Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Similaror Different
Similaror Different
net/publication/349170588
CITATIONS READS
11 546
4 authors, including:
Yi Suping
Nanjing Normal University
11 PUBLICATIONS 39 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Yi Suping on 26 August 2021.
Abstract
In the “Internetþ” era, to understand the difference between the traditional
classroom and smart classroom, this study uses the current domestic and foreign
classroom teaching behavior research methods as a starting point and analyzes the
teaching behaviors in classrooms from six dimensions: resource sharing, teacher
lecturing, teacher–student interaction, group cooperation, autonomous learning,
and evaluation feedback. A data analysis method is used to conduct a complete
statistical study on the teaching behaviors of the 40 lessons selected in the first
smart classroom innovation teaching competition in Jiangsu Province, and the anal-
ysis results show that there are significant differences in teacher–student interaction,
group cooperation, autonomous learning, and evaluation feedback in the smart class-
room and the traditional classroom. There is no significant difference in data analysis
between resource sharing and teacher teaching, but through further video observa-
tion and analysis, the two still show the difference in the actual classroom.
Keywords
smart classroom, traditional classroom, data analysis, classroom teaching behavior
1
School of Educational Science, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, China
Corresponding Author:
Ruwei Yun, Nanjing Normal University, No.122, Ninghai Road, Jiangsu, Nanjing 210097, China.
Email: yunruwei@njnu.edu.cn
2 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)
Smart Classroom
Smart classroom is the product of information technology in the field of educa-
tion. Many scholars have defined the smart classroom. Literature on smart class-
rooms tends to focus on technical systems and the technical feasibility of
deployment. The smart classroom described by Aguilar et al. (2017a, 2017b) is
the integration of sensor technology, communication technology, and artificial
intelligence into the classroom. The concept is to define smart classroom as a
classroom that integrates artificial intelligence and other technologies into the
teaching process (Aguilar et al., 2016), emphasizing the use of intelligent environ-
ments to improve the learning process. Smart classroom is a classroom that is
equipped with smart application services and other software and hardware, allow-
ing teachers to teach by using a wide variety of media (Song et al., 2014). Huang
et al. states, “a smart classroom relates to the optimization of teaching content
presentation, convenient access of learning resources, deep interactivity of teach-
ing and learning, contextual awareness and detection, classroom layout and man-
agement, etc.” It may be summarized as Showing, Manageable, Accessible, Real-
time Interactive, and Testing, which is nicknamed as “S-M-A-R-T” (Huang et al.,
2012). The definition of a smart classroom is based on the integration of technol-
ogy and education. Considering the earlier discussion, the author thinks that
smart classroom is the development space of teaching and learning process
4 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)
education, and classroom teaching behavior analysis methods are also continu-
ously improved as technology changes. First of all, it is reflected in the variety of
analytical methods, from traditional theoretical research to qualitative research
and quantitative research combined with empirical research (Schoech & Helton,
2002); second, it is reflected in the integration of technical dimensions in class-
room teaching analysis methods to adapt to classroom teaching under the infor-
mation environment analysis (Macfadyen & Dawson, 2010).
The research on the analysis method of classroom teaching behavior mainly
focuses on the preparation of scales, among which the most famous scales are
Flanders interactive analysis system (Flanders, 1963) and S-T analytical method
(Fu & Zhang, 2001). The Flanders interactive analysis system uses a set of
coding systems and uses teacher–student language interaction in the classroom
as the analysis element to grasp the law and essence of classroom teaching. S-T
analytical method is a kind of analysis system that records the classroom teach-
er’s behavior and student’s behavior by observing the classroom video and
makes a visual map to determine the class teaching category.
With the application of information technology, especially multimedia tech-
nology in education, it not only brings richer images to classroom teaching but
also promotes the generation and application of new methods of classroom
teaching behavior analysis. In the process of introducing technical features
into the classroom teaching analysis system, many scholars have also made
efforts to develop classroom teaching behavior analysis software to improve
analysis efficiency. For example, Jin and Gu’s (2010, p. 88) interactive analysis
system (ITIAS) based on information technology was proposed on the basis of
improving Flanders interactive analysis system. It not only refines teachers’
speech activities but also increases the categories of students’ speech behaviors
and technologies. From the two dimensions of behavior subject and behavior
activity mode, Cheng et al. (2017, p. 557) proposed an improved S-T analysis
method to provide a cloud model for the quantitative analysis of classroom
teaching behavior. Korean scholars (Jo & Lim, 2015) had applied Flanders
interactive system in smart classroom and divided classroom interaction into
four categories: teacher’s indirection, teacher’s question, students’ talk, and
classroom silence. The statistics of the aforementioned classroom teaching anal-
ysis behavior methods are shown in Table 1.
Research Design
Categories of Classroom Teaching
Classroom teaching behavior is the concentrated embodiment of teaching and
learning in classroom teaching. In the aspect of teachers, it is manifested in
spoken language and silent language, teaching methods and strategies, action
procedures and directions, and teachers’ emotions; In the aspect of students, it is
6 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)
manifested in the students’ emotions, words and actions in class. The previous
discussion on the related classroom teaching behavior research shows that no
matter from what angle the teaching behavior is studied, it involves teachers and
students (Cauley et al., 2017). Therefore, this study is based on the previous
research on the classification of classroom teaching behavior by relevant schol-
ars. According to the actual situation of this study, classroom teaching is divided
into six categories: resource sharing, teacher lecture, teacher–student interac-
tion, group cooperation, autonomous learning, and evaluation feedback. A
behavioral classification system is established to analyze traditional classroom
and smart classroom teaching behavior from the perspective of classroom
behavior.
Resource sharing (Wang & Noe, 2010) focuses on the presupposition and
generation of classroom, aiming to help teachers and students identify the key
and difficult points of classroom in advance and realize the maximization of
classroom teaching value. Teacher lecture (Bailey, 2008) is an indispensable part
of the classroom. Teachers impart key knowledge to students through telling,
explaining, and giving lectures to help students learn new knowledge and form
an efficient and scientific classroom. Teacher–student interaction (T-S interac-
tion) is an important way for teachers and students to communicate in the
classroom. Multidimensional and multimode teacher–student interaction can
effectively inspire students’ thinking, enhance students’ sense of participation,
and cultivate students’ subjective awareness in the classroom (Buyse et al.,
2008). Group cooperation, as the main form of communication between stu-
dents in class, aims to help students play a role in improving their abilities in
language expression and collaborative exploration through cooperative explo-
ration and discussion within the group (Baek & Touati, 2019). Autonomous
learning is an important way to test students’ learning results in short classes.
First, it can help students to quickly consolidate and deepen the knowledge they
receive; second, it can cultivate their ability to learn independently and think
Yi et al. 7
Resource sharing Teachers present, send, and share teaching resources (such as
videos, lesson plans, and materials) to students in certain forms
Teacher lecture Teachers impart knowledge to students by telling, explaining,
reading
T-S interaction The communication, dialogue, and question and answer between
teachers and students in class
Group cooperation Students work in groups to carry out classroom activities such as
communication, discussion, and collaborative inquiry
Autonomous learning Students take individuals as unit and independently complete the
learning tasks or requirements required by teachers in class
Evaluation feedback The process of evaluating the results of intragroup cooperation
and autonomous learning between teachers and students and
obtaining corresponding feedback accordingly
Note. T-S ¼ teacher–student.
independently within a limited period of time (Black & Deci, 2000). As a key
link of self-regulating classroom teaching, evaluation feedback can not only help
teachers evaluate students’ classroom learning situation, master classroom
teaching progress, and adjust teaching strategies but also enable students to
evaluate each other in class and promote the development of students’ critical
and innovative thinking ability (Black & Wiliam, 1998). The specific definitions
in the classroom teaching behavior classification table are shown in Table 2.
Research Implementation
Sample Selection. In this study, 40 videos of the first Smart Classroom Innovation
Teaching Competition in Jiangsu Province in 2019 are selected as the research
objects. These 40 classes are all new lectures, with an average duration of
40 minutes per class. Among them, 20 classes are traditional classroom teaching
videos using a single electronic whiteboard as the medium technology. The other
20 sections are smart classroom teaching videos created by modern teaching
equipment such as artificial intelligence and big data analysis. We take the tra-
ditional classroom as the control group and the smart classroom as the exper-
imental group. A total of 10 primary school teaching videos and 10 junior high
school teaching videos were selected in both the control group and the experi-
mental group. From the perspective of process, it is a classroom designed by the
participating teachers’ school team in a certain period of time, and it is also a
class example selected by several experts in the field of education informatiza-
tion based on the classroom effect of information technology and classroom
integration, which is scientific and rigorous to a certain extent. From a technical
8 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)
point of view, 40 lessons are the new lectures produced under the background of
the new curriculum reform and education informatization 2.0 and represent the
latest appearance of the new curriculum reform concept and information tech-
nology in the classroom. The characteristics of the five links of teacher lecture,
teacher–student interaction, group cooperation, autonomous learning, and eval-
uation feedback are newly displayed in the smart classroom of technological
empowerment.
Note. The units of N, maximum, minimum, mean, and standard deviation in the table are in seconds. A:
smart classroom; B: traditional classroom. Proportion: total time of each type of behavior/total time of
class in this environment. T value 0.05 is significant. T-S ¼ teacher–student.
In this study, the independent sample T test tool in SPSS data analysis soft-
ware is used to analyze the significance of the difference between the smart
classroom and the traditional classroom and the T value data in Table 3 are
obtained. According to the requirement of significance level, when T value is less
than or equal to 0.05, there is a significant difference between them (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981). Through the analysis of table data, there are significant differ-
ences in classroom behaviors of teacher–student interaction, group cooperation,
independent learning, and evaluation feedback.
student interaction in the current classroom (Gall, 1984); teachers and students
communicate with each other mainly through oral questions and answers and
develop the three series of initiation-response-feedback (IRF) teacher–student
interaction mode, that is, questions or instructions proposed are first raised by
the teachers, then students respond accordingly, and finally teachers summarize
(Waring, 2009). To form a good atmosphere of teacher–student interaction in
the traditional classroom, the content of question and answer between teachers
and students is relatively simple and most of them answer collectively. At the
same time, due to the limited media for classroom teaching, it is difficult for all
or even most of the students in the classroom to participate in the entire class-
room communication process, which makes it more difficult for students to
integrate into the entire teacher–student interaction process and requires more
thinking time in the communication, thus forming the situation of more time
and long interaction time in the traditional classroom. In the smart classroom,
teachers can discuss relevant issues with students by using intelligent mobile
terminal, 3-D projection technology, big data analysis, and other technologies,
which effectively enriches the ways of teacher–student interaction in the class-
room (Zhang & Wang, 2018), makes the problems studied by teacher–student
interaction in the classroom more in-depth, and reflects the generation of
knowledge.
Taking the small hole imaging experiment in the physics lesson “Reflection of
light” in junior high school as an example, Table 4 summarizes the interaction
between teachers and students in traditional classrooms and smart classrooms.
In the traditional classrooms, physics teachers randomly invited students in the
classroom to perform experimental operations, and more students observed the
experimenter’s operations in their seats to form an understanding of the prin-
ciple of small hole imaging. In the smart class, students are the main body of the
classroom, and each student carried out a group imaging experiment with 3-D
technology on a flat plate. Everyone is a participant, and everyone is an exper-
imenter. The teacher can see the progress and completion of each student’s
experiment through the equipment. On the basis of equal experimental oppor-
tunities for each student, the teacher invited the students to make interpretation
while demonstrating on the touch whiteboard so as to form an understanding of
the principle of the small hole imaging through multiple constructions.
Teacher: After reading the book and Teacher: After we have studied the basic
studying the basic principles of small principles of small hole imaging, how do
hole imaging, do you understand the two you feel about learning?
methods of small hole imaging? All students: It’s a good study.
All students: We get it. Teacher: Okay, now everyone is trying
Teacher:Then we now use the teacher’s out the small hole imaging experiment
multimedia equipment to further on the tablet by yourself. I will call some
understand through experiments. What students on stage to demonstrate later.
is the first method? Teacher: Now, who would like to come
All students: Hold the candle position on on stage and show you two ways to
the base and move the light screen back. enlarge the small hole image?
(The teacher is demonstrating on the Classmate A: We can move the light
stage.) screen backward while keeping the
Teacher:Then we invite classmate A to position of the candles stationary (the
come on stage to demonstrate. student is using 3-D technology to
(After classmate A finished the experi- demonstrate on the whiteboard).
ment.) Did you see the first one? Teacher: Who can demonstrate another
All students: We got it. method?
Teacher: Then let’s demonstrate the Classmate B: On the basis of keeping the
second method together, what is the position of the candle immobile, we
second method? We invite classmate B move the small hole in the middle for-
to demonstrate on stage. ward and close to the candle (the stu-
Classmate B: We first keep the position dents use 3-D technology to
of the candle stationary, then move the demonstrate on the whiteboard).
small hole in the middle forward and Teacher: The two classmates demon-
close to the candle. (Classmate B is strated very well. Do you all understand
demonstrating on the stage.) the principle of enlarged small hole
Teacher: Can you see the second dem- imaging now?
onstration clearly? All students: We get it.
All students: We got it.
discussion, but the group cooperation has ended. Second, in group cooperation,
the group leader and members with excellent academic performance occupy the
initiative in the discussion (Holland & Muilenburg, 2011), while other students
have difficulty in expressing their opinions in the classroom, and it is difficult for
them to truly integrate into group cooperation. Finally, in traditional classroom
group cooperation, more attention is paid to the final discussion results. The
teacher plays the role of “evaluator” and judges the results of students’ group
discussion after the end of the discussion. In this situation, students find it hard
to form exploratory and innovative thinking. In group cooperation in the
technology-enabled smart classroom, teachers use the teaching platform to
send the learning resources in real time; on this basis, teachers can get timely
feedback on the discussion content of each student in different groups, and it
helps teachers to grasp the whole process of group discussion from the perspec-
tive of process, instead of forming the cognition of discussion based on the final
result, and then teachers use the electronic whiteboard to show the final result of
the group student discussion (Szewkis et al., 2011). Students use smart mobile
terminals to form online interactive communication between themselves and the
surrounding environment (Beldarrain, 2006; Dakka, 2015). Group cooperation
breaks through the space limitation, and students do not need to change their
seats, giving students more time to communicate and explore the knowledge
(Wang & Liao, 2017).
Taking the junior middle school mathematics class “From problems to equa-
tions” and the middle school Chinese class “How to distinguish true and false
news in the information age” as example. In the traditional classroom, prespace
grouping was the premise. Students carried out group cooperation according to
the mathematics discussion content proposed by the teacher. During the pro-
cess, the teacher continuously patrolled the various groups to grasp the group
situation, which formed the group cooperation process of “task assignment-
student discussion-teacher patrol-representative speech-teacher summary”
(Figure 1) in traditional class. The smart classroom used smart media as a
tool. Students followed the predesigned group cooperation mode on the smart
terminal to communicate and upload voices and pictures on the cooperation
platform, and then they praised the excellent works in the group (Figure 2).
Teacher can also know the participation level of each member of group in the
teaching platform at any time. The representative of the speech was the author
of the work of interest to the students selected from the group, which formed the
group cooperation process of “task assignment-online communication-teacher
follow-up-online submission-student praise-student speech” in smart classroom.
evaluation, and student self-assessment (Dochy et al., 1999). Combined with the
research and analysis of teaching videos, in the traditional classroom, teacher–
student evaluation is the teacher’s evaluation of students’ completion of exer-
cises and cooperation; peer evaluation is the mutual evaluation formed by stu-
dents exchanging learning outcomes with their desk mates; student self-
evaluation is the evaluation that students check by themselves after completing
their own learning tasks. Stufflebeam (2001), a famous American commentator,
stressed that “the most important purpose of evaluation is not to prove, but to
improve” (p. 7) that is, evaluation feedback is not limited to impart students’
knowledge but should also help teachers improve classroom teaching and stu-
dents’ ability development. The characteristics of pertinence, flexibility, and
fairness highlighted by the evaluation feedback behavior in the smart classroom
are its significant differences from the evaluation feedback in the traditional
classroom. In smart classrooms, teacher–student evaluation is that teachers
can provide objective data and graphic analysis with the help of mass storage
and fast computing power of information technology, give accurate assessment
of students’ learning results, and use intelligent teaching platforms to share all
the students’ learning in the classroom; teachers also give students targeted
timely feedback and problem-solving suggestions accordingly and adjust the
classroom teaching rhythm in time (Straub, 1997). Peer evaluation means that
each student checks the learning outcomes of other students in the class with the
help of intelligent mobile terminals, forming an evaluation situation with full
coverage and participation of student evaluation in the class (Seery et al., 2012).
Student self-assessment means that after completing the learning task, students
use the learning terminal equipment to evaluate the learning results of others
and conduct self-examination so as to help students form phased cognition of
themselves (Sitzmann et al., 2010). Therefore, from the perspective of evaluation
feedback of technical support, technology not only gives play to the advantages
of information technology in supporting information collection and data anal-
ysis but also realizes the advantages brought by technology in the evaluation
feedback link of information.
Taking the elementary school mathematics class “Multiplication of decimals”
as an example, Table 5 reveals the evaluation feedback situation in traditional
classrooms and smart classrooms. In the traditional classroom, after the teacher
invited the students to do exercises on the stage, the whole students evaluated
the vertical format and content on the blackboard, then the teacher focused on
the correction and explanation on the blackboard, and the students conducted
self-examination; it formed the evaluation process of “students do exercises –
centralized comments – teachers summarize” in traditional class. In the smart
classroom, after the students completed their homework on the tablet, each
student in the class was a “diagnostic expert.” The students viewed and evalu-
ated the work of other students in the class on the tablet and finally took the
outstanding works recommended by the students as the standard. Students
Yi et al. 17
Teacher: Is classmate A’s work right? Teacher: I found that everyone has fin-
Classmate B: No, he put the decimal in ished through the background statistics,
the wrong place. so now you can use your tablet to check
Classmate C: His vertical form is also which students’ answers are wrong?
wrong. Where is the error?
Teacher: What should be the correct Classmate A: I found the mistake of
format and answer? classmate B. His decimal point was mis-
All students: The end of the decimal placed and should be marked three
multiplication needs to be aligned. As places from left to right.
many decimals as there are in the mul- Classmate A: I found that classmate D
tiplier, the decimal point should be wrote very neatly, but his format was
counted from the right of the product. wrong, mainly because the last digit of
Teacher: Students, according to the the multiplier was not aligned.
teacher’s blackboard, do you understand Teacher: Did you find who wrote it cor-
the method of this question now? rectly and neatly?
Everyone uses the exercises on the All students: Classmate E wrote the best.
blackboard as a standard to check He wrote neatly, clearly and without
whether they are doing correctly. mistakes.
Teacher: Let’s take classmate E’s home-
work as the standard. Everyone will
conduct a self-check to see if what you
did is correct and upload your home-
work again after completion.
checked their own homework again. In this process, the teacher always played
the role of “leader”; it formed the evaluation process of “students do questions-
student mutual assessment-student self-assessment” in smart classroom.
In addition to the significant differences in data analysis of the aforemen-
tioned four types of behaviors, although resource sharing and teacher lecture
behaviors do not show significant differences in statistical significance, they still
show differences in actual classroom teaching.
Resource sharing Play video, paper Blurred goals, group Record microlesson, Online help, personal-
materials classroom online assignments ized classroom
Teacher teaching Empirical design, linear Single form, listening Highlight the difficul- Various forms, partici-
explanation classroom ties, point-like patory classroom
explanation
T-S interaction Simple content, verbal Point interaction, Knowledge generation, Group interaction, fair
Q&A focus classroom technical Q&A classroom
Group cooperation Deskmate interaction, Restricted positioning, Online communica- Free positioning, inqui-
established control classroom tion, diverging ry classroom
conclusion conclusion
Autonomous learning Oral transmission, Uncontrollable situa- Cloud distribution, Accurate control, effi-
teachers patrol tion, preset data analysis cient classroom
classroom
Evaluation feedback Blackboard comment, Subjective assessment, Whiteboard evalua- Technology evaluation,
exchange reviews experience tion, Recommend accurate classroom
classroom evaluation
Note. T-S ¼ teacher–student; Q&A ¼ question and answer.
19
20 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)
longer, and it may form more realistic results and more complex target language
output (Brock, 1986), Due to the limitations of language ability and real situ-
ation, teachers are hard to use more reference questions (Farahian & Rezaee,
2012). Taking teacher lectures as an example, whiteboards are indispensable
teaching equipment in classrooms. Whether in traditional classrooms or in
smart classrooms, the main purpose of teachers using whiteboards is to intro-
duce the main course content and provide activity guidance and so on.
Judging from the overall proportion, compared with the teaching activity
behavior in the traditional classroom environment, the duration of the six
types of activity behavior in the smart classroom environment is more balanced.
The significance is that the application of new media technology in the class-
room puts the active right of knowledge acquisition in the students’ hands
instead of teachers’ and education managers’ (Collins & Halverson, 2009).
The classroom is returned to the students, which highlights the subjectivity of
students in the classroom. Each student participates in every link of the class-
room through the guidance of technology. The classroom is no longer a class-
room for teachers and a few students, but a classroom for the whole students to
participate in and generate collectively.
At present, information technology has promoted changes in many levels in
the classroom, but when using information technology, it is still necessary to pay
attention to avoid the problem of technical blind obedience. Information tech-
nology is only an auxiliary tool in classroom teaching. The key to effective
teaching is how to give play to teachers’ technical rationality and promote the
integration and innovation of classroom and technology. By analyzing
the video, we take the feedback behavior as an example; some teachers in the
smart classroom environment only use the information-based teaching platform
as a single data statistics tool, which is simply used to count the submission and
accuracy of student exercises; teachers still use the conventional method to
impart knowledge to students. This ignores the use of technology to achieve
accurate comments, self-recommendation and mutual evaluation, and other
innovative teaching links; it is difficult to show the deep application significance
of technology in promoting students’ critical thinking ability in evaluation.
Teachers and students are the two main subjects in the classroom, and they
should focus on improving their ability to apply information technology and
then help build a high-quality classroom in the information age. From the per-
spective of teachers, teachers need to constantly improve their technical literacy,
enhance teachers’ information teaching ability, and promote teaching innova-
tion in the technical environment. From the perspective of students, students
need to complete the transformation of their role, from “passive knowledge
receiver” to “active learner.” Before class, students complete autonomous pre-
view tasks on the learning platform; in class, students actively participate in
classroom collaboration and communication; after class, students form the
22 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by2019 “Provincial and
Ministerial Co-construction of Lide Shuren Collaborative Innovation Center” project
(grant number 71).
ORCID iD
Suping Yi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3921-1548
References
Allen, D. W., & Eve, A. W. (1968). Microteaching. Theory into Practice, 7(5), 181–185.
Aguilar, J., Cordero, J., & Buendıa, 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-Dıaz, 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., Valdiviezo, P., Cordero, J., Riofrio, G., & Encalada, E. (2016). A general
framework for learning analytic in a smart classroom. Technologies and Innovation,
214–225.
Baek, Y., & Touati, A. (2019). Comparing collaborative and cooperative gameplay for
academic and gaming achievements. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57,
2110–2140.
Bailey, P. D. (2008). Should “teacher centred teaching” replace “student centred
learning”? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(1), 70–74.
Beem, A. L., & Brugman, D. (1985). An exploration of the structure of classroom behav-
ior during values development lessons. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 11(3),
339–357.
Yi et al. 23
Fu, D. R., & Zhang, H. M. (2001). Educational information processing. Beijing Normal
University Publishing House.
Gall, M. D. (1984). Synthesis of research on teachers’ questioning. Educational
Leadership, 42(3), 40–47.
Holland, C., & Muilenburg, L. (2011, March). Supporting student collaboration: Edmodo
in the classroom [Paper presentation]. Society for Information Technology & Teacher
Education International Conference, Nashville, TN, United States.
Hou, H.-T., Sung, Y.-T., & Chang, K.-E. (2009). Exploring the behavioral patterns of an
online knowledge-sharing discussion activity among teachers with problem-solving
strategy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 101–108.
Huang, R., Hu, Y., Yang, J., & Xiao, J. (2012). The functions of smart classroom in
smart learning age. Open Education Research, 18(2), 22–27.
Jin, J. F., & Gu, X. Q. (2010). Analysis and research of classroom teaching behavior in
information technology environment. China Educational Technology, (09), 88–92.
Jo, J., & Lim, H. (2015). A study on effectiveness of smart classrooms through interaction
analysis. Advanced Science Letters, 21(3), 557–561.
Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing collaborative autonomous learning abil-
ities in computer mediated language learning: Attention to meaning among students in
wiki space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 41–58.
Kwet, M., & Prinsloo, P. (2020). The “smart” classroom: A new frontier in the age of the
smart university. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(6), 1–17.
Landsheere, & De, G. (1982). Empirical research in education. Comparative Education
Review, 28(4), 59–86.
Liu, T., & Kender, J. R. (2007). Computational approaches to temporal sampling of
video sequences. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and
Applications, 3(2), 7–es.
Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2010). Mining LMS data to develop an “early warning
system” for educators: A proof of concept. Computers & Education, 54(2), 588–599.
Martinez, A., Dimitriadis, Y., Rubia, B., Gomez, E., & La Fuente, P. D. (2003).
Combining qualitative evaluation and social network analysis for the study of class-
room social interactions. Computers in Education, 41(4), 353–368.
Merisotis, J. P., & Phipps, R. A. (1999). What’s the difference?: Outcomes of distance vs.
traditional classroom-based learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning,
31(3), 12–17.
Mor, Y., & Winters, N. (2007). Design approaches in technology-enhanced learning.
Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 61–75.
Rasooli, A., Zandi, H., & Deluca, C. (2019). Conceptualising fairness in classroom
assessment: Exploring the value of organisational justice theory. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 26(5), 584–611.
Schoech, D., & Helton, D. (2002). Qualitative and quantitative analysis of a course
taught via classroom and internet chatroom. Qualitative Social Work, 1(1), 111–124.
Seery, N., Canty, D., & Phelan, P. (2012). The validity and value of peer assessment using
adaptive comparative judgement in design driven practical education. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(2), 205–226.
Yi et al. 25
Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Brown, K. G., & Bauer, K. N. (2010). Self-assessment of knowl-
edge: A cognitive learning or affective measure? Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 9(2), 169–191.
Song, S., Zhong, X., Li, H., Du, J., & Nie, F. (2014, June–July). Smart classroom: From
conceptualization to construction [Paper presentation]. 2014 International Conference
on Intelligent Environments, Shanghai, China.
Straub, R. (1997). Students’ reactions to teacher comments: An exploratory study.
Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 91–119.
Stufflebeam, D. (2001). Evaluation models. New Directions for Evaluation, 2001(89),
7–98.
Szewkis, E., Nussbaum, M., Rosen, T., Abalos, J., Denardin, F., Caballero, D., Tagle,
A., & Alcoholado, C. (2011). Collaboration within large groups in the classroom.
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 561–575.
Van den Hurk, H. T. G., Houtveen, A. A. M., & Van de Grift, W. J. C. M. (2016).
Fostering effective teaching behavior through the use of data-feedback. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 60, 444–451.
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future
research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115–131.
Wang, Y. H., & Liao, H. C. (2017). Learning performance enhancement using computer-
assisted language learning by collaborative learning groups. Symmetry-Basel, 9(8),
141.
Waring, H. Z. (2009). Moving out of IRF (initiation-response-feedback): A single case
analysis. Language Learning, 59(4), 796–824.
Yang, S. J. H., Zhang, J., Su, A. Y. S., & Tsai, J. J. P. (2011). A collaborative multimedia
annotation tool for enhancing knowledge sharing in CSCL. Interactive Learning
Environments, 19(1), 45–62.
Zhang, X., & Wang, D. (2018). Research on teacher-student interaction in M-learning.
Educational Sciences-Theory & Practice, 18(5), 1598–1603.
Author Biographies
Suping Yi is a master’s degree candidate of Nanjing Normal University School
of Education Science in Vocational and Technical Education, and her research
interests include education informatization theory and practice, teacher’s infor-
mation teaching ability Evaluation. In 2019, she helped organize the first smart
classroom innovation teaching competition in Jiangsu Province and participated
in the formulation of smart classroom evaluation standards.
Ruwei Yun received PhD in educational technology in 2009, he has been a pro-
fessor at Nanjing Normal University and the Dean of the Institute of Smart
Education of Nanjing Normal University. He has published more than 40 aca-
demic papers, including more than 20 published in SCI, EI, ISTP. His research
interests include the practical study of classroom teaching reform based on
smart education, the construction of smart campuses in primary and secondary
26 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 0(0)