Abstract
At present, the research on the teacher-student interaction (TSI) mode in smart classroom (SC) was not in-depth enough, and a few studies mainly focuses on top-down theoretical deduction. This study adopted a bottom-up approach to study the TSI modes in SC and proposed specific implementation suggestions, which had important theoretical value and practical significance for promoting the development of students’ higher-order thinking (HOT) and the digital transformation of education practice. The study used lag sequential analysis to encode and analyze 12 SC teaching videos that won first prize in Jilin Province, China. A total of 4617 sequence relationships and 48 significant activity sequences were generated. The analysis of these significant activity sequences showed that SC was divided into four types of TSI modes: discovery question, conceptual scheme, validation scheme, and creating products. There was a sequential relationship between the four types. The research proposed specific implementation suggestions from four aspects: interaction goals, interaction methods, interaction content, and interaction media. This will guide teachers in building high-quality SC and assist students in develo** HOT.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data used in this research are available upon request from the corresponding author.
References
Abry, T., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Curby, T. W. (2017). Are all program elements created equal? Relations between specific social and emotional learning components and teacher–student classroom interaction quality. Prevention Science, 18, 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0743-3.
Almulla, M. A. (2023). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for students’ critical thinking, creativity, and problem solving to affect academic performance in higher education. Cogent Education, 10(1), 2172929. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2172929.
Bian, J., & Xu, F. (2016). Study on the design and effect of the learning model based on smart classroom. China Educational Technology, 23(2), 64–68. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-9860.2016.02.009.
Bullinaria, J. A., & Levy, J. P. (2007). Extracting semantic representations from word co-occurrence statistics: A computational study. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 510–526. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193020.
Chen, Y. (2022). The online teacher-student interaction level in the context of a scenario-based multi-dimensional interaction teaching environment. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 17(12), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i12.32083.
Chen, W., & Zhang, J. (2010). Research on the design and application of the future classroom: A new field of the educational technology research. Journal of Distance Education, 28(4), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.15881/j.cnki.cn33-1304/g4.2010.04.006.
Faraone, S. V., & Dorfman, D. D. (1987). Lag sequential analysis: Robust statistical methods. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 312–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.312.
Feng, Y., Cao, F., & Zhang, H. (2022). A comparative study of teaching decision-making behavior based on LSA method. Modern Educational Technology, 32(2), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-8097.2022.02.006.
Guo, X., & Huang, L. (2022). Research on primary school teachers’ home-school cooperative competency based on Nvivo11 qualitative software. Advances in Education Humanities and Social Science Research, 1(1), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.56028/aehssr.1.1.113.
He, G. (2020). Schema interaction visual teaching based on smart classroom environment in art course. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(17), 252–267. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i17.16441.
Hu, D., Zhang, M., & Zheng, Q. (2019). Visualized analysis of online learners’ activity path through lag sequence analysis. e-Education Research, 40(5), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2019.05.008.
Jiang, L., Mao, Q., Wan, Z., & Shen, H. (2018). Research on the performance of classroom teaching reform in the smart classroom—An analysis based on classroom reaching behaviors. China Educational Technology, 25(6), 52–58. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-9860.2018.06.008.
Jiang, Y., Wang, W., Li, C., Kang, M., & Shen, J. (2019). An analysis of teacher - student interaction in the smart classroom. Modern Distance Education, 36(3), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.13927/j.cnki.yuan.2019.0023.
Jim, R., Christopher, D., & Patricia, S. (2009). Education for a Smarter Planet: The Future of Learning. https://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp4564.pdf.
John Vijayakumar, I. S., & Karthikeyan, J. (2021). A cognitive system process approach: ELT pedagogy for a hybrid communication model. In V. L. N. Komanapalli, N. Sivakumaran, & S. Hampannavar (Eds.), Advances in automation, Signal Processing, Instrumentation, and control. i-CASIC 2020 (Vol. 700). Springer. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineeringhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8221-9_247.
Karabacak, B., Yildirim, S. O., & Baykal, N. (2016). A vulnerability-driven cyber security maturity model for measuring national critical infrastructure protection preparedness. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 15, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcip.2016.10.001.
Lee, S., Nam, Y., Lee, S., & Son, H. (2016). Determinants of ICT innovations: A cross-country empirical study. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 110, 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.010.
Li, K. C., & Billy Wong, T. M. (2021). Review of smart learning: Patterns and trends in research and practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6617.
Li, H., & Zhang, J. (2015). The ARS interactive teaching model and its application in the smart classroom. China Educational Technology, 22(11), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-9860.2015.11.015.
Li, H., Wu, D., Zhu, S., Guo, Q., & Luo, Z. (2023). Research on the construction and application of smart classroom teaching model under the perspective of deep learning. Modern Educational Technology, 33(2), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-8097.2023.02.007.
Liu, Z., & Chen, N. (2021). Research on the interactive behaviors in classroom teaching under smart classroom environment——Taking 10 high-quality Junior high school mathematics teaching courses as observation objects. Modern Educational Technology, 31(9), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-8097.2021.09.004.
Liu, Z., Su, X., & Du, X. (2020). An investigation of mathematics teaching behaviors in a smart classroom. Journal of Mathematics Education, 29(4), 44–51. https://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/periodical/ChlQZXJpb2RpY2FsQ0hJTmV3UzIwMjMwODMxEg9zeGp5eGIyMDIwMDQwMDgaCHV4Y2pjZWc0.
Liu, B., Yu, Y., & Yuan, T. (2022). Process evaluation empowered by intelligent technology: Goals, paths and typical scenarios. Modern Educational Technology, 32(5), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-8097.2022.05.002.
Lycurgus, T., Kilbourne, A., & Almirall, D. (2023). Approaches to statistical efficiency when comparing the embedded adaptive interventions in a SMART. ar**v preprint ar**v:2304.09725.
Ma, X., **e, Y., & Pang, J. (2019). Research on the design of process model and constituent elements of learning tasks in the smart classroom. China Educational Technology, 26(4), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-9860.2019.04.006.
Ma, X., **e, Y., & Wang, H. (2023). Research on the construction and application of teacher-student interaction evaluation system for smart classroom in the post COVID-19. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 78, 101286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2023.101286.
Mancini, S., Scuoteguazza, F., Gurméndez, L., Sotelo, R., Begérez, M., & Álvarez, G. (2021). Creating a cryptocurrency which will work as a utility token within a business ecosystem, making possible the payment of products and services. Memoria Investigaciones en Ingenieria, 20, 34–43. https://doi.org/10.36561/ING.20.5.
Mugruza-Vassallo, C. (2016). Integral and transformative engineering coursework in formative research for undergraduate curricula, 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Erie, PA, USA, pp. 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2016.7757633.
Mugruza-Vassallo, C. A. (2023). A fractal expander–compressor–supplier formative research method on array processing. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 16349–16372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11837-y.
Mugruza-Vassallo, C. A., & Suárez, S. M. (2016). Academia and patents at information and communications technology in South-America productivity, 2016 6th International Conference on Information Communication and Management (ICICM), Hatfield, UK, pp. 24–29, https://doi.org/10.1109/INFOCOMAN.2016.7784209.
Olaitan, O., Herselman, M., & Wayi, N. (2019). A data governance maturity evaluation model for government departments of the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. South African Journal of Information Management, 21(1), a996. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v21i1.996.
Olapane, E. C. (2021). An in-depth exploration on the praxis of computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS). Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Studies, 3(11), 57–78. https://doi.org/10.32996/jhsss.2021.3.11.5.
Palmisano, S. J. (2008). A smarter planet: The next leadership agenda. IBM November, 6, 1–8. http://www.connect-world.com/PDFs/articles/2009/AP_I_2009/AP_I_2009_02.pdf.
Pang, J., Wang, M., Tang, Y., **e, Y., & Wang, W. (2015). The construction and case study of primary English wisdom classroom in e-schoolbag environment. China Educational Technology, 9, 63–70. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-9860.2015.09.011.
Peng, L., & Lin, X. (2021). Research on the teaching behavior of smart classroom based on the lag sequential analysis. Modern Educational Technology, 31(7), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-8097.2021.07.007.
Phoong, S. Y., Phoong, S. W., Moghavvemi, S., & Sulaiman, A. (2019). Effect of smart classroom on student achievement at higher education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 48(2), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239519870721.
Pohl, M., Wallner, G., & Kriglstein, S. (2016). Using lag-sequential analysis for understanding interaction sequences in visualizations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 96, 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.07.006.
Pudaruth, S., Moheeputh, S., Permessur, N., & Chamroo, A. (2018). Sentiment analysis from Facebook comments using automatic coding in NVivo 11. Advances in Distributed Computing and Articial Intelligence Journal, 7(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.14201/ADCAIJ2018714148.
Rubenstein, L. D. V., Callan, G. L., Neumeister, K. S., & Ridgley, L. M. (2020). Finding the problem: How students approach problem identification. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35, 100635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100635.
Shaw, R., & Patra, B. K. (2022). Classifying students based on cognitive state in flipped learning pedagogy. Future Generation Computer Systems, 126, 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2021.08.018.
Shi, Y., Peng, C., Zhang, J., & Yang, H. (2019). Research on the teacher-student interaction behavior in colleges and universities under smart classroom environment. Modern Educational Technology, 29(1), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-8097.2019.01.007.
Sun, Z., Lin, C. H., Lv, K., & Song, J. (2021). Knowledge–construction behaviors in a mobile learning environment: A lag–sequential analysis of group differences. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 533–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09938-x.
Sung, E., & Kelley, T. R. (2019). Identifying design process patterns: A sequential analysis study of design thinking. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29, 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9448-1.
Tan, J., Wu, S., Wu, L., & Li, Y. (2022). Analysis of discourse interaction mode of Expert-novice pair programming based on behavioral sequence. e-Education Research, 43(7), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2022.07.014.
Tong, H., & Yang, Y. (2022). A study on interaction of smart classroom based on multimodal data. E-education Research, 43(3), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2022.03.008.
Wan, L. (2013). Research on quality evaluation of digital learning resources. Modern Educational Technology, 23(1), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-8097.2013.01.010.
Wang, X. (2020). The mode of smart classroom teaching from the perspective of activity theory. China Educational Technology, 27(4), 118–124. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-9860.2020.04.022.
Wang, X., Huang, R., Wang, M., & Lu, T. (2016). Analysis of classroom interaction in smart classroom in primary and middle schools. E-education Research, 37(12), 111–116. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2016.12.016.
Wang, T., Yang, M., & Liu, J. (2020). The effects of teachers’ feedback on learners’ cognitive level in MOOC forums: From boom’s taxonomy perspective. Open Education Research, 26(2), 102–110. https://doi.org/10.13966/j.cnki.kfjyyj.2020.02.010.
Wu, S., & Hou, H. T. (2015). How cognitive styles affect the learning behaviors of online problem-solving based discussion activity: A lag sequential analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(2), 277–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115571307.
Yan, L., Li, Y., & Yang, L. (2011). Research on the interaction model among students and teachers in inquiry teaching under information technology environment——Based on the course Instructional System Design Case Analysis. Modern Educational Technology, 21(9), 42–46. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-8097.2011.09.008.
Yang, X., Wang, H., & Li, J. (2016). The application of lag sequential analysis method in analyzing learning behavior. China Educational Technology, 23(2), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-9860.2016.02.003.
Yang, Y., Li, M., & Li, W. (2021). The current status, hot spots and trends of domestic higher-order thinking in the past ten years——Based on bibliometrics and knowledge map** analysis. Modern Educational Technology, 31(8), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-8097.2021.08.002.
Zhang, L., & Shang, L. (2011). Types and functions of virtual classroom learning scaffold. China Educational Technology, 18(4), 27–31. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-9860.2011.04.005.
Zhang, Y., Zhu, Y., Bai, Q., Zhu, Y., & Li, X. (2016). Research of the teaching interaction behavior characteristics of primary mathematics in the smart classroom. China Educational Technology, 6, 43–48. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-9860.2016.06.009.
Zhao, Q., & Liang, Z. (2023). Research on multimodal based learning evaluation method in smart classroom. Learning and Motivation, 84, 101943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2023.101943.
Zhao, L., **e, Y., Yang, X., Jia, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2017). Research on the design of dynamic learning path of smart classroom. China Educational Technology, 24(11), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-9860.2017.11.001.
Zheng, X. (2018). Smart education 2.0: The new education ecology of the perspective of education informatization 2.0: The interpretation of education informatization 2.0 action plan (2). Journal of Distance Education, 36(4), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.15881/j.cnki.cn33-1304/g4.2018.04.003.
Zhou, Q., Xu, R., & Liang, H. (2020). Strategy and enlightenment of SMART education in Korea. Journal of Teacher Education, 8(4), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.13718/j.cnki.jsjy.2021.04.013.
Zhu, Z., **ao, Y., & Lei, Y. (2018). Teaching thinking skills to promote smarter education. Modern Distance Education Research, 19(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-5195.2018.01.006.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the reviewers for their valuable comments, and the authors thank the editor for his efforts in this paper. This research was funded by the 2022 Education Youth Project of the 14th Five Year Plan of the National Social Science Foundation of China “Research on the Formation Mechanism of the Academic Burden of Primary and Secondary School Students and the Precision Reduction Mechanism of Big Data”, the National Social Science Fund project in 2019: “Research on Evaluation and Integrated Design of Higher-order Thinking Development under Innovative Talent Strategy” (No: BCA190074), and the High-level Talent Foundation Project of Harbin Normal University (No. 1305123005).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
XM drafted the initial manuscript, performed the experiments, analyzed data, reviewed and revised the manuscript. YX carried out the initial analyses, reviewed and revised the manuscript. HW conceptualized, designed, reviewed, and revised the manuscript. ZL and JL performed the experiments, analyzed data. XY revised the manuscript. XY and HW provided financial support. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Ma, X., **e, Y., Yang, X. et al. Teacher-student interaction modes in smart classroom based on lag sequential analysis. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12487-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12487-4