Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Effect of Smart Classrooms on Project-Based Learning: A Study Based on Video Interaction Analysis

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Classroom interaction affects the classroom atmosphere as well as students’ behavior and participation, thus affecting the quality of classroom teaching. In traditional classrooms, inherent problems (e.g., inflexible tables and chairs, rigid multimedia consoles, and traditional software) have seriously restricted the overall quality of classroom interpersonal interaction. In recent years, the problem of enhancing classroom interaction has gradually attracted the attention of scholars. The application of project-based learning (PBL) in higher education is effective, but few studies have analyzed the differences in interaction between smart classrooms and traditional classrooms in PBL courses. In this study, through the proposed teacher–student classroom interaction behavior analysis framework, 20 sessions in smart classrooms and 20 sessions in traditional classrooms were encoded to illustrate the differences between interaction in these two types of classrooms. Furthermore, 765 student questionnaires on satisfaction with and participation in smart classrooms were collected to determine whether smart classrooms affect students’ satisfaction and participation in PBL courses. The questionnaires were analyzed using SPSS 27.0. The results showed that there were significant differences in four dimensions of teachers’ behavior, students’ behavior, technology, and other interactions between the smart classroom and the traditional classroom. After taking PBL courses in a smart classroom, students were generally satisfied and thought that the smart learning environment could help them improve their thinking and learning. Suggestions on the further construction and application of smart classrooms are proposed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data generated during the current study are partly available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Because the class video data included images of students and teachers, we cannot share them with the readers due to the ethical reason.

References

  • Akhrif, O., Benfares, C., Idrissi, Y., & Hmina, N. (2020). Collaborative approaches in smart learning environment: A case study. Procedia Computer Science, 175, 710–715.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alfoudari, A. M., Durugbo, C. M., & Aldhmour, F. M. (2021). Understanding socio-technological challenges of smart classrooms using a systematic review. Computers & Education, 173, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alorda, B., Suenaga, K., & Pons, P. (2011). Design and evaluation of a microprocessor course combining three cooperative methods: SDLA. PBL and CnBL. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1876–1884.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D., Morrison-Love, D., Wooff, D., & McLain, M. (2018). STEM education in the twenty-first century: Learning at work-an exploration of design and technology teacher perceptions and practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(3), 721–737.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Gil-Doménech, D., & Alegre, I. (2017). Where to locate? A project-based learning activity for a graduate-level course on operations management. International Journal of Engineering Education, 33(5), 1586–1597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brundiers, K., & Wiek, A. (2013). Do we teach what we preach? An international comparison of problem- and project-based learning courses in sustainability. Sustainability, 5(4), 1725–1746.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casner-Lotto, J., Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers’ perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century U.S. workforce. 1 Massachusetts Avenue NW Suite 700E, Washington, DC 20001: Partnership for 21st Century Skills.

  • Cebrian, G., Palau, R., & Mogas, J. (2020). The smart classroom as a means to the development of ESD methodologies. Sustainability, 12(7), 3010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, S. C., & Hwang, G. J. (2018). Impacts of an augmented reality-based flipped learning guiding approach on students’ scientific project performance and perceptions. Computers & Education, 125, 226–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu, S. K. W., Zhang, Y., & Chen, K. (2017). The effectiveness of wikis for project-based learning in different disciplines in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 4, 49–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. M. (2006). Changing classroom practice to include the Project Approach. ECRP, 8, 150–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosling, G., Nair, M., & Vaithilingam, S. (2015). A creative learning ecosystem, quality of education and innovative capacity: A perspective from higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 40(7), 1147–1163.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Haan, G. (2010). The development of ESD-related competencies in supportive institutional frameworks. International Review of Education, 56, 315–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanders, N. A. (1963). Intent, action and feedback: A preparation for teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 14(3), 251–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanders, N. A. (1970). 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.

  • García, J. N. (2002). Problem based learning: An illustration of a psychoeducational application model. Culture and Education, 14, 65–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Baya, D., Granado-Alcón, M.C., Benítez-Montagut, I., Mendoza-Berjano, R. (2019). Competence development, student valuation and knowledge transference after cooperative project-based learning. In Proceedings of the ICERI2019 Conference, Seville, Spain, 11–13 November 2019. 3527–3530.

  • Granado-Alcón, M.C., Alonso-Martín, P., Vélez-Toral, M., Gómez-Baya, D., Herrera-Gutiérrez, E., Martínez-Frutos, M.T. (2018). Project based learning in higher education: Student’s perception of transforming traditional learning into an active and constructivist experience. In Proceedings of the ICERI2018 Conference, Seville, Spain, 12–14 November 201. 9510–9517.

  • Granado-Alcon, M. D., Gomez-Baya, D., Herrera-Gutierrez, E., Velez-Toral, M., Alonso-Martin, P., & Martinez-Frutos, M. T. (2020). Project-based learning and the acquisition of competencies and knowledge transfer in higher education. Sustainability, 12(23), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, P. Y., Saab, N., Post, L. S., & Admiraal, W. (2020). A review of project-based learning in higher education: Student outcomes and measures. International Journal of Educational Research, 102, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ha, I., Kim, C. (2014). The research trends and the effectiveness of smart learning. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 1–9.

  • Han, S., Yalvac, B., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2015). In-service teachers’ implementation and understanding of STEM project based learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 11(1), 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, N., Yang, F., Yan, M., Feng, Y., Zhuang, Y., Liu, H., & Wen, K. (2019). User perceptions of smart class services in teaching and learning interactions. Procedia CIRP, 83, 785–788.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, R., & Vallade, J. I. (2020). Exploring connections in the online learning environment: Student perceptions of rapport, climate, and loneliness. Interactive Learning Environment, 3, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computer & Education, 53(3), 819–827.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, K. Y., Yu, K. C., Hsiao, H. S., Chang, Y. S., & Chien, Y. H. (2020). Effects of web-based versus classroom-based STEM learning environments on the development of collaborative problem-solving skills in junior high school students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(1), 21–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, S. R., & Zhao, X. K. (2020). Smart teaching mode based on particle swarm image recognition and human-computer interaction deep learning. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 39(4), 5699–5711.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, X. D., & Zhu, H. (2016). Improved Flanders interactive analysis system and its educational application–Interactive classroom based on interactive whiteboard. Modern Educational Technology, 7, 38–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, J., Yang, H. H., Zhu, S., & Li, Y. (2018). Understanding students’ preferences toward the smart classroom learning environment: Development and validation of an instrument. Computers & Education, 122, 80–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez, M. L., & Torrego, J. C. (2014). Spanish educational programs and measures for achieving European objectives. Revista Electrónica De Investigación Educativa, 16(2), 119–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mimouni, A. (2022). Using Mobile gamified quizzing for active learning: The effect of reflective class feedback on undergraduates’ achievement. Education and Information Technologies, 1–24.

  • Nuria, C., Carmen, L., María, B. J., & Vicente, B. (2017). Subjective assessment of university classroom environment. Building & Environment, 122, 72–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega-Sanchez, D., & Jimenez-Eguizabal, A. (2020). Project-based learning through information and communications technology and the curricular inclusion of social problems relevant to the initial training of infant school teachers. Sustainability, 11(22), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paudel, P., Kim, S., Park, S., & Choi, K.-H. (2020). A context-aware IoT and deep-learning-based smart classroom for controlling demand and supply of power load. Electronics, 9(6), 1039.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 109–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralph, R. A. (2015). Post secondary project-based learning in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 6(1), 26–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadeghi, H., Biniaz, M., & Soleimani, H. (2016). The impact of project-based language learning on Iranian EFL learners’ comparison/contrast paragraph writing skills. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 6(9), 510–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saini, M. K., & Goel, N. (2019). How smart are smart classrooms? A review of smart classroom technologies. ACM Computing Surveys, 52(6), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segredo, E., Miranda, G., & Leon, C. (2017). Towards the education of the future: Computational thinking as a generative learning mechanism. Education in the Knowledge Society, 18(2), 33–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selim, H. M., Eid, R., & Agag, G. (2020). Understanding the role of technological factors and external pressures in smart classroom adoption. Education & Training, 62(6), 631–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadiev, R., & Dang, C. (2022). A systematic review study on integrating technology-assisted intercultural learning in various learning context. Education and Information Technologies, 27(5), 6753–6785.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah, V., Murthy, S., Warriem, J., Sahasrabudhe, S., Banerjee, G., & Iyer, S. (2022). Learner-centric MOOC model: A pedagogical design model towards active learner participation and higher completion rates. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(1), 263–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. (2017). Division for inclusion, peace and sustainable development, education sector. In Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives; UNESCO: Paris, France. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444. Retrieved 15 September 2020.

  • Vogler, J. S., Thompson, P., Davis, D. W., Mayfield, B. E., Finley, P. M., & Yasseri, D. (2018). The hard work of soft skills: Augmenting the project-based learning experience with interdisciplinary teamwork. Instructional Science, 46(3), 457–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J. J., Xie, K., Liu, Q. T., Long, T. T., & Lu, G. Q. (2022). Examining the effect of seat location on students’ real-time social interactions in a smart classroom using experience sampling method. Journal of Computers in Education, 2, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2005). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6(2), 203–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooten, J. J. (2020). Integrating discussion and digital media to increase classroom interaction. International Review of Economics Education, 33.

  • Wu, T. T., Huang, Y. M., Su, C. Y., Chang, L., & Lu, Y. C. (2018). Application and analysis of a mobile E-book system based on project-based learning in community health nursing practice courses. Educational Technology & Society, 21(4), 143–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yi, S. P., Yun, R. W., Duan, X. M., & Lu, Y. F. (2021). Similar or different? A comparison of traditional classroom and smart classroom’s teaching behavior in China. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(4), 461–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, H. J., Shi, G. J., Li, J. P., & Yang, J. F. (2022). Analyzing the differences of interaction and engagement in a smart classroom and a traditional classroom. Sustainability, 14(13), 8184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, Y. (2022). Quantitative analysis of Chinese classroom teaching activity under the background of artificial intelligence. Education and Information Technologies, 27(8), 11161–11177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhan, Z. H., Wu, Q. Y., Lin, Z. H., & Cai, J. Y. (2021). Smart classroom environments affect teacher-student interaction: Evidence from a behavioural sequence analysis. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 96–109.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 62277026, 62293555, 62293550, 62207018), the Ministry of Education of Humanities and Social Science project (Grant No. 22YJC880117), the National Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province (Grant No. 2021CFB157), AI and Faculty Empowerment Pilot Project (Grant Nos. CCNUAI&FE2022-03-07, CCNUAI&FE2022-0).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Engineering Research Center for E-Learning, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, 430079, China

    Zhicheng Dai & Chengzhang Sun

  2. National Engineering Research Center of Educational Big Data, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, 430079, China

    Liang Zhao & Xiaoliang Zhu

  3. Faculty of Artificial Intelligence in Education, Central China Normal University, NO.152 Luoyu Road, Wuhan, Hubei, 430079, China

    Zhicheng Dai, Chengzhang Sun, Liang Zhao & Xiaoliang Zhu

Authors
  1. Zhicheng Dai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chengzhang Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Liang Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xiaoliang Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liang Zhao.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Statement

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dai, Z., Sun, C., Zhao, L. et al. The Effect of Smart Classrooms on Project-Based Learning: A Study Based on Video Interaction Analysis. J Sci Educ Technol 32, 858–871 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10056-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10056-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation