set of recommendations for future research.
The evaluation phase also considers threats to internal validity i.e., the degree to which the design and execution of the study
prevents systematic errors. For this review, specifying inclusion and exclusion criteria a priori assists in mitigating the threat. Here,
threats exist due to the unique definition adopted for smart classroom, which influences the perspective for the study and the time
frame of the review, which was limited to the period between 2000 and 2019. However, it is worth noting that within this period,
significant changes occurred in the development of smart classrooms. Thus, these studies reflect different experiences, and these
differences tend to influence the outcomes of this study. The study also considers external validity mainly concerning the scope of this
review, which is restricted to peer-reviewed scientific articles. For this study, the threats involve potential gaps between research
findings and recommendations, and possible steps that could provide cues consciously or unconsciously during the selection of studies
and influence the outcomes of the review process. Thus, it is vital when interpreting the study findings to acknowledge the potential
impacts of these threats to validity. The next section discusses the findings from the articles.
9
3. Findings on social challenges for smart classrooms
This section presents the main social challenges confronted by smart classroom researchers. The challenges center on themes for
personalization, engagement, and interactivity in smart classrooms, as presented in the next subsections.
3.1. Personalization in smart classrooms
Digital technology promotes a new vision for learners based on a more personalized, dynamic, and knowledge-pull model rather
than a centralized, one-size-fits-all, knowledge-push model (Gros, 2016). Personalization of smart classroom relates to the automatic
structuring of learning paths to meet learners’ needs. The rationale behind personalization is to change the traditional approach of
teacher-centered teaching into a learner-centered perspective (Qaffas, Kaabi, Shadiev, & Essalmi, 2020). According to Paquette,
Mariño, Rogozan, and Léonard (2015), the addition of ‘smartness’ is a precursor to personalization because the integrated intelligent
technology updates learner profiles dynamically and recommends resources and activities with features that adapt scenarios to learner
profiles.
Personalization studies remain an area for continuous and incremental progress to enhance learning attitudes, teaching methods,
and external factors. Research themes concerning personalization for external factors represent efforts to create a convenient, healthy,
and safe living environment for teachers and students (Zheng et al., 2019). The interest in this area is three-fold: (i) studies to
personalize environmental conditions like temperature and light intensity (Choi & Suk, 2016; Vasanthapriyan & Randima, 2019), (ii)
investigations to conserve energy (Thiyagarajan et al., 2018; Vasanthapriyan & Randima, 2019; Zheng et al., 2019), and (iii) research
to create authentic and secure environments that promote self-learning and self-accountability (Lee, 2015; Ouf et al., 2016; Sevindik,
2010; Uzelac et al., 2015). These areas of studies for smart classroom changes strive for personalization by prioritizing environmental
conditions and making recommendations that improve convenience, health, and safety of teaching and learning environments.
Research on personalization for learning attitudes suggest potential benefits of linking specific learning attitudes, learning motiva
tions, and Internet attitudes directly and indirectly to higher-order thinking skills. These prospects spur researchers to stress self-
regulating learning (Munawar et al., 2018) according to personality profiles (e.g., extraversion, openness, and neuroticism) (Tlili
et al., 2019) and special needs (Aguilar et al., 2017), as part of personalized designs for smart classrooms. Other aspects of personalized
learning are based on incorporating concentration levels (Kim, 2018), personalizing activity completion (Anil & Moiz, 2019), assuring
fulfilment of the minimal study objectives through appropriate learning paths (Temdee, 2019), and supporting flexibility for e-learning
based on users’ personal timeframes (Park & Hyun, 2014). However, the premise for personalization varies with arguments for focus
on the needs of the students (Allawi et al., 2014), knowledge management suggestions (Kalaiselvi & Jayashri, 2017), digital artifacts
based on user profiles (Gaeta et al., 2015), AmI (Leonidis et al., 2010), and context-aware and adaptive preferences (Yau et al., 2002,
pp. 233–238). Some proposals for learner-driven personalization include customization of learning schedules (Cheong & Koh, 2018),
use of blogs (Aldulaimi et al., 2018), and control of the learning processes that involve selecting teachers, courses, assessment criteria,
and use of technology (Kinshuk et al., 2016). These different proposals motivate models for Future Classroom Learning Labs that
incorporate a multi-agent infrastructure with a learner-centric focus and support for instructors in adapting and transforming teaching
processes according to current and future learning needs (Li et al., 2009; Mathioudakis et al., 2014; Sardinha et al., 2017). Scholars also
posit that improvements for personalization depend on transparent sharing of experiences (Terziyan et al., 2014), indicators showing
levels of fatigue (Radosavljevic et al., 2019), user’s personal performance and interaction (Koulocheri & Xenos, 2019), personalized
learning activity cycles (Chatti & Muslim, 2019), insights of student trajectories (Aguilar et al., 2017), and personal tutoring re
quirements (Ojedokun, 2003). These research interests stem from the varied user motivations for participation in smart classrooms and
pose challenges for smart classroom designs to support evolving learning attitudes.
Investigations concerning personalization for teaching methods tend to focus on the adoption and implementation of different
teaching methods or modes of content delivery. Here, research interests vary with attention devoted to the practical use of technologies
such as mobile apps (e.g., Youxuepai (Wang et al. (2019)), multimedia platforms (Chunyan et al., 2014; Pingxiao, 2017),
machine-generated feedback (Kim et al., 2018), and storage management systems (Pirahandeh & Kim, 2015). There is also research
interest in monitoring systems that track levels of interest and student ratings, with adaptations to teaching modes based on ratings
(Gligoric et al., 2015). Conceptually, researcher offer additional suggestions for ontology-based approaches (Miraoui, 2018) and
methods driven by prior and previous knowledge (Capuano & Toti, 2018). Researchers within this sub-theme are keen to stress that
personalizing teaching methods makes it possible for teachers to harness the strengths and potential of each student (Bose, 2003) and
to encourage each student to engage in activities to discover, process, and apply new concepts (Godlewska et al., 2019). Although
varied in interests, research efforts within this sub-theme strive to offer alternatives that fulfil learner requirements and needs.
3.2. Engagement in smart classrooms
Engagement in smart classrooms is a social challenge related to the willingness of learners and instructors. This challenge ne
cessities a shift towards active learning (Saraubon, 2019), “doing things” (Godlewska et al., 2019), social and informal teaching
(Krummheuer et al., 2018), and free learning projects (Said & Albagory, 2016). Four learner-driven research sub-themes explain
progress in this area i.e., content, instructor, peer, and technology forms of engagement. The first sub-theme confronts challenges to
engage with learning content through improving the learning rate (Gupta et al., 2019) and enhancing learner contribution (Yu & Qi,
2018). The second sub-theme tackles challenges for learners to engage with instructors in new ways that foster effective and efficient
teaching approaches (Alghamdi & Altameem, 2019; Timms, 2016). Engaging other learners through peer-based communication,
10
collaboration, and cooperative learning (Dutta et al., 2018; Li et al., 2019; Pingxiao, 2017; Terziyan et al., 2014; Tissenbaum & Slotta,
2019) is the third sub-theme. Here, the emphasis is on peer-to-peer and instructor-to-learner interactions with suggestions for smart
classrooms to support the transparent sharing of experiences, harnessing and cultivating soft interpersonal, problem-solving, critical
thinking, and decision-making skills. Engaging technological platforms (Wogu et al., 2019) is the fourth sub-theme, with research
advocating for the use of intelligent tutoring systems (Lee & Cho, 2013), 3G and 4G technologies (Alelaiwi et al., 2015), and tech
nologies that harness techno-deterministic learning experiences (Väljataga & Mettis, 2018). The expectation being that such tech
nologies provide real-time feedback and immerse learners in interactive learning environments. Evidence from literature suggests that
multimedia engagement using videos achieves higher engagement, which in turn increases the motivation to learn among students
(Dos Santos, 2019; Snow et al., 2005). Although the research foci vary, the rationale for engagement revolves around higher flexibility,
lower cost, and synchronous participation in live digitally supported classes. Thus, technological interventions to promote engagement
strive for computational thinking through simulations (Benakli et al., 2016; Lui & Slotta, 2013), modifying attendance systems (Chan
et al., 2017), and applying learning analytics (Papadakis et al., 2019). Generally, research that addresses engagement, as a social
challenge for smart classrooms, emphasizes the need to understand and deliver designs that consider different interpersonal re
quirements for communication, collaboration, and cooperative learning.
3.3. Interactivity in smart classrooms
Interactivity enables information flow in smart classrooms and is a social challenge to attract and maintain interests in smart
classroom. This challenge prompts experience-based investigations of joyful learning experiences (Kumara et al., 2015), experience
exchanges (Al-Qirim, 2011), changing dynamics of student learning patterns (Rajesh & Reena, 2015), student and teacher partici
pation (Cho et al., 2012), teacher-student aptitudes (Zhang, 2016), and student talk and teacher lecture ratios (Jo & Lim, 2015).
Smart technologies enabling interactivity in traditional face-to-face settings involve interactive whiteboard technology (e.g.,
SMARTBoards) and classroom control software. Additionally, there are technologies that facilitate online interactivity through real-
time interactive virtual classrooms (Shi, Xie, Xu, Xiang, & Zhang, 2003; Suo et al., 2009) and interactive network teaching (Zhou,
2016) such as Network Education Ware (Snow et al., 2005). There are also developments for collaborative learning processes
(Chamba-Eras & Aguilar, 2017), analytics that harness the prospects of large data sets and complex features (Cheong et al., 2019; Khan
et al., 2019). Recognizing the increasing potential and popularity of multimedia user interfaces, researchers of interactivity as a social
challenge for smart classrooms, consider constructs that contribute to meaningful experiences of learners by identifying and studying
technologies and paradigms for the new levels of instructor-learner interactivity.
4. Findings on technological challenges for smart classrooms
The thematic analysis of the existing literature also reveals five themes that characterize the technological challenges facing smart
classroom practice: (i) designing learning environments, (ii) integrating intelligent systems, (iii) proposing system models and on
tologies, (iv) applying analytics tools and analysis, and (v) supporting mobile and social media applications. Table 2 presents the
themes and the concepts that relate to each technological challenge.
4.1. Designing learning environments
Designing, prototyping, and implementing learning environments is the main technological challenge for smart classroom
research. Studies in this theme tend to focus on providing comprehensive smart systems that support personalized learning,
authenticity, and interactivity, and provide further insights on technological affordances to bolster acceptance, implementation, and
execution of technology. However, achieving effective designs remains a work in progress, with researchers currently offering design
strategies that focus on integration (Peled, 2000), interfacing (Benakli et al., 2016; Cheong & Koh, 2018), smart learning diagnosis (Lin,
2018), and ontology-driven portals for digital ecosystem (Terziyan et al., 2014). Some studies such as Yu and Qi (2018), Dong et al.
(2019), Saraubon (2019), Dai (2019), and Al-Qirim (2011), prescribe design strategies for personalized and customized learning
environment using smart tools such as the Hydra simulation suite, Audience Response System, beacon technology, fingerprint
recognition, smartboards, and whiteboard technologies, Internet-of-Things, and mobile technologies. Other studies propose strategies
and guidelines in their redesigns, applications, and evaluations of fully functioning e-learning tools such as WebCT (Ojedokun, 2003),
TORM, AMTM, and SameView Software (Shi, Xie, Xu, Xiang, & Zhang, 2003). There are also studies with guidelines based on concepts
such as EPUB 3-based Hybrid e-TextBook (Ghaem Sigarchian et al., 2017) and the e-Learning lab (Bose, 2003). Generally, this topical
space within the literature, attempts to prescribe guidelines, propose smart tools, and detail functioning e-learning tools for smart
classrooms. Inevitably, this design challenge spawns second-order decisiveness challenges involving selection when considering design
alternatives, adaptation to specific needs of different learning environments, and innovation with training implications for new tools
and technologies.
Another focal point within this theme involves emerging design paradigms for smart classrooms such as Smart Learning Environ
ments (SLEs) (Thomas et al., 2018), Smart Virtual Interactive Environments for Work (SVIEW) (Chauhan et al., 2019), Learning Media
Repository and Delivery System (LMRDSs), Network Education Ware (NEW) (Snow et al., 2005) and “eJRM” using knowledge dis
covery and cognitive computing (Capuano & Toti, 2018). Researchers (e.g., Gaeta et al. (2015) and Li et al. (2019)) argue for the
underpinning of these paradigms with rhetorical structure theory to support the integration of learning spaces and the separation of
instructional responsibilities for individual needs and cultural contexts. Studies of smart classrooms also suggest expert for user
11
involvement (Godlewska et al., 2019), context-awareness (Temdee, 2019), connectedness (Li et al., 2018) and interactive response
(Zhang, 2016). Generally, technological advances in society tend to have corporate origins with prospects for further scientific
breakthroughs and commercialization. For educators, the design strategy challenge remains to identify, select, and adapt technologies
that suit learning environments. Other considerations in the literature center on incorporating technological and pedagogical models
to reflect instructor and learner characteristics.
4.2. Integrating intelligent systems
The next technological challenge involves developing and integrating intelligent systems in smart learning environments. In this
theme, the intelligence technologies considered include artificial intelligence (Timms, 2016), ambient intelligence (Leonidis et al.,
2010), and IoT and sensor technologies (Vasanthapriyan & Randima, 2019). Other intelligent technologies proposed for smart
classrooms include image comparison algorithms (Delfin et al., 2019), streaming servers (Khan et al., 2019), task recognition based on
deep learning (Khan et al., 2019) and learner personality modeling (Tlili et al., 2019). Incorporating these forms of intelligence aids in
developing emotionally aware classrooms using real-time deep learning-based emotion recognition (Kim, 2018; Kim et al., 2018),
context-aware intelligence applying probabilistic logic and web ontologies (Han & Youn, 2013; Qin et al., 2007), and feature
extraction that provides information in real-time (Uzelac et al., 2017).
Focusing on these technologies, some studies consider on intelligent automation for managing classrooms. Here, the research in
terests involve automation of classroom tasks such as completion time of courses (Miraoui, 2018), learning plans (Aguilar et al., 2019),
and attendance management (Delfin et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2014), typically using face recognition, NFC, and other functionalities.
Recent studies note that achieving high levels of automation increasingly requires IoT integration (Dutta et al., 2018). Closely con
nected are investigations for environmental intelligence that propose energy and storage management with protocols to shut down
automatically for energy conservation (Pirahandeh & Kim, 2015; Zheng et al., 2019), controls for power consumption (Chan et al.,
2017; Vasanthapriyan & Randima, 2019), and air conditioning management that set temperatures based on predicted levels of
dissatisfaction (Thiyagarajan et al., 2018). Advancements in intelligent systems with potentials for enhanced smart classrooms include
the integration of sound-absorbing material (Mir & Abdou, 2005), gestures and body movement (Chunyan et al., 2014; Kumara et al.,
2015), activity visualizers (Mathioudakis et al., 2014), and interactive database systems using Autonomous Mobile Robot (AmR) and
(Quick Response) QR codes that manage schedules and academic activities (Radosavljevic et al., 2019). The varied focuses in these
studies reflect the need for automation support the ambience of classrooms. Recognizing the importance of ambience, a study by Khan
et al. (2019) examined learners from different positions under different lighting conditions with cameras and computer system that
worked in real-time. Close inspection of the literature suggests support for automation remains the main priority for research involving
intelligent systems. The challenge lies in how to ensure intelligent systems lead to learning outcomes.
Security intelligence is another technological challenge within this theme targeting the biometric identification such as fingerprint
recognition applying algorithmic authentication mechanism (Chauhan et al., 2019) and facial recognition routines using
scale-invariant features (Khan et al., 2019). Secure authentication schemes for cloud computing environments also address sensitivity
and privacy concerns for smart learning environments (Lee, 2015). In general, technological challenges for security motivates re
searchers to highlight data security and protocols for detecting and deterring academic malpractice.
Due to opportunities for multi-level intelligence support, literature contains additional studies of integrated intelligence for smart
classrooms. Technological options offered for this challenge entail using Monte Carlo simulations (Cheong et al., 2019), network
simulators in remote and virtual labs (Cho et al., 2012; Lui & Slotta, 2013; Said & Albagory, 2016), middleware integration (Sánchez
et al., 2018), augmented reality adoption (Chamba-Eras & Aguilar, 2017), and machine learning (Gligoric et al., 2015).
4.3. Proposing system models and ontologies
System models for technologies remain fundamental for smart classrooms and serve as the premise for proposals such as the
Intelligent Electronic Laboratory (IE-Laboratory) system (Munawar et al., 2018) and Dynamic Individual Learning Plans (DLPGs) (Anil
& Moiz, 2019). Models of these smart classroom systems depend on a confluence of technical, structural, and pedagogical factors.
Typically, the extent to which technological artifacts include these factors influences the practical use and management of the smart
classroom.
In the literature, there are three main perspectives that propose smart classroom system models. The first perspective considers the
architecture for smart classrooms systems. For instance, Dutta et al. (2018) propose an architecture that involves slicing for better
understanding the structural data gathered from the application with lower levels of implementation details, and Huang et al. (2019)
suggest an architecture for building and running context-aware smart classrooms. Motivated by the need for an architectural
framework, Ouf et al. (2016) develop an e-learning ecosystem framework as the basis for personalizing learning objectives. The second
perspective ponders stages for smart classroom modelling and underscores the work by Krummheuer et al. (2018) where the proposal is
for smart learning systems focused on intellectual challenges through ‘quick and dirty’ observation techniques. Similarly, Tissenbaum
and Slotta (2019) detail stages for the progression of smart classroom from the basic conceptualization to a full-fledged learning
environment and underscores the importance of teachers being an integral part of the co-design process team. Th third perspective
weighs up the need for integration in models of smart classroom technologies and concepts. From a technology perspective, Alelaiwi
et al. (2015) highlight the need to integrate 3G and 4G technology in a smart class model, while Alghamdi and Altameem (2019)
suggested the importance of incorporating IoT and RFID in digitalization models for futuristic i-classroom. Conceptually, studies like
Bautista and Borges (2013) argue that ideas for smart classrooms are not only limited to innovation that integrate technological
12
artifacts into current practice. Rather, the authors suggest that the concepts for smart classrooms emerge at the intersections between
design and ergonomics, with recommendations that the design procedure requires pedagogical collaborative learning, students’ au
tonomy, educational co-responsibility. Similarly, Rao et al. (2019) conceptualize the development of various e-learning programs and
learning environments for interactive experiences the integrated new technologies and simulated learning. In acknowledging these
varied perspectives for smart classroom system models and ontologies, the main consideration is to ensure support for computing and
practical work assessments and implementations within increasingly ubiquitous computing environments (Jou & Wang, 2019;
Kalaiselvi & Jayashri, 2017).
4.4. Applying analytical tools and analysis
Applying analytical tools is a technological challenge for comparative analysis (Wang et al., 2019) and relationship testing (Di
et al., 2019) to assess determinants for smart classroom adoption and to appraise behavioral and structural benefits of smart class
rooms. Literature also contains analyses of metrics for smart devices (Uzelac et al., 2017), scenarios for pedagogical shifts to smart
learning environments (Kinshuk et al., 2016). There are also analytical frameworks for comparing traditional and smart classrooms (e.
g., Integrated Teaching and Learning and Flanders Interaction Analysis Category Systems (Jo & Lim, 2015)), historical analysis
(Schick, 2005), literature analysis of technologies (Wang, 2008) and analysis of different teaching methods on multimedia platforms
(Pingxiao, 2017). Some analytical tools used in research studies include learning analytics (Aguilar et al., 2019; Chatti & Muslim, 2019;
Tlili et al., 2018), networking analytics (Koulocheri & Xenos, 2019), hierarchical linear models (Leekitchwatana & Pimdee, 2017),
Ex-post factor and Derrida’s critical methods of analysis (Wogu et al., 2019), and Taguchi’s grey relational method (Thiyagarajan et al.,
2018). Literature also contains studies applying advanced analytical tools to monitor facial expressions for determining the interactivity
of students (Gupta et al., 2019) and using frameworks to compare traditional and smart classrooms (e.g., Integrated Teaching and
Learning and Flanders’s Interaction Analysis Category Systems (Jo & Lim, 2015).
Generally, this line of research analyzes and sheds the spotlight on variables and attributes of learners such as abilities and
characteristics. The application of analytic tools in smart classrooms remains a pertinent issue, and the extensive coverage in literature
reflects this trend. A notable feature among these studies is the tendency to use traditional classroom approaches as reference points for
assessing the impact of technology integration within smart classrooms, even though the traditional and smart classrooms should have
different pedagogical assessments.
4.5. Supporting mobile and social media applications
Another important technological challenge for smart classroom research centers on support for mobile (Suo et al., 2009) and social
media applications (Dos Santos, 2019). Proposed technical solutions for mobile applications include capabilities that remotely control
and monitor systems using SMS software (Delfin et al., 2019), use smart campus APP and TCP server to enhance the safety of campus
(Zheng et al., 2019), and identify concentration level of students in real-time based on a color-coded system (Kim, 2018). Other ap
plications of mobile apps and technologies include context-aware computing (Huang et al., 2019), NoiseSense integrated with RFID
(Dutta et al., 2018), and LMRDS (Saraubon, 2019) based on Raspberry Pi 3B+ and mobile devices. There are also specialized mobile
applications in smart classrooms involving the creation of multi-modal and device-independent mobile services using appropriate
mobile content and content negotiation functions (Lee & Cho, 2013) along with authoring tools that facilitate user-generated content
(Hwang et al., 2016). These applications leverage behavioral patterns (Väljataga & Mettis, 2018) for supporting student interaction
and attention (Gligoric et al., 2015). The ubiquitous nature of mobile devices provides an opportunity for smart classrooms to gain
traction in the educational sector.
In the literature, some scholars also propose conceptual models for incorporating mobile technologies in smart classrooms. For
instance, Qin et al. (2007) propose an agent-based context-aware service for smart environments that integrate mobile technology and
adopt a formal context model. The proposal applies probabilistic logic (FOPL) and web ontology language (OWL) ontologies, to suggest
a similar understanding of contexts for non-time-critical situations. Yau et al. (2002, pp. 233–238) propose a situation-aware appli
cation software using reconfigurable context-sensitive middleware with an illustration for a smart classroom. These models recognize
that smart devices are bound to pose challenges for the effectiveness of smart classrooms as focus shifts towards maximizing benefits
from supporting mobile and social media applications.
5. Summary of socio-technological challenges for smart classroom research
Effective use of smart classrooms ultimately depends on how these learning environments and spaces meet the needs of intended
users, i.e., instructors and learners. For educators, there are on-going and pertinent socio-technological challenges that determine
topical and critical factors for the assessment, implementation, acceptance of smart classrooms. From a social perspective, the review
identifies three main challenges. The first challenge for research involves the creation of intelligent and dynamic user profiles that
support personalization for external factors, learning attitudes, and teaching methods, while the second challenge entails deepening
knowledge on content-, instructor-, peer-, and technology-based engagement. The third challenge centers on proposing models of
interactivity that enhance the experiences of users.
From a technological perspective, the review pinpoints five challenges. The first and foremost challenge concerning designs for
learning environments requires paradigms and strategies for smart systems grounded on theory and technological affordances, while
the closely linked second challenge entails developing and intelligence for automation, environmental management, security, and
13
integration that achieves emotionally aware classrooms. For the third challenge involving the formulation of smart classroom system
models and ontologies, the focus is on proposing architectures, stages, and integration of technologies and concepts. The fourth
challenge pertains to difficulties in applying analytics, i.e., metrics and analytical tools, for delivering context-aware services, while the
fifth and final challenge involves the proposing technical solutions and conceptual models that support mobile and social media
applications.
6. Discussion on future research prospects
This section uses insights from the review to establish prospective methodological, analytical, and topical paths for future research.
Methodologically, existing studies apply approaches such as surveys, case studies, and observation studies. Thus, future research could
broaden the current methodological space by using methods such as ethnography, action research, focus groups, and experimental
interventions. Analytically, the review mainly involves investigations and studies of instructors and learners within the classroom,
written from a classroom perspective. This raises prospects for expanding the analytical space to include different stakeholders (e.g.,
administrators and adult learners) and institutional actors (e.g., ministerial, and governmental agencies). Future research could also
target broader socio-cultural and socio-economic contexts for smart technology use in classrooms. Topically, future studies could
broaden the current socio-technological discourse on smart classrooms by highlighting additional topical viewpoints that strategically
advance research, education, and practice. The following subsections detail these specific topics:
6.1. Smart classroom design for continuity or consistency
The first recommendation is for future research on smart classroom design for continuity and consistency (DFC2). Continuity in the
DFC2 context means the presence of a maintained flow within a smart classroom milieu (e.g., understanding monitoring, evaluating,
and improving student performance). Here, the challenge is to build on current work aimed at tackling different obstacles posed by
digital transitions to smart classrooms. In contrast, consistency means adherence to the set standards, patterns, structure, and attitudes
towards people or things, or achieving the same level of performance. Consistency is a challenge for pedagogical effectiveness that
ensures compatibility and relevance of a smart classroom design (Ouf et al., 2016) and for alignment with teaching aims and foci
considering technology changes (Brock & Curby, 2016). Consistency in the use of facial recognition, for instance, is an area of DFC2
that the literature (e.g., Khan et al. (2019)) highlights as important for further investigation. This review, therefore, challenges re
searchers to investigate and explore DFC2 practices that ease the integration of current and future smart technologies for innovative
classrooms. Such investigations could focus on student autonomy and lessons learnt from system and user errors to promote active,
intuitive, and supportive learning processes.
6.2. Smart classroom quality
Another recommendation is for future studies that focus on the quality of smart classrooms. Quality is a multi-faceted concept,
which over the years, has been described as attaining excellence through high standards, delivering value according to set conditions,
conformance to specifications and requirements, fitness for use, loss avoidance, and meeting and/or exceeding customers’ expecta
tions (Reeves & Bednar, 1994). For educators, quality refers to a central goal/outcome or to identifying specific indicators that reflect
desired inputs and outputs (Schindler, Puls-Elvidge, Welzant, & Crawford, 2015). Conventionally, quality in education is often
approached from the perspective of traditional classroom settings with the spotlight on quality of students, faculty credentials, aca
demic features, and administrative support (Akareem & Hossain, 2016; Haseena & Mohammed, 2015). However, the quality standards
for smart classrooms are likely to be higher than those of conventional classroom settings because the assessment is likely to factor in
the IT base supporting smart classroom. Quality, in this sense, considers the degree to which the smart classroom fulfills its intended
purpose of enhancing learning and teaching experience with minimal detractions/loss. Existing studies mostly focus on quality of
education and the bolstering role of latest and advanced technology (e.g., Naidu et al. (2017)). However, there are gaps in knowledge
on the quality of smart classrooms and such gaps require frameworks grounded on academically-sound pedagogy and theory. This
crucial aspect of smart classrooms requires investigations to ensure quality framework and metrics for learning environments and tools
such as IE-Laboratory, DLPG, WebCT, TORM, AMTM, SameView, SLE, SVIEW and LMRDS. Examples of potential research areas
include proposing quality assessment tools and investigating the social, technological, and pedagogical antecedents of smart classroom
quality with prospective path models for improved learning behavior and performance. Future studies may choose to compartmen
talize the quality of components or focus on more comprehensive quality dimensions within learning environments and tools. Other
research efforts may aim to create policies and strategies to systematize smart classroom vetting for integrated, effective, and efficient
learning structures that address the needs of students, teachers, and administrators.
6.3. Optimizing the efficiency and sustainability of smart classroom infrastructure
An area worth exploring concerns efficiency and sustainability principles required for high performance and environmentally-
friendly smart classroom infrastructure. Future smart classroom infrastructure is bound to include multiple resources that enhance
connectivity, monitoring, optimization, control, and automation of classroom systems. Thus, challenges are expected concerning
infrastructure availability, costs, coverage, security, scalability, power consumption, and scalability (Fraga-Lamas et al., 2019). As
Villegas-Ch, Molina-Enriquez, Chicaiza-Tamayo, Ortiz-Garcés, and Luján-Mora (2019) observe, the current emphasis on the high cost
14
of acquisition of technologies limits coverage on developing policies and applications that facilitate effective and efficient management
of energy resources. Smart grids are an example of solutions to optimize energy consumption efficiency by featuring seamless and
efficient connectivity between devices and the physical room itself (Pirahandeh & Kim, 2015). Barnes, Gindidis, and Phillipson (2018)
also report that by reducing the carbon footprint within the classroom setting, the entire society will benefit, and students will have a
more promising future. Yet, the review suggests limited studies focus on how to manage resources used in smart classroom more
sustainably. This offers potentially interesting areas for future research.
6.4. Towards a smart classroom modelling language
Review of literature highlights the need for future research on algorithms and paradigms that improve interfaces through studies
such as Chauhan et al. (2019), Capuano and Toti (2018), and Shi, Xie, Xu, Shi, et al. (2003). There are also calls (e.g., Dutta et al.
(2018)) for future research to bridge the data gap by introducing big data analytics to improve smart classroom learning frameworks.
In support of these efforts, this review proposes future research to develop working languages that address and unify discourse related
to smart classrooms. Efforts may center on current smart classroom research themes such as ontologies (Qin et al., 2007), structural
and functional models (Timms, 2016), and terminologies related to prototypes (Suo et al., 2009). Data analytics is projected to
significantly impact the concept of smart classrooms and support for this trend should serve as the focus for future research efforts.
Working languages for smooth communication that ensures all stakeholders understand concepts and ideas (Sanders, 2016, pp.
223–228) represent a potential future focal point for smart classroom research. Interests could involve capturing frequently used
terminologies and definitions, with the goal of standardizing these terms, identifying common and universally agreed-upon defini
tions, and analyzing the nuances of terms for common use within a smart classroom context. Prospects exist for investigations that
construct data dictionaries to support learning behaviors in smart classrooms. Additional research could concentrate on the generation
of personas, profiles, and algorithms that monitor the progress of using smart classrooms to support continuity and consistency.
Overall, this review recommends these future research directions to develop and refine frameworks for integrating technology in
increasingly interactive and productive smart classrooms. The outcome of such research endeavors may expectedly develop more
effective, efficient, sustainable, and intelligent classrooms with instructors and learners co-creating, co-producing, and co-contributing
to classroom protocols and practices – reinforcing active learning behavior.
7. Conclusions
Information technology continues to influence and transform learning behavior. Smart learning environments involve technologies
and systems that provide appropriate content and suggestions, interactively, and actively. However, the adoption, adaptation and use
of technology, requires an understanding of system requirements and challenges for learners and instructors. Considering these re
quirements, researchers posit on a wide range of instances for technology use and integration in a ‘smart classroom’ paradigm that
transforms traditional modes of teaching and learning behavior. Yet, there remain socio-technological challenges to capture smart
classroom dynamics and to address behavioral and personal learning needs with smart classrooms.
This article systematically reviews the smart classroom literature to capture the socio-technological challenges of current research
and to provide possible directions for future research. Two main research questions guide this review: ‘What social challenges in
fluence how smart classrooms are developed?’ (RQ1) and ‘How do smart classroom studies address technological challenges between
learners and instructors?’ (RQ2). For the first research question, the review identifies categories of personalization, engagement, and
interactivity challenges for smart classrooms. The personalization challenge involves: (i) personalization for external factors with
requirements concerning environmental conditions to improve convenience, health, and safety of teaching and learning environments,
(ii) personalization for learning attitudes to reflect the different evolving motivations of learners, and (iii) personalization for teaching
methods with alternatives that fulfil learner requirements and needs. The engagement challenges cover content, instructor, peer, and
technology forms of engagement as avenues for fulfilling interpersonal requirements for communication, collaboration, and coop
erative learning, while the interactivity challenge considers support for meaningful experiences during learning.
For the second research question, the review determines that studies on smart classrooms suggest the need to prioritize designing
learning environments and integrating intelligent systems, analytical tools and analysis, system models and ontology, and mobile and
social media applications.
In identifying the socio-technological challenges emerging in the existing literature on smart classrooms, this review recommends
the adoption of a trans-disciplinary perspective in designing and using digital devices more effectively to optimize teaching and
learning in smart classrooms. The findings of this review offer prospects to enhance the management of diverse student behaviors in
smart classrooms, and to support uninterrupted delivery of quality educational context in virtual and distance learning. However, this
review adopts a socio-technological perspective of smart classrooms, which limits the comprehensiveness of the review. Other po
tential dimensions for consideration include economic viewpoints based on cost-benefits analysis and cognitive aspects that shape
perception and task performance. Additionally, this review focuses on smart classroom research and is limited in considering the
policies and restrictions on proprietary systems that shape the implementation of smart classrooms. Thus, an awareness of these
limitations is important when assessing the findings of this review.
This review sets a future research agenda drawing on current socio-technological challenges. Specifically, the review proposes five
important directions for future studies. The first area concerns studies of design for continuity and consistency that hinge on models
that maintain flow within smart classrooms and practices that ease the integration of current and future smart technologies. The
second area, smart classroom quality, proposes research for quality assessment tools, policies, and strategies, and investigating
15
antecedents for smart classroom quality. The third research area is that of user-generated content and its role in instruction, with
specific interest in evaluation tools that assess the current usage of technology. The fourth area argues for improved management of
smart classroom resources with integrated efficiency and sustainability principles. The fifth area is for smart classroom modeling
languages or terminologies that address and unify discourse related to smart classrooms using data dictionaries, personas, profiles, and
algorithms.
In summary, evidence from current literature indicates that the smart classroom topic remains a subject of growing research and
importance for the near future. Trends suggest that as technology evolves, so will the concept of smart classrooms, and such that
evolution could continue to influence learning behavior well into the future. Therefore, the onus is on education research to harness
technological innovation continuously for confronting emerging and on-going pressing issues related to social interaction and tech
nology application in classrooms, with ramifications for inclusive and virtual learning.
Funding
This research has been supported by funding from the Civil Service Commission in Kuwait.
Credit author statement
Aisha M. Alfoudari: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, and Writing – review & editing., Christopher M.
Durugbo: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, and Project administration. Fairouz M. Aldhmour: Supervision,
and Project administration.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104282.
References
Abdel-Basset, M., Manogaran, G., Mohamed, M., & Rushdy, E. (2019). Internet of things in smart education environment: Supportive framework in the decision-
making process. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 31(10), e4515. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.4515
Aguilar, J., Buendia, O., Pinto, A., & Gutiérrez, J. (2019). Social learning analytics for determining learning styles in a smart classroom. Interactive Learning
Environments, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1651745
Aguilar, J., Cordero, J., & Buendía, O. (2017a). Specification of the autonomic cycles of learning analytic tasks for a smart classroom. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 56(6), 866–891.
Aguilar, J., Sánchez, M., Cordero, J., Valdiviezo-Díaz, P., Barba-Guamán, L., & Chamba-Eras, L. (2017b). Learning analytics tasks as services in smart classrooms.
Universal Access in the Information Society, 17(4), 693–709.
Aguilar, J., Sánchez, M., Cordero, J., Valdiviezo-Díaz, P., Barba-Guamán, L., & Chamba-Eras, L. (2018). Learning analytics tasks as services in smart classrooms.
Universal Access in the Information Society, 17(4), 693–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0525-0
Aguilar, J., Valdiviezo, P., Cordero, J., & Sánchez, M. (2015). Conceptual design of a smart classroom based on multiagent systems. Proceedings on the international
conference on artificial intelligence (ICAI). Athens: WorldComp.
Akareem, H. S., & Hossain, S. S. (2016). Determinants of education quality: What makes students’ perception different? Open Review of Educational Research, 3(1),
52–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2016.1155167
Al-Qirim, N. (2011). Determinants of interactive white board success in teaching in higher education institutions. Computers & Education, 56(3), 827–838. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.024
Aldulaimi, M., Kadhim, T., & Alfaras, M. (2018). Towards smart learning environments in Iraqi schools–existing infrastructure and challenges. International Journal of
Civil Engineering & Technology, 9(11), 1939–1951.
Alelaiwi, A., Alghamdi, A., Shorfuzzaman, M., Rawashdeh, M., Hossain, M. S., & Muhammad, G. (2015). Enhanced engineering education using smart class
environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 852–856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.061
Alghamdi, N., & Altameem, A. (2019). Constraints and reasons that prevent the implementation the smart classrooms at education in Saudi Arabia: South
governorates and villages. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 7(6), 899–901.
Anil, G., & Moiz, S. (2019). Personalized dynamic learning plan generator for smart learning environments. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8
(2), 6175–6180. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.b3806.078219
Augusto, J. C. (2009). Ambient intelligence: Opportunities and consequences of its use in smart classrooms. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and
Computer Sciences, 8(2), 53–63.
Bakken, J. P., Uskov, V. L., Penumatsa, A., & Doddapaneni, A. (2016). Smart universities, smart classrooms and students with disabilities. Smart education and e-
learning 2016. Cham: Springer.
Barak, M. (2018). Are digital natives open to change? Examining flexible thinking and resistance to change. Computers & Education, 121, 115–123.
Barnes, M., Gindidis, M., & Phillipson, S. (2018). Evidence-based learning and teaching: A look into Australian classrooms. Oxon; New York: Routledge.
Bautista, G., & Borges, F. (2013). Smart Classrooms: Innovation in formal learning spaces to transform learning experiences. IEEE Technical Committee on Learning
Technology, 15(3), 18–21.
Benakli, N., Kostadinov, B., Satyanarayana, A., & Singh, S. (2016). Introducing computational thinking through hands-on projects using R with applications to
calculus, probability and data analysis. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology, 48(3), 393–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0020739x.2016.1254296
Blau, I. (2011). [Chais] teachers for “smart classrooms”: The extent of implementation of an interactive whiteboard-based professional development program on
elementary teachers’ instructional practices. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7(1), 275–289.
Bose, K. (2003). An E-learning experience: A written analysis based on my experience in an e-learning pilot project. International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 4(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.151
Brock, L. L., & Curby, T. W. (2016). The role of children’s adaptability in classrooms characterized by low or high teacher emotional support consistency. School
Psychology Review, 45(2), 209–225. https://doi.org/10.1145/3365757
16
Capuano, N., & Toti, D. (2018). Experimentation of a smart learning system for law based on knowledge discovery and cognitive computing. Computers in Human
Behavior, 92, 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.034
Cebrián, G., Palau, R., & Mogas, J. (2020). The smart classroom as a means to the development of ESD methodologies. Sustainability, 12(7), 3010. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su12073010
Chamba-Eras, L., & Aguilar, J. (2017). Augmented reality in a smart classroom—case study: SaCI. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias Del Aprendizaje, 12(4),
165–172. https://doi.org/10.1109/rita.2017.2776419
Chan, E., Othman, M. A., & Abdul Razak, M. (2017). IoT based smart classroom system. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering, 9(3–9),
95–101. http://journal.utem.edu.my/index.php/jtec/article/view/3132.
Chatti, M. A., & Muslim, A. (2019). The PERLA framework: Blending personalization and learning analytics. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 20(1), 243–261. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i1.3936
Chaudhary, A., Agrawal, G., & Jharia, M. (2014). A Review on applications of smart class and E-Learning. International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Research, 2
(3), 77–80.
Chauhan, J., Goswami, P., & Patel, S. (2019). Cloud based smart virtual interactive environment for work in universities using IOT. International Journal of Innovative
Technology, 7(8), 250–258.
Cheong, K. H., & Koh, J. M. (2018). Integrated virtual laboratory in engineering mathematics education: Fourier theory. IEEE Access, 6, 58231–58243. https://doi.
org/10.1109/access.2018.2873815
Cheong, K. H., Koh, J. M., Yeo, D. J., Tan, Z. X., Boo, B. O. E., & Lee, G. Y. (2019). Paradoxical simulations to enhance education in mathematics. IEEE Access, 7,
17941–17950. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2019.2892742
Choi, K., & Suk, H.-J. (2016). Dynamic lighting system for the learning environment: Performance of elementary students. Optics Express, 24(10), A907. https://doi.
org/10.1364/oe.24.00a907
Cho, K., Park, S., Nam, D., Ahn, B., & Lee, J. (2012). An implementation of computer simulation-based smart learning system for higher education: Edison.
International Journal of Smart Home, 6(3), 91–98.
Chunyan, L., Yulian, Z., & Zhimei, X. (2014). Detecting human head and shoulders trajectory in a smart classroom. International Journal of Smart Home, 8(1), 293–302.
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2016). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
Dai, S. (2019). ARS interactive teaching mode for financial accounting course based on smart classroom. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning
(IJET), 14(3), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i03.10104
Davidovitch, N., & Yavich, R. (2017). The effect of smart boards on the cognition and motivation of students. Higher Education Studies, 7(1), 60–68.
Delfin, S., Reddy, R., Sharma, A., & Nair, R. (2019). Smart attendance monitoring system using cloud computing. International Journal of Recent Technology and
Engineering, 8, 2277–3878.
Dewett, T., & Jones, G. (2001). The role of information technology in the organization: A review, model, and assessment. Journal of Management Information Systems,
27(3), 313–346.
Di, W., Danxia, X., & Chun, L. (2019). The effects of learner factors on higher-order thinking in the smart classroom environment. Journal of Computers in Education, 6
(4), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00146-4
Dong, H. J., Abdulla, R., Selvaperumal, S. K., Duraikannan, S., Lakshmanan, R., & Abbas, M. K. (2019). Interactive on smart classroom system using beacon
technology. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 9(5), 4250. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijece.v9i5.pp4250-4257
Dos Santos, L. M. (2019). Science lessons for non-science university undergraduate students: An application of visual-only video teaching strategy. Journal of
Engineering and Applied Sciences, 14(1), 308–311.
Dutta, J., Roy, S., & Chowdhury, C. (2018). Unified framework for IoT and smartphone based different smart city related applications. Microsystem Technologies, 25(1),
83–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00542-018-3936-9
Ekşi, G. Y., & Yeşilyurt, Y. E. (2018). Stakeholders’ views about the FATIH project: Smart EFL classrooms. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(1), 360–376.
Foltýnek, T., Meuschke, N., & Gipp, B. (2019). Academic plagiarism detection: A systematic literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 52(6), 1–42.
Fraga-Lamas, P., Celaya-Echarri, M., Lopez-Iturri, P., Castedo, L., Azpilicueta, L., Aguirre, E., … Fernández-Caramés, T. M. (2019). Design and experimental validation
of a LoRaWAN fog computing based architecture for IoT enabled smart campus applications. Sensors, 19(15). https://doi.org/10.3390/s19153287
Fu, Q. K., Lin, C. J., & Hwang, G. J. (2019). Research trends and applications of technology-supported peer assessment: A review of selected journal publications from
2007 to 2016. Journal of Computers in Education, 6(2), 191–213.
Gaeta, A., Gaeta, M., Guarino, G., & Miranda, S. (2015). A smart methodology to improve the story-building process. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 11
(1), 97–124.
Ghaem Sigarchian, H., Logghe, S., Verborgh, R., de Neve, W., Salliau, F., Mannens, E., et al. (2017). Hybrid e-TextBooks as comprehensive interactive learning
environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(4), 486–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1343191
Gligoric, N., Uzelac, A., Krco, S., Kovacevic, I., & Nikodijevic, A. (2015). Smart classroom system for detecting level of interest a lecture creates in a classroom. Journal
of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments, 7(2), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.3233/ais-150303
Godlewska, A., Beyer, W., Whetstone, S., Schaefli, L., Rose, J., Talan, B., et al. (2019). Converting a large lecture class to an active blended learning class: Why, how,
and what we learned. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 43(1), 96–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2019.1570090
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2),
91–108.
Gros, B. (2016). The design of smart educational environments. Smart Learning Environments, 3(15). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-016-0039-x
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Introduction to applied thematic analysis. Applied thematic analysis (pp. 3–20). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Gupta, S. K., Ashwin, T. S., & Guddeti, R. M. R. (2019). Students’ affective content analysis in smart classroom environment using deep learning techniques.
Multimedia Tools and Applications, 78(18), 25321–25348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-7651-z
Han, S., & Youn, H. Y. (2013). Reflecting the perspectives of multiple agents in distributed reasoning for context-aware service. International Journal of Computational
Intelligence Systems, 6(4), 700–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/18756891.2013.802875
Hasan, R., Palaniappan, S., Mahmood, S., Shah, B., Abbas, A., & Sarker, K. (2019). Enhancing the teaching and learning process using video streaming servers and
forecasting techniques. Sustainability, 11(7), 2049. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072049
Haseena, V. A., & Mohammed, A. P. (2015). Aspects of quality in education for the improvement of educational scenario. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(4),
100–105.
Herzog, C., Handke, C., & Hitters, E. (2019). Analyzing talk and text II: Thematic analysis. In H. V. Bulck, M. Puppis, K. Donders, & L. V. Audenhove (Eds.), The
Palgrave handbook of methods for media policy research (pp. 385–401). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Huang, L.-S., Su, J.-Y., & Pao, T.-L. (2019). A context aware smart classroom Architecture for smart campuses. Applied Sciences, 9(9), 1837. https://doi.org/10.3390/
app9091837
Hwang, H.-S., Yun, J.-S., Park, J.-T., & Moon, I.-Y. (2016). Implementation of smart-learning content authoring tool system utilizing HTML5. International Journal of
Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 11(10), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.14257/ijmue.2016.11.10.13
Jo, J., & Lim, H. (2015). A study on effectiveness of smart classrooms through interaction analysis. Advanced Science Letters, 21(3), 557–561. https://doi.org/10.1166/
asl.2015.5826
Jou, M., & Wang, J. Y. (2019). A reflection of teaching and learning cognition and behavior in smart learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 95,
177–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.016
Kalaiselvi, K., & Jayashri, N. (2017). A pragmatic knowledge engineering approach for integrating knowledge management with ubiquitous computing. Journal of
Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems, 13, 440–444.
Khan, M. Z., Harous, S., Hassan, S. U., Ghani Khan, M. U., Iqbal, R., & Mumtaz, S. (2019). Deep unified model for face recognition based on convolution neural
network and edge computing. IEEE Access, 7, 72622–72633. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2019.2918275
17
Kim, P. W. (2018). Ambient intelligence in a smart classroom for assessing students’ engagement levels. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 10
(10), 3847–3852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-018-1077-8
Kim, Y., Soyata, T., & Behnagh, R. F. (2018). Towards emotionally aware AI smart classroom: Current issues and directions for engineering and education. IEEE Access,
6, 5308–5331.
Kinshuk, Chen, N.-S., Cheng, I.-L., & Chew, S. W. (2016). Evolution is not enough: Revolutionizing current learning environments to smart learning environments.
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 561–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0108-x
Koulocheri, E., & Xenos, M. (2019). Correlating formal assessment with social network activity within a personal learning environment. International Journal of Web-
Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 14(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijwltt.2019010102
Krummheuer, A., Rehm, M., Lund, M., & Nielsen, K. (2018). The chance for sociability. How participation and interaction structures of adolescents with brain injury
on an institutional corridor inform smart learning ecosystems. In Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal, 78–89.
Kumara, W. G. C. W., Wattanachote, K., Battulga, B., Shih, T. K., & Hwang, W.-Y. (2015). A kinect-based assessment system for smart classroom. International Journal
of Distance Education Technologies, 13(2), 34–53. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijdet.2015040103
Lai, J. W., & Bower, M. (2019). How is the use of technology in education evaluated? A systematic review. Computers & Education, 133, 27–42.
Lee, A. (2015). Authentication scheme for smart learning system in the cloud computing environment. Journal of Computer Virology and Hacking Techniques, 11(3),
149–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11416-015-0240-4
Lee, Y., & Cho, J. (2013). Smart learning system using contents adaption method. International Journal of Smart Home, 7(6), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.14257/
ijsh.2013.7.6.08
Leekitchwatana, P., & Pimdee, P. (2017). Appropriate Thai high school student internet behaviour: A hierarchical linear model analysis. International Journal of
Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 12(10), 158. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v12i10.7366
Lee, J., Lee, H., & Park, Y. (2013). The smart classroom: Combining smart technologies with advanced pedagogies. Educational Technology, 53(3), 3–12.
Leonidis, A., Margetis, G., Antona, M., & Stephanidis, C. (2010). ClassMATE: Enabling ambient intelligence in the classroom. World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology, 4, 485–488.
Li, X., Feng, L., Zhou, L., & Shi, Y. (2009). Learning in an ambient intelligent world: Enabling technologies and practices. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data
Engineering, 21(6), 910–924.
Lin, Y.-T. (2018). Impacts of a flipped classroom with a smart learning diagnosis system on students’ learning performance, perception, and problem solving ability in
a software engineering course. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.036
Li, Y., Yang, H. H., & MacLeod, J. (2018). Preferences toward the constructivist smart classroom learning environment: Examining pre-service teachers’
connectedness. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(3), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1474232
Li, Y., Yang, H. H., MacLeod, J., & Dai, J. (2019). Developing the rotational synchronous teaching (RST) model: Examination of the connected classroom climate.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 116–134.
Lui, M., & Slotta, J. D. (2013). Immersive simulations for smart classrooms: Exploring evolutionary concepts in secondary science. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,
23(1), 57–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2013.838452
Lui, M., Tissenbaum, M., & Slotta, J. D. (2011). Scripting collaborative learning in smart classrooms: Towards building knowledge communities. In Proceeding of the
international conference of computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) (Vol. 1, pp. 430–437).
MacLeod, J., Yang, H. H., Zhu, S., & Li, Y. (2018). Understanding students’ preferences toward the smart classroom learning environment: Development and
validation of an instrument. Computers & Education, 122, 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.015
Mathioudakis, G., Leonidis, A., Korozi, M., Margetis, G., Ntoa, S., Antona, M., et al. (2014). Real-time teacher assistance in technologically-augmented smart
classrooms. International Journal on Advances in Life Sciences, 6(1), 62–73.
Mendini, M., & Peter, P. C. (2018). Research note: The role of smart versus traditional classrooms on students’ engagement. Marketing Education Review, 29(1), 17–23.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2018.1532301
Mir, S. H., & Abdou, A. A. (2005). Investigation of sound-absorbing material configuration of a smart classroom utilizing computer modeling. Building Acoustics, 12(3),
175–188. https://doi.org/10.1260/135101005774353032
Miraoui, M. (2018). A context-aware smart classroom for enhanced learning environment. International Journal on Smart Sensing and Intelligent Systems, 11(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.21307/ijssis-2018-007
Mohamed, H., & Lamia, M. (2018). Implementing a flipped classroom that used an intelligent tutoring system into the learning process. Computers & Education, 124,
62–76.
Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., et al. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols
(PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1.
Mun, S. H., & Abdullah, A. H. (2016). A review of the use of smart boards in education. 2016 IEEE 8th international conference on engineering education (ICEED). IEEE.
Munawar, S., Toor, S. K., Aslam, M., & Hamid, M. (2018). Move to smart learning environment: Exploratory research of challenges in computer laboratory and design
intelligent virtual laboratory for elearning technology. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(5), 1645–1662. https://doi.org/
10.29333/ejmste/85036
Naidu, V. R., Singh, B., Hasan, R., & Hadrami, G. A. (2017). Learning analytics for smart classrooms in higher education. International E-Journal of Advances in
Education, 3(8), 440–446.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Ojedokun, A. A. (2003). Transforming the library into a “teaching-learning laboratory”: The case of University of Botswana Library. Campus-Wide Information Systems,
20(1), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650740310455577
Oommen, A. (2012). Teaching English as a global language in smart classrooms with PowerPoint presentation. English Language Teaching, 5(12), 54–61. https://doi.
org/10.5539/elt.v5n12p54
Ouf, S., Abd Ellatif, M., Salama, S. E., & Helmy, Y. (2016). A proposed paradigm for smart learning environment based on semantic web. Computers in Human Behavior,
72, 796–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.030
Papadakis, A., Tsalera, E., & Samarakou, M. (2019). Survey on sound and video analysis methods for monitoring face-to-face module delivery. International Journal of
Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 14(8), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i08.9813
Paquette, G., Mariño, O., Rogozan, D., & Léonard, M. (2015). Competency-based personalization for massive online learning. Smart Learning Environments, 2(4).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-015-0013-z
Park, C., & Hyun, J. (2014). A peer-assessment system connecting on-line and a face-to-face smart classroom. Life Science Journal, 11, 700–705.
Peled, A. (2000). Bringing the Internet and multimedia revolution to the classroom. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 17(1), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/
10650740010317023
Pingxiao, W. (2017). Research on the English teaching and autonomous learning based on multimedia platform and smart classroom system. International Journal of
Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 12(1), 351–362. https://doi.org/10.14257/ijmue.2017.12.1.30
Pirahandeh, M., & Kim, D.-H. (2015). Energy-aware and intelligent storage features for multimedia devices in smart classroom. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 76
(1), 1139–1157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-015-3019-1
Pishva, D., & Nishantha, G. G. D. (2008). Smart classrooms for distance education and their adoption to multiple classroom Architecture. JNW, 3(5), 54–64.
Pittway, L. (2007). Systematic literature reviews. In R. Thorpe, & R. Holt (Eds.), The SAGE dictionary of qualitative management research (pp. 216–218). SAGE.
Qaffas, A. A., Kaabi, K., Shadiev, R., & Essalmi, F. (2020). Towards an optimal personalization strategy in MOOCs. Smart Learning Environments, 7(14). https://doi.org/
10.1186/s40561-020-0117-y
Qin, W., Shi, Y., & Suo, Y. (2007). Ontology-based context-aware middleware for smart spaces. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 12(6), 707–713. https://doi.org/
10.1016/s1007-0214(07)70179-7
18
Radosavljevic, V., Radosavljevic, S., & Jelic, G. (2019). Ambient intelligence-based smart classroom model. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–15. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10494820.2019.1652836
Rajesh, R., & Reena, M. (2015). A review on worksystem interactions in a technology enabled classroom. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 7(2),
99. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtel.2015.072026
Randolph, J. J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 14(13), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.7275/
b0az-8t74
Rao, G. K. L., Iskandar, Y. H. P., & Mokhtar, N. (2019). Understanding the nuances of E-learning in orthodontic education. Education and Information Technologies, 25
(1), 307–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09976-2
Reeves, C. A., & Bednar, D. A. (1994). Defining quality: Alternatives and implications. Academy of Management Review, 19(3), 419–445. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amr.1994.9412271805
Said, O., & Albagory, Y. (2016). Internet of Things-based free learning system: Performance evaluation and communication perspective. IETE Journal of Research, 63
(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/03772063.2016.1229582
Sánchez, M., Aguilar, J., & Exposito, E. (2018). Fog computing for the integration of agents and web services in an autonomic reflexive middleware. Service Oriented
Computing and Applications, 12(3–4), 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11761-018-0238-0
Sanders, J. (2016). Defining terms: Data, information and knowledge. 2016 SAI computing conference (SAI). IEEE.
Saraubon, K. (2019). Learning media repository and delivery system for smart classroom using IoT and mobile technologies. International Journal of Interactive Mobile
Technologies (IJIM), 13(2), 66. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i02.9941
Sardinha, L., Almeida, A. M. P., & Barbas, M. P. (2017). The classroom physical space as a learning ecosystem - bridging approaches: Results from a Web Survey.
Citizen, Territory and Technologies. Smart Learning Contexts and Practices, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61322-2_5
Schick, J. B. M. (2005). Coming of age in computing. Social Science Computer Review, 23(2), 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439304273259
Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., Morad, O. A., & Marsh, C. (2017). Computer-based technology and student engagement: A critical review of the literature.
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 1–28.
Schindler, L., Puls-Elvidge, S., Welzant, H., & Crawford, L. (2015). Definitions of quality in higher education: A synthesis of the literature. Higher Learning Research
Communications, 5(3), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v5i3.244
Scott, S. D., Rotter, T., Flynn, R., Brooks, H. M., Plesuk, T., Bannar-Martin, K. H., … Hartling, L. (2019). Systematic review of the use of process evaluations in
knowledge translation research. Systematic Reviews, 8(1).
Sevindik, T. (2010). Future’s learning environments in health education: The effects of smart classrooms on the academic achievements of the students at health
college. Telematics and Informatics, 27(3), 314–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2009.08.001
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., et al. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols
(PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.006
Shen, C., Wu, Y.-C. J., & Lee, T. (2014). Developing a NFC-equipped smart classroom: Effects on attitudes toward computer science. Computers in Human Behavior, 30,
731–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.09.002
Shi, Y., Xie, W., Xu, G., Shi, R., Chen, E., Mao, Y., et al. (2003). The smart classroom: Merging technologies for seamless tele-education. IEEE Pervasive Computing, (2),
47–55.
Shi, Y., Xie, W., Xu, G., Xiang, P., & Zhang, B. (2003). Project smart remote classroom providing novel real-time interactive distance learning technologies.
International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 1(3), 28–45. https://doi.org/10.4018/jdet.2003070103
Slotta, J. D., Tissenbaum, M., & Lui, M. (2013). April). Orchestrating of complex inquiry: Three roles for learning analytics in a smart classroom infrastructure.
Proceedings of the third international conference on learning analytics and knowledge.
Snow, C., Pullen, J. M., & McAndrews, P. (2005). Network EducationWare: An open-source web-based system for synchronous distance education. IEEE Transactions
on Education, 48(4), 705–712. https://doi.org/10.1109/te.2005.854577
Sun, L. (2016). Research on influence of multimedia network teaching platform and effective interaction on physical education curriculum based on smart classroom.
International Journal of Smart Home, 10(11), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.14257/ijsh.2016.10.11.15
Suo, Y., Miyata, N., Morikawa, H., Ishida, T., & Shi, Y. (2009). Open smart classroom: Extensible and scalable learning system in smart space using web service
technology. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 21(6), 814–828.
Takawale, N. N., & Kulkarni, S. M. (2016). Effectiveness of smart classrooms over traditional classroom in terms of academic achievement of students using statistical
method. International Journal of Innovative Research in Computer and Communication Engineering, 4(2), 2048–2052.
Temdee, P. (2019). Smart learning environment for enhancing digital literacy of Thai youth: A case study of ethnic minority group. Wireless Personal Communications,
11–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-019-06637-y
Temkar, R. (2016). Internet of things for smart classrooms. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), 3(7), 203–207.
Terziyan, V., Golovianko, M., & Shevchenko, O. (2014). Semantic portal as a tool for structural reform of the Ukrainian educational system. Information Technology for
Development, 21(3), 381–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2014.899955
Thiyagarajan, V., Senthilkumar, N., & Karthikeyan, B. (2018). Optimization of energy conservation in air conditioned system smart class room of a school building:
Approach to human comfort and energy management. International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology, 11(1), 145–163.
Thomas, L. J., Parsons, M., & Whitcombe, D. (2018). Assessment in smart learning environments: Psychological factors affecting perceived learning. Computers in
Human Behavior, 95, 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.037
Timms, M. J. (2016). Letting artificial intelligence in education out of the box: Educational cobots and smart classrooms. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in
Education, 26(2), 701–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0095-y
Tissenbaum, M., & Slotta, J. D. (2019). Developing a smart classroom infrastructure to support real-time student collaboration and inquiry: A 4-year design study.
Instructional Science, 47(4), 423–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-09486-1
Tlili, A., Denden, M., Essalmi, F., Jemni, M., Chang, M., Kinshuk, et al. (2019). Automatic modeling learner’s personality using learning analytics approach in an
intelligent Moodle learning platform. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1636084
Tlili, A., Essalmi, F., Jemni, M., Kinshuk, & Chen, N.-S. (2018). A complete validated learning analytics framework. International Journal of Information and
Communication Technology Education, 14(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijicte.2018040101
Uskov, V. L., Bakken, J. P., & Pandey, A. (2015). The ontology of next generation smart classrooms. Smart education and smart e-learning. Cham: Springer.
Uzelac, A., Gligoric, N., & Krco, S. (2015). A comprehensive study of parameters in physical environment that impact students’ focus during lecture using Internet of
Things. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 427–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.023
Uzelac, A., Gligorić, N., & Krčo, S. (2017). System for recognizing lecture quality based on analysis of physical parameters. Telematics and Informatics, 35(3), 579–594.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.06.014
Väljataga, T., & Mettis, K. (2018). Turning zoos into smart learning ecosystems. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal, 113–129.
Vasanthapriyan, S., & Randima, V. (2019). Design IoT based smart electricity power saving university: Analysis from a lecture hall. Journal of Computer Science, 15(8),
1097–1107. https://doi.org/10.3844/jcssp.2019.1097.1107
Villegas-Ch, W., Molina-Enriquez, J., Chicaiza-Tamayo, C., Ortiz-Garcés, I., & Luján-Mora, S. (2019). Application of a big data framework for data monitoring on a
smart campus. Sustainability, 11(20). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205552
Wang, Z. (2008). Smart spaces: Creating new instructional space with smart classroom technology. New Library World, 109(3/4), 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1108/
03074800810857603
Wang, X., Li, M., & Li, C. (2019). Smart classroom: Optimize and innovative-based on compared with traditional classroom. International Journal of Information and
Education Technology, 9(10), 741–745. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2019.9.10.1296
Wogu, I., Misra, S., Assibong, P., Apeh, H., Olu-Owolabi, F., & Awogu-Maduagwu, E. (2019). Artificial intelligence, smart class rooms and online education in the 21st
Century: Implications for human development. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 21(3), 66–79.
19
Yang, J. (2015). A method for evaluating technology-rich classroom environment. In G. Chen, V. Kumar, R. Huang, & S. C. Kong (Eds.), Emerging issues in smart learning
(pp. 31–40). Springer.
Yang, J., Pan, H., Zhou, W., & Huang, R. (2018). Evaluation of smart classroom from the perspective of infusing technology into pedagogy. Smart Learning
Environments, 5(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-018-0070-1
Yau, S. S., Wang, Y., & Karim, F. (2002). Development of situation-aware application software for ubiquitous computing environments. Proceedings 26th annual
international computer software and applications. IEEE.
Yildirim, G. (2016). Opinions of prospective preschool teachers about smart board use for education. Journal on School Educational Technology, 12(2), 34–43.
Young, J. R. (2009). When computers leave classrooms, so does boredom. The Education Digest, 75(3), 48–51.
Yu, Y., & Qi, A. (2018). Teaching system of smart learning environment for aerobics course. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 13(5),
165. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i05.8440
Zhang, B. (2016). A personalised digital classroom with improved interactive responses. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 14(1), 95–100.
Zheng, W., Yang, Z., Feng, L., Fu, P., & Shi, J. (2019). APP design of energy monitoring in smart campus based on android system. International Journal of Online and
Biomedical Engineering (IJOE), 15(5), 18. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v15i05.8225
Zhou, B. (2016). Smart classroom and multimedia network teaching platform application in college physical education teaching. International Journal of Smart Home,
10(10), 145–156.
Zhu, Q. (2020). Design and implementation of smart classroom system based on internet of things technology. Recent trends in intelligent computing, communication and
devices. Singapore: Springer.
20

Alfoudari 2021 - Computers Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alfoudari 2021 - Computers Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Computers & Education 173 (2021) 104282

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

Understanding socio-technological challenges of smart classrooms

1.1. Smart classrooms: A definition

Fig. 1. Trend in smart classroom research (Source: Scopus).

(2018), Aguilar et al.

2.1. Selection phase

2.2. Evaluation phase

2.3. Synthesis phase

3. Findings on social challenges for smart classrooms

3.1. Personalization in smart classrooms

3.2. Engagement in smart classrooms

3.3. Interactivity in smart classrooms

4. Findings on technological challenges for smart classrooms

4.1. Designing learning environments

4.2. Integrating intelligent systems

4.3. Proposing system models and ontologies

4.4. Applying analytical tools and analysis

4.5. Supporting mobile and social media applications

5. Summary of socio-technological challenges for smart classroom research

6. Discussion on future research prospects

6.1. Smart classroom design for continuity or consistency

6.2. Smart classroom quality

6.3. Optimizing the efficiency and sustainability of smart classroom infrastructure

6.4. Towards a smart classroom modelling language

Credit author statement

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104282.

You might also like