sustainability
Article
Analyzing the Differences of Interaction and Engagement in a
Smart Classroom and a Traditional Classroom
Huiju Yu 1 , Gaojun Shi 2 , Jiaping Li 2 and Junfeng Yang 2, *
Citation: Yu, H.; Shi, G.; Li, J.; Yang, J.
Analyzing the Differences of
Interaction and Engagement in a
Smart Classroom and a Traditional
Classroom. Sustainability 2022, 14,
8184. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su14138184
Academic Editor: José Antonio
Marín-Marín
Received: 26 May 2022
Accepted: 1 July 2022
Published: 5 July 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8184. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138184
1 School of Marxism, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 311121, China; yhj@hznu.edu.cn
2 School of Education, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 311121, China;
shigaojun@stu.hznu.edu.cn (G.S.); lijiaping@stu.hznu.edu.cn (J.L.)
* Correspondence: yjf@hznu.edu.cn
Abstract: Interaction in the classroom plays the key role for cultivating students’ 21st century skills.
Insufficient breadth of interaction, uneven interaction opportunities, and chaotic interaction existed
in many classrooms. With the integration of technology into education, many smart classrooms were
built, with one of the aims being to promote interaction. However, the differences of interaction
behaviors and engagement in a smart class versus a traditional class could rarely be found in literature,
especially with the same teacher lecturing in both classes. In this study, a quasi-experiment was
conducted by one experienced English teacher lecturing in a smart classroom with students and a
traditional classroom with students for one semester. Research data were obtained by coding the
8 class videos with the proposed “Classroom Interaction Analysis Framework” and the adapted
engagement questionnaire, and the data were analyzed using SPSS 24. Results showed that there
were no significant differences in either interpersonal interaction or human–technology interaction;
however students experienced significantly more engagement in the smart classroom. The reasons
were analyzed and interaction patterns in smart classroom were discussed. Finally, a smart classroom
interaction model was proposed to promote classroom interaction by considering the interplay of
pedagogy, space, and technology.
Keywords: smart classroom; classroom interaction; traditional classroom; behavior coding method
1. Introduction
One of the key roles claimed for information and communication technology (ICT) in
promoting learning is interactivity, i.e., the ability to respond contingently to the learner’s
actions [1,2]. With the development of ICT, more social, interactive, flexible, and student-
centered learning environments are realized [3]. The smart classroom is a kind of typical
intelligent learning environment [4–6], with the aims to increase teachers’ interaction
opportunities and overcome teachers’ attitudinal barriers to technology [7–9].
A smart classroom is defined as a physical classroom that is enriched with digital,
context-aware, and adaptive devices [4,10,11]. Integrating the advanced forms of educa-
tional technology, a smart classroom increases the instructors’ ability to facilitate students’
learning [3,12] and provide the necessary conditions for the training of students’ 21st cen-
tury skills [13,14].
The continuous infiltration and integration of technology in classroom environments
provides an opportunity to enhance interpersonal interaction in the classroom [1,15]. Techni-
cally configured smart classrooms may enhance the diversity and effectiveness of classroom
interactions [16–18], but few studies could be found analyzing the differences of interaction
in smart classrooms versus traditional classrooms.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8184 2 of 13

2. Research Status of Classroom Interaction

Many studies have shown that classroom interaction can affect the classroom atmo-
sphere, students’ behavior, and the level of engagement, and thus the quality of classroom
teaching [19,20].
However, in the traditional classroom, some inherent problems seriously restricted the
overall quality of interpersonal interaction in the classroom [21], for example, fixed seating,
rigid multi-media console, and lack of student’s presenting screen. Umida et al. [22] pointed
out that the interaction between teachers and students was chaotic and students were in a
passive position in the traditional classroom. Suping et al. [23] proposed that interaction
in traditional classroom generally characterized by massive teacher–student interaction,
lack of emotional interaction, insufficient interaction, and normally one-way interaction
of “one-way obedience”. In the traditional classroom environment, most teachers played
the role of “indoctrination”, where students passively received knowledge. Teachers and
students interacted only with words at a shallow level around knowledge in the textbook,
and there was little communication between students, which was not conducive to the
development of students’ 21st century skills.
In regard to technology-enhanced interaction in the classroom, many studies have been
conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of using specific tools or systems for classroom inter-
action. Mimouni (2022) [24] reported the findings of using clickers for interaction, and it was
found that students were more engaged in learning, group interaction was improved, and
the pedagogy changed from teacher-centered to student-centered. Sun and Hsiu (2022) [25]
also found that the classroom response system could facilitate interaction among learners
and content, enhance students’ engagement with entrepreneurial knowledge acquisition,
and improve students’ motivation. Wang et al. (2022) [26] conducted research in the smart
classroom to investigate the association of the layout of smart classroom and real-time
social interactions.
For interaction patterns in a technology-rich environment, Chen et al. (2011) [27] men-
tioned that except for interpersonal interaction, classroom interaction should also include
human–technology interaction, human–resource interaction, human–environment interac-
tion, technology–technology interaction, technology–resource interaction, environment–
resource interaction, and resource–resource interaction. Martin, Parker, and Deale (2012) [28]
examined the interactivity in a synchronous virtual classroom and found that interactions
were promoted by the live communication that occurred in the virtual classroom. The
four types of interaction of learner–teacher, learner–learner, learner–interface and learner–
content were identified in the paper. Yang et al. (2019) [29] investigated the interaction in a
blended synchronous cyber classroom and classified the interaction pattern of teacher using
technology, student using technology, teacher talking, and students talking. Wang et al.
(2015) [30] proposed an interaction observation tool for the smart classroom, including inter-
action subjects, contents of interaction, degree of technology support, degree of interaction,
degree of feedback, and degree of engagement.
Pedagogical issues on using technology to enhance interactivity have gradually at-
tracted researchers’ attention. He et al. (2017) [31] argued that the flexible space and
interactive devices, intelligent tools, and rich-media information in smart classrooms
could provide new opportunities for group collaboration learning. Persaud and Persaud
(2019) [32] investigated the effectiveness of using a web-based Student Response System to
promote interaction combined with the Think-Pair-Share model. Lucas et al. (2021) [33]
studied the value of online interaction and they found that instructor feedback on partici-
pation, instructor interactivity, and asynchronous interaction in discussion forums were the
three significant values for online interaction. At present, many schools have built smart
classrooms, but in the process of teaching practice, the role of technology in supporting
classroom interaction remains to be explored. Therefore, the research questions of this
paper are: (1) what are the differences of interaction in a smart classroom and interaction in
the traditional classroom if teaching is conducted by the same teacher? (2) Does teaching in
a smart classroom promote students’ engagement?
 Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8184 3 of 13

3. Method
3. Method 3.1. Participants
3.1. Participants A total of 106 students were selected from two parallel classes of the first-year u
A total ofgraduate
106 studentscohortwere
of selected
a vocationalfromcollege
two parallel classesprovince,
in Zhejiang of the first-year
China.under-
There were 54
graduate cohort of a vocational college in Zhejiang province, China. There were 54 students
dents in the experimental smart class and 52 students in the control traditional class
in the experimental
average smart class and
of English 52 students
scores (93.035,in92.900)
the control
and traditional class. The(11.698,
standard deviation average 11.675) o
of English scores (93.035, 92.900) and standard deviation (11.698,
experimental and control classes are close. Both classes use the same11.675) of the experi-
teaching mat
mental and control
and are classes
taught arebyclose. BothEnglish
the same classes teacher.
use the same teaching
The teacher hasmaterials and are
been teaching for many y
taught by the has
samerichEnglish teacher.
teaching The teacher
experience, and has
has been teaching
a great interestfor
inmany years, of
the reform has rich
the teaching m
teaching experience,
under theandtechnical
has a great interest in the reform of the teaching model under the
support.
technical support. In the tradition classroom used in this study, a whiteboard and a blackboard
In the tradition
equipped classroom
to allowused in this
teachers to study,
projectatheir
whiteboard
slides orand a blackboard
contents from thewereInternet ont
equipped to allow teachers to project their slides or contents from the
screen, while the smart classroom was equipped with Wi-Fi, one interactive Internet onto the whiteb
screen, while one
the smart classroom
blackboard, one was
tabletequipped
for everywith Wi-Fi, one
student, and interactive
an interactivewhiteboard,
teaching platfor
one blackboard, one tablet for every student, and an interactive teaching
shown in Figure 1. In the smart classroom environment, teachers and students platform as carr
shown in Figure 1. In teaching
various the smartactivities
classroom environment,
based on mobileteachers and students
phone terminals, carrymainly
teachers out use c
various teaching activities based on mobile phone terminals, teachers mainly use cloud
classes, micro teaching assistants and other teaching apps to set up classroom exer
classes, micro teaching assistants and other teaching apps to set up classroom exercises and
and discussion activities, students with the technology-enhanced self-study, searc
discussion activities, students with the technology-enhanced self-study, search resources,
sources, interactive discussion, students’ results, and exercises can be presented inst
interactive discussion, students’ results, and exercises can be presented instantly with the
with the help of a projector. Teachers and students in the control group were taug
help of a projector. Teachers and students in the control group were taught in traditional
traditional multimedia classrooms.
multimedia classrooms.

Figure 1. The basic configuration of a smart classroom and a traditional classroom.

Figure 1. The basic configuration of a smart classroom and a traditional classroom.
3.2. Data Collection Tools
The study 3.2. Data one
lasted Collection Toolswith the teacher teaching in both a smart classroom
semester
The studyfor
and a traditional classroom lasted one semester
8 classes. with
At the end ofthe
theteacher teaching
experiment, in both
the two a smart
kinds of class
and a traditional classroom for 8 classes. At the end of the experiment,
data were collected: (1) the 4 class videos from the smart classroom and 4 class videos the two kin
data were collected: (1) the 4 class videos from the smart classroom
from the traditional classroom were analyzed by using “Classroom Interaction Analysis and 4 class v
from
Framework”, (2) 37 the traditional classroom
questionnaires from smartwere analyzed
classroom by from
and 44 usingtraditional
“Classroom Interaction Ana
classroom
were collectedFramework”, (2) 37 questionnaires
by using “Engagement from The
Questionnaire”. smart classroomdesign
experiment and 44isfrom
showtraditional
in
Table 1. room were collected by using “Engagement Questionnaire”. The experiment desi
show in Table 1.
Table 1. The quasi-experiment design.
Table 1. The quasi-experiment design.
Group Teacher Experiment Treatment Data Collection
Experiment group
Teacher A
(1) Smart classroom Experiment Treat-
(1) Interaction behavior coding
(n = 54) Group Teacher teaching (2) Engagement questionnaire
(2) Technology-enhanced Data Collecti
ment
Control group (1) Traditional classroom (1) Interaction behavior coding
(n = 52) Experiment
Teacher A
(2) Teaching in traditional way(1) Smart classroomquestionnaire
(2) Engagement (1) Interaction be
group Teacher A (2) Technology-en-
havior coding
(n = 54) hanced teaching
In order to analyzing the video, the Classroom Interaction Analysis Framework was
developed according to the literature and our previous research [32,34].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8184 4 of 13

Interests in research on interaction in the classroom has a long history. Smith (1961) [35]
pioneered classroom interaction research through the classification of verbal interaction
behavior and the mutual interaction of the teachers and pupils. There are two major
prerequisites for effective classroom interaction analysis: (1) the structure of classroom
interaction; (2) the classification of teacher and pupil interaction behaviors.
A classroom observation method is often adopted for analyzing the teaching and
learning behavior in a classroom. The Flanders Interactive Analysis System (FIAS) was the
widely used behavior coding method for teacher and student activities, which includes
teacher-led and pupil-led teacher talk and pupil talk [36]. According to the interaction anal-
ysis coding system proposed by Zhang et al. [37], Ye et al. [38], and Jeber et al. (2021) [39],
both human and technology should be considered in technology-rich classrooms. There-
fore, the coding system of this study includes two kinds of interaction of “interpersonal
interaction” and “human–tech interaction”, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Classroom Interaction Analysis Framework.

Dimension Activity Coding

Accepting student’s emotion TS1
Encouraging or praising students TS2
Accepting student’s idea TS3

Teacher talk Asking questions TS4

Teacher–student Lecturing TS5

Interpersonal
interaction Guiding TS6
Criticizing or maintaining
TS7
authority
Passively answering questions ST8
Student talk Actively answering questions ST9
Asking questions ST10
Student–student Working with peers SS11
Using slides TM12
Projecting content to whiteboard TM13
Blackboard writing TM14
Teacher–tool Sending exercises TM15
Tech instruction TM16
Viewing statistics TM17
Human–tech Reductant operation SM18
interaction
Viewing the textbook SM19
Writing on paper SM20
Writing on tablet SM21
Student–tool Tech support assessment SM22
Presentation SM23
Collaborative practice SM24
Scan QR code SM25

The “engagement questionnaire” consisted of 6 items, with 3 for behavioral engagement

and 3 for emotional engagement adapted from Ellen Skinner et al. (2008) [40]. The Cronbach
Alpha was 0.853, indicating that the reliability of the questionnaire was acceptable.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8184 5 of 13

3.3. The Coding Process

Before formally coding the course video, in order to enable the coder to correctly
understand the indicators of the coding tool and the smooth use of the coding tool to
encode the classroom video, to ensure the accuracy of video coding, two coders were
trained first. In the process of encoding the classroom video, two coders encoded the same
classroom video, and if there was a disagreement, the researcher and the coder analyzed
together to form a video encoding. Due to the complexity and overlap of the teaching
interaction behavior, the following coding rules were agreed upon in this study: (1) The
frequency of teacher–student dialogue in English classroom is faster, so take a sample
every 1 s, give a coding symbol, and record this behavior; (2) when a variety of interactive
behaviors occur in unit time, choose the interaction behavior which is different from the
previous unit time; (3) when students carry out inquiry and discussion activities, the
teacher tours and does not guide or organize the group, then only record the students to
explore and discuss; (4) when there is a classroom pause in teaching due to improper use
of technology or technical failure, record edgy operation as “redundant operation”.
According to the classroom behavior coding table based on the interaction analysis of
the smart classroom, the statistics of teacher–student interaction after coding are shown
Table 3.

Table 3. Behavior coding statistics sample.

No. Time Begins Time Lasts (s) Coding Behavior Notes

1 0:01:05 20 TS2 Encouraging or praising students
2 0:01:25 30 TS4 Teacher answering questions
3 0:01:55 35 TS6 Teacher guiding student’s thinking

3.4. Ethics Statement

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the School of Education in
Hangzhou Normal University (China). The teachers and students involved in the study
agreed to participate voluntarily with informed consent. The data collected from the
classroom video analysis was confidential without any potential risk to the integrity of
the subjects.

4. Results
4.1. Interpersonal Interaction
The results of the means and independent samples t-tests for student–teacher and
student–student behaviors (shown in Table 4) showed that there were no significant differ-
ences (p > 0.05) in the interaction behaviors of teachers–students and students–students
between the smart classroom and the traditional classroom. Although there was no signifi-
cant difference, the mean value of teacher–student interaction behaviors in the traditional
classroom was higher than that in the smart classroom, while the mean value of student–
student interaction behaviors in the former was lower than that in the latter. This indicated
that the traditional subjectivity of the teacher is weakened and the subjectivity of the
students is improved in the smart classroom.

Table 4. Comparison of interpersonal interaction.

Experimental Control Group

Dimension Independent-Samples t-Test
Group (n = 4) (n = 4)
Mean Mean t Sig.(two-tailed)
Teacher–student 285.75 379.75 2.244 0.066
Student–student 4.25 0.25 3.021 0.416
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8184 6 of 13

To further clarify the ways that interpersonal interaction behavioral changed, the
following analyses were conducted for each item of teacher–student and student–student
interaction behaviors. The results of independent sample t-tests (as in Table 5) for each
sub-item of teacher–student interaction behavior in the experimental and control groups
showed no significant differences (p > 0.05) for all items. The experimental group had higher
means than the control group for the items of accepting students’ emotions, encouraging
or praising students, accepting students’ ideas, and lecturing; the experimental class had
lower means than the control class for the sub-items of asking questions, lecturing, and
criticizing or maintaining authority. The analysis of teacher–student interaction behavior
showed that the effective interaction between teachers and students was enhanced in the
smart classroom, and students and teachers were able to interact more positively with each
other and the classroom atmosphere was more harmonious. A review of the classroom
recordings revealed that in the smart classroom, teachers used encouraging language to
talk to students as equals. For example, when students use their cell phones to answer
questions online, teachers provide real-time updates on their answers and give feedback
to students who have done well, such as “XXX has finished” and “XXX has done well, all
correct”. The use of electronic devices such as cell phones provides more opportunities and
methods for teachers to quickly grasp students’ learning and provide timely and effective
guidance, facilitating individualized and differentiated communication between teachers
and students, and creating an atmosphere of equal and harmonious interaction between
teachers and students in the classroom.

Table 5. Comparison of teacher–student interaction.

Experimental Control
Independent-Samples
Dimension Item Group Group
t-Test
(n = 4) (n = 4)
Mean Mean t Sig.(two-tailed)
Accepting
3.50 2.75 0.655 0.537
student’s emotion
Encouraging or
9.25 4.75 1.748 0.131
praising students
Accepting
Teacher– 12.75 12.25 0.170 0.870
student’s idea
student
Asking questions 59.75 66.25 0.382 0.724
Lecturing 177.25 278.50 2.625 0.062
Guiding 22.75 14.50 1.964 0.120
Criticizing or
0.5 0.75 0.447 0.670
Maintaining authority

The student–student interaction behavior, i.e., the item of working with peers, has
shown no significant differences between experiment group and control group. Since
this experimental course was a college English listening course, listening exercises were
predominant in the class and there are fewer opportunities for discussion, which caused
the differences between interaction in the smart classroom and traditional classroom to be
poorly represented, as shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Comparison of student–student interaction.

Experimental Group
Dimension Item Control Group (n = 4)
(n = 4)
Mean Mean t
student–student Working with peers 4.25 0.25 0.655
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8184 7 of 13

4.2. Human–Tech Interaction

The major difference between the smart classroom and the traditional classroom is
the use of technology. To further analyze the changes in human–tech interactions, the
interaction behaviors of teachers–tool and students–tool in the classroom were statistically
and analytically analyzed. The results of independent sample t-tests of teacher–tool and
student–tool interaction behaviors within the smart and traditional classrooms (shown in
Table 7) revealed that there was a significant difference in teacher–tool interaction behaviors
between the two types of classrooms (t = 2.919, p < 0.05), with a significant increase in
teacher–tool interaction behaviors in the smart classroom environment. Although there
was no significant difference in student–tool interaction behaviors between the two types of
classrooms, the mean value of student–tool interaction behaviors was higher in the smart
classroom than in the traditional classroom. It can be concluded that teaching in the smart
classroom environment increases the interaction between people and technology, where
the number of interactive behaviors between teachers and tools is significantly higher,
which indicates that the smart classroom places higher demands on teachers’ ability to
apply technology.

Table 7. Comparison of human–tech interaction.

Experimental Group Control Group

Dimension Independent-Samples t-Test
(n = 4) (n = 4)
Mean Mean t Mean
Teacher–tool 32.25 14.50 2.919 * 0.027
Student–tool 292.75 230.00 1.251 0.269
* p < 0.05.

To explore the differences more deeply, further analysis of the specific items for teacher–
tool and student–tool follows (as shown in Table 8). There were no significant differences in
any of the sub-items of teacher–tool interaction behaviors. The sub-item of using slides in
the smart classroom and in the traditional classroom was the most frequent of the teacher–
tool interaction behaviors, and the mean of this behavior was comparable in both types
of classrooms.

Table 8. Comparison of teacher–tool interaction.

Experimental Control
Independent-Samples
Dimension Item Group Group
t-Test
(n = 4) (n = 4)
Mean Mean t Mean
Using slides 14.00 13.75 0.048 0.963
Projecting content to
1.00 0.00 1.732 0.134
white board
Teacher–tool Sending exercises 2.25 0.00 2.029 0.135
Tech instruction 4.50 0.00 2.141 0.122
Viewing statistics 7.75 0.00 2.758 0.070
Reductant operation 2.75 0.75 1.372 0.219

The teaching behaviors of projecting content to whiteboard, sending exercises, tech

instruction, and viewing statistics were only available in the smart classroom environment,
and the highest frequency was for the item of viewing statistics. Accordingly, the following
conclusions can be drawn: teaching in the smart classroom increased teacher–tool interac-
tion but the dominant interaction behavior is still using slides and teachers tend to use the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8184 8 of 13

function of response statistics most in the smart classroom environment to obtain students’
learning situation in real time.
In both the experimental and control groups, teachers used the tools in a redundant
manner, and the mean value was higher in the experimental group than in the control
group. This indicates that teachers in the smart classroom environment are more likely
to make technical errors, which further suggests that teaching in the smart classroom
environment places new and higher-level technical requirements on teachers.
The results of the independent sample t-test for the student–tool dimension showed
(as shown in Table 9) that there was a significant difference between viewing the textbook
(t = 2.965, p = 0.025) and writing on iPad (t = 3.318, p = 0.045) in the experimental and
control groups. This indicates that the interaction between students and mobile devices
such as cell phones significantly increased in the smart classroom environment, and more
writing was switched to the electronic screen.

Table 9. Comparison of Student–tool interaction.

Experimental Control
Independent-Samples
Dimension Item Group Group
t-Test
(n = 4) (n = 4)
Mean Mean t Mean
Viewing the textbook 18.75 4.75 2.965 * 0.025
Writing on paper 169.75 225.25 −1.164 0.305
Writing on pad 92.75 0 3.318 * 0.045
Student–tool
Tech support assessment 1.25 0 1.667 0.194
Presentation 0.25 0 1.000 0.391
Scan QR code 10 0 1.508 0.229
* p < 0.05.

In the paper writing item, the mean value of the experimental group was lower than
that of the control group. Combined with the analysis of the writing on iPad items in the
previous paragraph, it can be concluded that in the smart classroom environment, students
no longer used only paper writing, but increased the cell phone writing as a way to answer.
Comparing the two classroom environments, there were no significant differences
between the three sub-items of technology-supported evaluation, presentation, and scan QR
code, and the means of all these interactive behaviors were relatively low in smart classroom.

4.3. Students’ Engagement

The results of the independent sample t-test of the students’ affective engagement
dimension (as shown in Table 10) showed that there was a significant difference between the
experimental group and the control group in term of “Do you enjoy the process of teaching
English listening and speaking classes?” (t = 2.323, p < 0.05) and “Are you looking forward
to continuing to study English listening and speaking at university?” (t = 2.844, p < 0.01).
There was no significant difference between the experimental and control groups on the
item of “Do you enjoy the process of group discussion?”. This indicates that teaching in the
smart classroom increases students’ enjoyment of the English classroom, but at the same
time, there is little motivation for group discussion and little emotional involvement in this
area. This further confirms that the teacher–student interactions in the smart classroom
environment were more adequate and cordial in the video analysis, and also reflects the
inadequate and ineffective student–student interactions.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8184 9 of 13

Table 10. Comparison of emotion engagement.

Experimental Control Group Independent-Samples

Dimension Item
Group (n = 37) (n = 44) t-Test
Mean Mean t Mean
Do you enjoy the process of
3.41 3.05 1.839 0.070
group discussion?

Affective Do you enjoy the process of teaching

3.46 3.02 2.323 * 0.023
engagement English listening and speaking classes?
Are you looking forward to continuing to
study English listening and speaking 3.54 2.95 2.844 ** 0.006
at university?
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

The results of the independent sample t-test on the dimension of students’ behavioral
engagement (as shown in Table 11) showed that, compared with the control group, there
was a significant difference in all three items. This shows that students’ behavioral engage-
ment is higher in the smart classroom, especially in the problem discussion, than in the
traditional classroom.

Table 11. Comparison of behavior engagement.

Experimental Control Group Independent-Saples

Dimension Item
Group (n = 37) (n = 44) t-Test
Mean Mean t Mean
Do you actively answer the teaching
2.97 2.48 2.448 * 0.017
questions in each class?
Do you actively participate in
Behavior 3.62 3.18 2.609 * 0.011
cooperative learning in English classes?
engagement
Do you work hard to solve the problems
encountered in the discussion during 3.46 2.95 2.815 ** 0.006
English listening and speaking classes?
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

5. Discussion
5.1. Interaction Behaviors in a Smart Classroom
Classroom interaction in a smart classroom includes interpersonal and human–tech
interaction. Interpersonal interaction is mainly the interaction between teacher and one stu-
dent, teachers’ interaction with a group of students, teachers’ interaction with all students,
and students’ interaction with other students. Human–tech interaction is mainly used to
support teacher’s presentation, management, real-time interaction, and feedback. Interper-
sonal interaction and human–tech interaction interact with each other, mainly relying on
teachers’ design of learning activities. It is the pedagogy that matters, not the technology,
which could also explain why there were no significant differences. For teaching in a smart
classroom, it is important to consider the two kinds of interactions and integrate technology
into pedagogy.
As shown in Table 12, for human–tech interaction, teachers could utilize these technolo-
gies to support presentation, accessing learning resources, managing class environment,
giving students’ real-time feedback, and analyzing learning outcome. Teachers could
consider these pedagogy interactions supported by technology in the smart classroom. For
interpersonal interaction, the interaction with a student, a group of students, the whole
class, and student–student interaction should be considered. It should be noticed that these
two kinds of interactions are always interrelated with each other, which should also be
considered in the designing process.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8184 10 of 13

Table 12. The main contents of interactions in a smart classroom.

Interaction Types Categories Contents

Teacher to one student
Teacher to group students
Interpersonal interaction
Teacher to whole class
Student–student interaction
Content presentation
Human–technology
Resource accessing
interaction
Environment managing
Real-time feedback
Learning outcome analytics
Ask and answer questions, guiding, oral evaluation, etc.
Organize and guide, ask and answer questions, oral evaluation, etc.
Organization and management, explanation and demonstration, ask
and answer questions, guide the inspired, etc.
Discussion and communication, speaking and sharing, mutual
evaluation, etc.
Blackboard, interactive whiteboards, flat panel rendering and
projecting, etc.
Recorded broadcast, teacher access resources, student access
resources, etc.
Manage and control the hardware and software in the classroom
Upload and distribute, practice and testing, give a like, vies to answer
first, etc.
Statistical analysis of data, data mining and learning analysis, etc.

5.2. Interaction Model for a Smart Classroom

In a smart classroom full of technology, a teacher’s ICT skills should be improved to
conduct technology-enhanced pedagogy to promote interaction in the classroom. Based
on theoretical analysis and practical insights, the interaction model for a smart classroom
was proposed, as shown in Figure 2. First, refer to the PST (Pedagogy-Space-Technology)
framework proposed by David Radcliffe (2008) [41]; this model consisted of the three
dimensions of pedagogy, classroom space, and information technology. “Space” mainly
refers to the physical environment in a classroom, including the division of classroom
areas, the layout of desks and chairs, as well as sound, light, temperature, and other related
equipment. Huang et al. (2012) [5] proposed the “SMART” classroom concept model with
the five dimensions of “Showing”, “Managing”, “Accessing”, “Real-time feedback”, and
“Testing”. Accordingly, as shown in Figure 2, technologies facilitating teachers’ content
presentation, management of classroom climate, assessing learning resources, providing
students real-time feedback, and learning analytics should be considered for using a
smart classroom.
In order to effectively carry out classroom interaction, pedagogy should be integrated
with both space and technology, by considering the five dimensions of smart classroom
environment. Dong et al. (2018) [42] argued that innovative teaching comprises of teaching
methods, media, learning content, evaluation, learning objectives, management, and many
other factors. According to Voss et al. (2011) [43], “general pedagogic knowledge” consisted
of five dimensions: knowledge of classroom management, knowledge of teaching methods,
knowledge of classroom evaluation, knowledge of learning process, and knowledge of
individual learner characteristics. Therefore, to enhance classroom interaction, from a ped-
agogy perspective, the five aspects of “objectives”, “content”, “methods”, “management”,
and “evaluation” were included in the model.
The aspects of pedagogy should be considered when designing classroom interaction,
and also the smart classroom combined both space and technology providing environ-
mental support for classroom interaction from the five dimensions. Therefore, designing
interaction in a smart classroom could consider the pedagogy aspects and the supports of
smart environments from the aspects of presentation of teaching/learning content, man-
agement of class climate, accessing learning resources, providing real-time feedback, and
analyzing learning outcome.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 8184
The aspects of pedagogy should be considered when designing classroom interac-
tion, and also the smart classroom combined both space and technology providing envi-
ronmental support for classroom interaction from the five dimensions. Therefore, design-
ing interaction in a smart classroom could consider the pedagogy aspects and the supports
of smart environments from the aspects of presentation of teaching/learning content,
11 ofman-
13
agement of class climate, accessing learning resources, providing real-time feedback, and
analyzing learning outcome.

Figure 2. The smart classroom interaction model.

Figure 2. The smart classroom interaction model.

6. Limitations and Conclusions

This study investigated the differences of interaction and engagement in a smart class-
room and the traditional classroom by using a behavior coding method on 8 lecture videos
in the two kinds of classrooms. The results showed that no significant differences were
found in either interpersonal interaction or human–tech interactions; however, students ex-
perienced more engagement in a smart classroom. Based on the results, interaction patterns
and an interaction model in a smart classroom are proposed for promoting interaction by
integrating technology, pedagogy, and space.
This study was only a pilot study on classroom interaction, the sample could be
enlarged and a sophisticated data analysis method could be adopted. In the future, the
comparative study on the interaction between the smart classroom and the traditional
classroom can be further deepened from the aspects of theory, design, and practice.
Firstly, in terms of theoretical research, the technology-enhanced interaction patterns
and the interplay between interpersonal interaction and human–tech interaction should
be explored further. In addition, the model proposed in this study to promote interaction
in smart classrooms could be further refined in large-scale smart classroom practices.
Secondly, in terms of design research, it is necessary to design a more reasonable interaction
analysis model under the guidance of theory and combining with the latest literature
interaction research. Thirdly, in terms of practical research, a long-term and evidence-based
experiment will be conducted to investigate how to improve ICT competency of teachers,
the relationship between interaction and performance, and the auto-interaction behavior
coding methods in smart classroom.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.Y.; data curation, G.S.; funding acquisition, J.Y.; investi-
gation, H.Y.; methodology, H.Y.; project administration, J.Y.; software, G.S. and J.L.; supervision, J.Y.;
visualization, J.L.; writing—original draft, H.Y.; writing—review and editing, G.S., J.L. and J.Y. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8184 12 of 13

Funding: This research work was supported by 2021 Zhejiang Provincial Philosophy and Social
Planning Project “The construction of cloud employment system for higher education institute in
post-COVID-19 period” (No: 21GXSZ030YB).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical approval Research No.2022020 from Hangzhou
Normal University.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Beauchamp, G.; Kennewell, S. Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Comput. Educ. 2010, 54, 759–766.
[CrossRef]
2. Nikolayev, M.; Reich, S.M.; Muskat, T.; Tadjbakhsh, N.; Callaghan, M.N. Review of feedback in edutainment games for
preschoolers in the USA. J. Child. Media 2020, 15, 358–375. [CrossRef]
3. MacLeod, J.; Yang, H.H.; Zhu, S.; Li, Y. Understanding students’ preferences toward the smart classroom learning environment:
Development and validation of an instrument. Comput. Educ. 2018, 122, 80–91. [CrossRef]
4. Alfoudari, A.M.; Durugbo, C.M.; Aldhmour, F.M. Understanding socio-technological challenges of smart classrooms using a
systematic review. Comput. Educ. 2021, 173, 104282. [CrossRef]
5. Huang, R.; Yongbin, H.U.; Yang, J.A.; Xiao, G.R. The functions of smart classroom in smart learning age. Open Educ. Res. 2012,
6, 18. [CrossRef]
6. Paudel, P.; Kim, S.; Park, S.; Choi, K.-H. A Context-Aware IoT and Deep-Learning-Based Smart Classroom for Controlling
Demand and Supply of Power Load. Electronics 2020, 9, 1039. [CrossRef]
7. Saini, M.K.; Goel, N. How Smart Are Smart Classrooms? A Review of Smart Classroom Technologies. ACM Comput. Surv. 2020,
52, 1–28. [CrossRef]
8. Zhan, Z.; Wu, Q.; Lin, Z.; Cai, J. Smart classroom environments affect teacher-student interaction: Evidence from a behavioural
sequence analysis. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 37, 96–109. [CrossRef]
9. Ertmer, P.A.; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T.; Sadik, O.; Sendurur, E.; Sendurur, P. Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices:
A critical relationship. Comput. Educ. 2012, 59, 423–435. [CrossRef]
10. Yao, Y. Design and Application of Intelligent Classroom Teaching Mode under the Blended Curriculum Reform. Int. J. Front.
Sociol. 2021, 3, 59–63. [CrossRef]
11. Koper, R. Conditions for effective smart learning environments. Smart Learn. Environ. 2014, 1, 5. [CrossRef]
12. Lu, K.; Yang, H.H.; Shi, Y.; Wang, X. Examining the key influencing factors on college students’ higher-order thinking skills in the
smart classroom environment. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2021, 18, 1–13. [CrossRef]
13. Lorenzo, N.; Gallon, R.; Palau, R.; Mogas, J. New Objectives for Smart Classrooms from Industry 4.0. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 2021,
26, 719–731. [CrossRef]
14. Songkram, N.; Chootongchai, S.; Khlaisang, J.; Koraneekij, P. Education 3.0 system to enhance twenty-first century skills for
higher education learners in Thailand. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2021, 29, 566–582. [CrossRef]
15. Yuan, Y. Quantitative analysis of Chinese classroom teaching activity under the background of artificial intelligence. Educ. Inf.
Technol. 2022, 1–17. [CrossRef]
16. Shadiev, R.; Dang, C. A systematic review study on integrating technology-assisted intercultural learning in various learning
context. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 3, 1–33. [CrossRef]
17. Shah, V.; Murthy, S.; Warriem, J.; Sahasrabudhe, S.; Banerjee, G.; Iyer, S. Learner-centric MOOC model: A pedagogical design
model towards active learner participation and higher completion rates. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2022, 70, 263–288. [CrossRef]
18. Wooten, J.J. Integrating discussion and digital media to increase classroom interaction. Int. Rev. Econ. Educ. 2020, 33, 100174.
[CrossRef]
19. Kaufmann, R.; Vallade, J.I. Exploring connections in the online learning environment: Student perceptions of rapport, climate,
and loneliness. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 3, 1–15. [CrossRef]
20. Heron, M.; Dippold, D. Overview of classroom interaction: Definitions, models, practices and challenges. In Meaningful Teaching
Interaction at the Internationalised University; Routledge: London, UK, 9 May 2021; pp. 3–12.
21. Kay, R.H.; LeSage, A. Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature.
Comput. Educ. 2009, 53, 819–827. [CrossRef]
22. Karimova, U.; Akhmedova, D.; Ergashev, I. Constructivism in Teaching and Learning Process. Eur. J. Res. Refle. Educ. Sci. 2020,
8, 134.
23. Yi, S.; Yun, R.; Duan, X.; Lu, Y. Similar or Different? A Comparison of Traditional Classroom and Smart Classroom’s Teaching
Behavior in China. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 2021, 49, 461–486. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 8184 13 of 13

24. Mimouni, A. Using Mobile gamified quizzing for active learning: The effect of reflective class feedback on undergraduates’
achievement. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 1–24. [CrossRef]
25. Sun, J.C.-Y.; Lin, H.-S. Effects of integrating an interactive response system into flipped classroom instruction on students’
anti-phishing self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and sequential behavioral patterns. Comput. Educ. 2022, 180, 104430. [CrossRef]
26. Wang, J.; Xie, K.; Liu, Q.; Long, T.; Lu, G. Examining the effect of seat location on students’ real-time social interactions in a smart
classroom using experience sampling method. J. Comput. Educ. 2022, 2, 1–19. [CrossRef]
27. Chen, W.; Ye, X.; Qin, J.; Zhang, J. Future classroom–High interactive learning space. China. Educ. Technol. 2011, 8, 6–13.
28. Martin, F.; Parker, M.A.; Deale, D.F. Examining interactivity in synchronous virtual classrooms. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn.
2012, 13, 227–261. [CrossRef]
29. Yang, J.; Yu, H.; Chen, N.-S. Using blended synchronous classroom approach to promote learning performance in rural area.
Comput. Educ. 2019, 141, 103619. [CrossRef]
30. Wang, X.; Jiang, S.; Huang, R. Study on classroom interaction observation tools for intelligence classroom in prima-ry and
secondary schools. E-Educ. Res. 2015, 36, 5. [CrossRef]
31. He, W.; Yang, K.; Zhang, H. Analysis on the structure and characteristics of cooperative learning in intelligent classroom
environment. E-Educ. Res. 2017, 11, 86–94.
32. Persaud, V.; Persaud, R. Increasing Student Interactivity Using a Think-Pair-Share Model with a Web-Based Student Response
System in a Large Lecture Class in Guyana. Int. J. Educ. Dev. Using. Infor. Commun. Technol. 2019, 15, 117–131.
33. Lucas, G.; Cao, G.; Waltemeyer, S.; Mandernach, B.J.; Hammond, H.G. The value of instructor interactivity in the online classroom.
J. Empow. Teach. 2021, 5, 3. [CrossRef]
34. Yang, J.; Yu, H.; Gong, C.; Chen, N.-S. Students’ Perceptions and Behaviour in Technology-Rich Classroom and Multi-Media
Classroom. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2017, 13, 621–647. [CrossRef]
35. Smith, B. A concept of teaching. Teach. Coll. Record. 1960, 61, 229–241.
36. Flanders, N.A. Analyzing Teaching Behavior; Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.: Reading, MA, USA, 1970; Available online: http:
//books.google.com/books?id=SBSdAAAAMAAJ (accessed on 22 June 2022).
37. Zhang, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Bai, Q.; Li, X.; Zhu, Y. A study on the interactive behavior characteristics of mathematics classroom teaching in
primary school under the environment of intelligent classroom. China. Educ. Technol. 2016, 6, 43–48.
38. Ye, X.; Xia, Y. Research and practice on interactive behavior model and evaluation index of information technology classroom
teaching. Mod. Educ. Techol. 2011, 21, 9.
39. Jebur, M.S.; Majon, J.S.; Raja, M.H.; Ahmed, A.M. Analyzing Classroom Interaction between Teacher and Student Using Systematic
Observation. Rev. Int. Geogr. Educ. Online 2021, 11, 1036–1045.
40. Skinner, E.; Furrer, C.; Marchand, G.; Kindermann, T. Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational
dynamic? J. Educ. Psychol. 2008, 100, 765–781. [CrossRef]
41. Radcliffe, D. A pedagogy-space-technology (PST) framework for designing and evaluating learning places. Learning spaces
in higher education: Positive outcomes by design. In Proceedings of the Next Generation Learning Spaces 2008 Colloquium,
Melbourne, Australia, 1–2 October 2009; p. 1116.
42. Dong, L.; Luo, Q.; Wang, R. Analysis and reflection on the characteristics of innovative teaching method from an international
perspective–Analysis and research on the content of 2012–2017 Open University’s innovative teaching report. J. Distance. Educ.
2018, 36, 11. [CrossRef]
43. Voss, T.; Kunter, M.; Baumert, J. Assessing teacher candidates’ general pedagogical/psychological knowledge: Test construction
and validation. J. Educ. Psychol. 2011, 103, 952. [CrossRef]