Abstract
While prior research has examined the impact of seats on students' performance in the classroom, no agreement has reached on how seat locations influence students’ social interactions, especially in technology-enhanced classrooms. This study seeks to understand how different seats of smart classrooms are associated with student real-time social interactions. In this study, we examine how the situational and individual factors as the key variables may account for the students' real-time social interactions. Specifically, data on real-time social interactions and different seats were collected using the experience sampling method (ESM) from 36 sophomores at a university in central China, resulting in 180 ESM responses. The results of Multilevel Analysis showed that the students' seat location and the week number within the individual had a significant impact on the student's real-time social interactions, while the gender and mastery goal of students affected their social interactions among individuals. Meanwhile, the seat fluctuations of students who participated in the smart classroom presented three typical types: front row stable type, rear stable row type, and fluctuating type.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aguilar, J., Sánchez, M., Cordero, J., Valdiviezo-Díaz, P., Barba-Guamán, L., & Chamba-Eras, L. (2018). Learning analytics tasks as services in smart classrooms. Universal Access in the Information Society, 17(4), 693–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0525-0
Al-Qirim, N. (2016). Smart board technology success in tertiary institutions: The case of the UAE University. Education & Information Technologies, 21(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9319-7
Armstrong, N., & Chang, S.-M. (2007). Location, location, location: Does seat location affect performance in large classes? Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(2), 54–58.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. Guilford Press.
Brooks, C. I., & Rebeta, J. L. (1991). College classroom ecology: The relation of sex of student to classroom performance and seating preference. Environment and Behavior, 23(3), 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916591233003
Chapman, B. P., Duberstein, P. R., Sorensen, S., & Lyness, J. M. (2007). Gender differences in five factor model personality traits in an elderly cohort. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1594–1603.
Chua, S. H., Kim, J., Monserrat, T.-J. K., & Zhao, S. (2015). Understanding learners’ general perception towards learning with MOOC classmates: An exploratory study L @ S 2015–2nd ACM Conference on Learning at Scale, pp.305–308.
Cookson, P. S., & Chang, Y.-B. (1995). The multidimensional audio conferencing classification system. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(3), 18–33.
Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322–331.
Dai, S. (2019). ARS interactive teaching mode for financial accounting course based on smart classroom. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(3), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i03.10104
Davies, C., & Hattie, J. C. (2012). The dangers of extreme positive responses in Likert scales administered to young children. International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 11(1), 75–89.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 613–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.613
Engels, M. C., Colpin, H., Leeuwen, K. V., Bijttebier, P., & Noortgate, W. V. D. (2016). Behavioral engagement, peer status, and teacher-student relationships in adolescence: A longitudinal study on reciprocal influences. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 45(6), 1192–1207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0414-5
Gillani, N., & Eynon, R. (2014). Communication patterns in massively open online courses. Internet and Higher Education, 23, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.05.004
Goetz, T., Sticca, F., Pekrun, R., Murayama, K., & Elliot, A. J. (2016). Intraindividual relations between achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: An experience sampling approach. Learning and Instruction, 41, 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.10.007
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
Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. Sage.
Hemyari, C., Zomorodian, K., Ahrari, I., et al. (2013). The mutual impact of personality traits on seating preference and educational achievement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(3), 863–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0144-3
Inma, R.-A., & Antoni, M.-A. (2016). E-learning continuance: The impact of interactivity and the mediating role of imagery, presence and flow. Information & Management, 53(4), 504–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.11.005
Jena, P. C. (2013). Effect of smart classroom learning environment on academic achievement of rural high achievers and low achievers in science. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 3, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILSHS.3.1
Jover, J. M. N., & Ramírez, J. A. M. (2018). Academic performance, class attendance and seating location of university students in practical lecture. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 8(4), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.353
Li, Y., Yang, H. H., & MacLeod, J. (2018). Preferences toward the constructivist smart classroom learning environment: Examining pre-service teachers’ connectedness. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1474232
Lu, G., Xie, K., & Liu, Q. (2022). What influences student situational engagement in smart classroom: Perception of learning environment and students’ motivation. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13204
Lu, G., Xie, K., Zhang, W., Liu, Q., Zhang, N., & Mei, L. (2019). Toward real-time data collection: The application, value and prospect of experience sampling method. E-Education Research, 6, 19–26. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2019.06.003
Lu, K., Yang, H. H., Shi, Y., & Wang, X. (2021). Examining the key influencing factors on college students’ higher-order thinking skills in the smart classroom environment. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00238-7
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.015
Manwaring, K. C., Larsen, R., Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Halverson, L. R. (2017). Investigating student engagement in blended learning settings using experience sampling and structural equation modeling. The Internet and Higher Education, 35, 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.06.002
McCorskey, J. C., & McVetta, R. W. (1978). Classroom seating arrangements: Instructional communication theory versus student preferences. Communication Education, 27(2), 99–111.
Meeks, M. D., Knotts, T. L., James, K. D., Williams, F., Vassar, J. A., & Wren, A. O. (2013). The impact of seating location and seating type on student performance. Education Sciences, 3, 375–386. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci3040375
Montello, D. R. (1988). Classroom seating location and its effect on course achievement, participation, and attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8(2), 149–157.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
Park, S., Holloway, S. D., Arendtsz, A., Bempechat, J., & Li, J. (2012). What makes students engaged in learning? A time-use study of within- and between-individual predictors of emotional engagement in low-performing high schools. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 390–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9738-3
Perkins, K. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2005). The surprising impact of seat location on student performance. The Physics Teacher, 43(1), 30–33. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1845987
Schwarz, N. (2012). Why researchers should think "real-time": A cognitive rationale. In: Csikszentmihalyi M (ed) Handbook of research methods for studying daily life. Guilford Press, 22–42.
Shen, C.-W., & Kuo, C.-J. (2015). Learning in massive open online courses: Evidence from social media mining. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 568–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.066
Shernoff, D. J., Sannella, A. J., Schorr, R. Y., Sanchez-Wall, L., Ruzek, E. A., Sinha, S., et al. (2017). Separate worlds: The influence of seating location on student engagement, classroom experience, and performance in the large University lecture hall. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 49, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.12.002
Shi, Y., Xie, W., Xu, G., Shi, R., Chen, E., Mao, Y., & Liu, F. (2003). The smart classroom: Merging technologies for seamless tele-education. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 2(02), 47–55.
Stephen, S. Y., Sandeep, G., Fariaz, K., Sheikh, I., Yu, W., & Bin, W. (June). Smart classroom: Enhancing collaborative learning using pervasive computing technology. In 2003 Annual Conference pp. 8–118.
Sun, P.-C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y.-Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50, 1183–1202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007
Thijs, J., & Fleischmann, F. (2015). Student–teacher relationships and achievement goal orientations: Examining student perceptions in an ethnically diverse sample. Learning and Individual Differences, 42, 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.014
Wang, Z. (2016). Further analysis of the essence and concepts of instructional interaction in online distance education. E-Education Research, 37(04), 36–41.
Warwick, P., Mercer, N., Kershner, R., & Staarman, J. K. (2010). In the mind and in the technology: The vicarious presence of the teacher in pupil’s learning of science in collaborative group activity at the interactive whiteboard. Computers & Education, 55(1), 350–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.00
Wu, D., Xing, D. X., & Lu, C. (2019). The effects of learner factors on higher-order thinking in the smart classroom environment. Journal of Computers in Education, 6(4), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00146-4
Xie, K., Heddy, B. C., & Greene, B. A. (2019a). Affordances of using mobile technology to support experience-sampling method in examining college students’ engagement. Computers & Education, 128, 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.020
Xie, K., Heddy, B., & Vongkulluksn, V. W. (2019b). Examining engagement in context using experience-sampling method with mobile technology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 101788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101788
Xie, K., & Huang, K. (2014). The role of beliefs and motivation in asynchronous online learning in college-level classes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(3), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.50.3.b
Xie, K., & Ke, F. (2011). The role of students’ motivation in peer-moderated asynchronous online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 916–930. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01140.x
Xie, K., Lu, L., Cheng, S. L., & Izmirli, S. (2017). The interactions between facilitator identity, conflictual presence, and social presence in online collaborative learning. Distance Education, 38(2), 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1322458
Xie, K., Miller, N. C., & Allison, J. R. (2013). Toward a social conflict evolution model: Examining the adverse power of conflictual social interaction in online learning. Computers & Education, 63, 404–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.01.003
Xie, K., Vongkulluksn, V. W., Lu, L., & Cheng, S. L. (2020). A person-centered approach to examining high-school students’ motivation, engagement and academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 62, 101877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101877
Xie, K., Yu, C., & Bradshaw, A. C. (2014). Impacts of role assignment and participation in asynchronous discussions in college-level online classes. Internet and Higher Education, 20, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.003
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.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Professor Heng Luo, Lei Mei, and Yubei Chang for assisting data collection.
Funding
This work was supported by the [National Natural Science Foundation of China] under Grant [Number 61977035].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Pre-Test |
1.Name: 2.Gender: 3.Age: Mastery-approach goal items 4. My aim is to completely master the material presented in this class 5.I am striving to understand the content of this course as thoroughly as possible 6. My goal is to learn as much as possible Mastery-avoidance goal items 7. My aim is to avoid learning less than I possibly could 8. I am striving to avoid an incomplete understanding of the course material 9. My goal is to avoid learning less than it is possible to learn Performance-approach goal items 10. My aim is to perform well relative to other students 11. I am striving to do well compared to other students 12. My goal is to perform better than the other students Performance-avoidance goal items 13. My aim is to avoid doing worse than other students 14. I am striving to avoid performing worse than others 15. My goal is to avoid performing poorly compared to others |
ESM-Test |
Seat Location 1. What is the number of your location? Social Interaction 2. The instructor frequently attempted to elicit student interaction 3. I felt that the quality of class discussions is high throughout the course |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, J., Xie, K., Liu, Q. et al. Examining the effect of seat location on students’ real-time social interactions in a smart classroom using experience sampling method. J. Comput. Educ. 10, 217–235 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00229-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00229-9