In the “Internet+” 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 analysis results show that there are significant differences in teacher–student interaction, group cooperation, autonomous learning, and evaluation feedback in the smart classroom and the traditional classroom. There is no significant difference in data analysis between resource sharing and teacher teaching, but through further video observation and analysis, the two still show the difference in the actual classroom.
AllenD. W.EveA. W. (1968).
Microteaching. Theory into Practice,
7(5), 181–185.
2.
AguilarJ.CorderoJ.BuendíaO. (2017a).
Specification of the autonomic cycles of learning analytic tasks for a smart classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
56(6), 866–891.
3.
AguilarJ.SánchezM.CorderoJ.Valdiviezo-DíazP.Barba-GuamánL.Chamba-ErasL. (2017b).
Learning analytics tasks as services in smart classrooms. Universal Access in the Information Society,
17(4), 693–709.
4.
AguilarJ.ValdiviezoP.CorderoJ.RiofrioG.EncaladaE. (2016).
A general framework for learning analytic in a smart classroom. Technologies and Innovation, 214–225.
5.
BaekY.TouatiA. (2019).
Comparing collaborative and cooperative gameplay for academic and gaming achievements. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
57, 2110–2140.
6.
BaileyP. D. (2008).
Should “teacher centred teaching” replace “student centred learning”?Chemistry Education Research and Practice,
9(1), 70–74.
7.
BeemA. L.BrugmanD. (1985).
An exploration of the structure of classroom behavior during values development lessons. Studies in Educational Evaluation,
11(3), 339–357.
8.
BeldarrainY. (2006).
Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education,
27(2), 139–153.
9.
BerlinerD. C.GageN. L. (1976). The psychology of teaching methods.
NSSE.
10.
BlackA. E.DeciE. L. (2000).
The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education,
84(6), 740–756.
11.
BlackP.WiliamD. (1998).
Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice,
5(1), 7–74.
12.
BrockC. A. (1986).
The effects of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse. TESOL Quarterly,
20(1), 47.
13.
BuabengandohC. (2012).
Factors influencing teachers' adoption and integration of information and communication technology into teaching: A review of the literature. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology,
8(1), 136–155.
14.
BuyseE.VerschuerenK.DoumenS.Van DammeJ.MaesF. (2008).
Classroom problem behavior and teacher-child relationships in kindergarten: The moderating role of classroom climate. Journal of School Psychology,
46(4), 367–391.
15.
CauleyB.PosselP.BlackS. W.HooperL. M. (2017).
Teaching behavior and positive and negative affect in high school students: Does students’ race matter?School Mental Health,
9(4), 334–346.
16.
Cheng Y., Wang Y. l., Wang F., Zheng L. l., & Guo Y. C. (2018). Research on the analysis method of teaching mode based on the classroom teaching behavior cloud. Modern Educational Technology, 5, 61–67.
17.
CollinsA.HalversonR. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America.
Teachers College Press.
18.
DakkaS. (2015). Using Socrative to enhance in-class student engagement and collaboration.
arXiv:
Computers and Society.
19.
DavidsenJ.VanderlindeR. (2016). ‘
You should collaborate, children’: A study of teachers’ design and facilitation of children’s collaboration around touchscreens. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,
25(5), 573–593.
20.
DochyF.SegersM.SluijsmansD. (1999).
The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education,
24(3), 331–350.
21.
DominguezA. W.McMinnM. R.MoonG. W. (2009).
Teaching integration outside the traditional classroom. Journal of Psychology and Theology,
37(1), 48–53.
22.
FarahianM.RezaeeM. (2012).
A case study of an EFL teacher's type of questions: An investigation into classroom interaction. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47(6), 161–167.
23.
FarujiL. F. (2011).
Discourse analysis of questions in teacher talk. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,
1(12), 1820–1826.
24.
FieldA. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics.
Sage Publications Ltd.
25.
FlandersN. A. (1963).
Intent, action and feedback: A preparation for teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
14(3), 251–260.
26.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981).
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18(1), 39–50.
27.
FuD. R.ZhangH. M. (2001). Educational information processing.
Beijing Normal University Publishing House.
28.
GallM. D. (1984).
Synthesis of research on teachers’ questioning. Educational Leadership,
42(3), 40–47.
29.
HollandC.MuilenburgL. (2011, March). Supporting student collaboration: Edmodo in the classroom [Paper presentation]. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Nashville, TN, United States.
30.
HouH.-T.SungY.-T.ChangK.-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.
31.
HuangR.HuY.YangJ.XiaoJ. (2012).
The functions of smart classroom in smart learning age. Open Education Research,
18(2), 22–27.
32.
JinJ. F.GuX. Q. (2010).
Analysis and research of classroom teaching behavior in information technology environment. China Educational Technology, (09), 88–92.
33.
JoJ.LimH. (2015).
A study on effectiveness of smart classrooms through interaction analysis. Advanced Science Letters,
21(3), 557–561.
34.
KesslerG.BikowskiD. (2010).
Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer mediated language learning: Attention to meaning among students in wiki space. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
23(1), 41–58.
35.
KwetM.PrinslooP. (2020).
The “smart” classroom: A new frontier in the age of the smart university. Teaching in Higher Education,
25(6), 1–17.
36.
Landsheere, & De, G. (1982). Empirical research in education. Comparative Education Review, 28(4), 59–86.
37.
LiuT.KenderJ. R. (2007).
Computational approaches to temporal sampling of video sequences. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications,
3(2), 7–es.
38.
MacfadyenL. P.DawsonS. (2010).
Mining LMS data to develop an “early warning system” for educators: A proof of concept. Computers & Education,
54(2), 588–599.
39.
MartinezA.DimitriadisY.RubiaB.GomezE.La FuenteP. D. (2003).
Combining qualitative evaluation and social network analysis for the study of classroom social interactions. Computers in Education,
41(4), 353–368.
40.
MerisotisJ. P.PhippsR. A. (1999).
What’s the difference?: Outcomes of distance vs. traditional classroom-based learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning,
31(3), 12–17.
RasooliA.ZandiH.DelucaC. (2019).
Conceptualising fairness in classroom assessment: Exploring the value of organisational justice theory. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice,
26(5), 584–611.
43.
SchoechD.HeltonD. (2002).
Qualitative and quantitative analysis of a course taught via classroom and internet chatroom. Qualitative Social Work,
1(1), 111–124.
44.
SeeryN.CantyD.PhelanP. (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.
45.
SitzmannT.ElyK.BrownK. G.BauerK. N. (2010).
Self-assessment of knowledge: A cognitive learning or affective measure?Academy of Management Learning & Education,
9(2), 169–191.
46.
SongS.ZhongX.LiH.DuJ.NieF. (2014, June–July). Smart classroom: From conceptualization to construction [Paper presentation]. 2014 International Conference on Intelligent Environments, Shanghai, China.
47.
StraubR. (1997).
Students’ reactions to teacher comments: An exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English,
31(1), 91–119.
48.
StufflebeamD. (2001).
Evaluation models. New Directions for Evaluation,
2001(89), 7–98.
49.
SzewkisE.NussbaumM.RosenT.AbalosJ.DenardinF.CaballeroD., Tagle, A., & AlcoholadoC. (2011).
Collaboration within large groups in the classroom. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
6(4), 561–575.
50.
Van den HurkH. T. G.HoutveenA. A. M.Van de GriftW. J. C. M. (2016).
Fostering effective teaching behavior through the use of data-feedback. Teaching and Teacher Education,
60, 444–451.
51.
WangS.NoeR. A. (2010).
Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review,
20(2), 115–131.
52.
WangY. H.LiaoH. C. (2017).
Learning performance enhancement using computer-assisted language learning by collaborative learning groups. Symmetry-Basel,
9(8), 141.
53.
WaringH. Z. (2009).
Moving out of IRF (initiation-response-feedback): A single case analysis. Language Learning,
59(4), 796–824.
54.
YangS. J. H.ZhangJ.SuA. Y. S.TsaiJ. J. P. (2011).
A collaborative multimedia annotation tool for enhancing knowledge sharing in CSCL. Interactive Learning Environments,
19(1), 45–62.
55.
ZhangX.WangD. (2018).
Research on teacher-student interaction in M-learning. Educational Sciences-Theory & Practice,
18(5), 1598–1603.
