Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating the Interaction Types and Instructional Proxemics in Information Technology Enhanced Exemplary Lessons

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The application of information technology in the classroom is not a new thing. There have been many studies on the impact of information technology on teachers' teaching and students' learning. However, few studies focus on how information technology affects classroom interaction and instructional proxemics. In this study, 43 exemplary lessons with the application of information technology in teaching were analyzed to investigate the interaction types and instructional proxemics, as well as the relationship between them. The results show that the interaction between students and tools or environment is the most frequent among student-centered interactions. Instructional proxemics shows that teachers spend nearly one-third of their classroom time in the student area. There are significant differences in the spatial location of teachers for different types of classroom interaction. Finally, teachers interacted most with students who were at a social distance, followed by the public, personal, and intimate distance. This study not only makes up for the gap in the research of classroom interaction and instructional proxemics under the environment supported by information technology but also provides a reference for novice teachers to use instructional proxemics to carry out interactive teaching.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allwright, R. L. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 156–171. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.2.156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T. (2002). An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. IT Forum. Retrieved 25 April, 2004, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper63/paper63.htm.

  • An, P., Bakker, S., Ordanovski, S., Paffen, C.L., Taconis, R., & Eggen, B. (2020). Dandelion Diagram: Aggregating Positioning and Orientation Data in the Visualization of Classroom Proxemics. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2002.05036

  • An, P., Bakker, S., Ordanovski, S., Taconis, R., Paffen, C.L., & Eggen, B. (2019). Unobtrusively enhancing reflection-in-action of teachers through spatially distributed ambient information. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

  • Arends, R. (2014). Learning to teach. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, A. B. (2021). A whole new learning space: Exploring classroom variability for teaching mathematics via active learning. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53, 108–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cardellino, P., Araneda, C., & Garcıa Alvarado, R. (2017). Classroom environments: An experiential analysis of the pupil-teacher visual interaction in Uruguay. Learning Environments Research, 20, 417–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardellino, P., Araneda, C., & García Alvarado, R. (2018). Interventions in the classroom–the influence of spatial organisation on educational interaction in Uruguay. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 14(6), 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2018.1477727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheong Yin Mei, C., Buai Chin, H., & Taib, F. (2017). Instructional proxemics and its impact on classroom teaching and learning. International Journal of Modern Languages and Applied Linguistics (IJMAL), 1(1), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.24191/ijmal.v1i1.7637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong, Z., Liu, H., & Zheng, X. (2021). The influence of teacher-student proximity, teacher feedback, and near-seated peer groups on classroom engagement: An agent-based modeling approach. PLoS ONE, 16(1), e0244935. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dukuzumuremyi, S., & Siklander, P. (2018). Interactions between pupils and their teacher in collaborative and technology-enhanced learning settings in the inclusive classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.08.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egert, F., Dederer, V., & Fukkink, R. G. (2020). The impact of in-service professional development on the quality of teacher-child interactions in early education and care: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 29, 100309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farsani, D., Breda, A., & Sala, V. (2022). Non-verbal interaction and students’ visual engagement in mathematics and English classes. Acta Scientiae, 24(5), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farsani, D., & Rodrigues, J. (2021). Proxemic and nonverbal communication in classroom interaction. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-35392021229866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandes, A. C., Huang, J., & Rinaldo, V. (2011). Does where a student sits really matter?-The impact of seating locations on student classroom learning. International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, 10(1), 66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1987). Looking in classrooms. New York: Liarper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graetz, K. A., & Goliber, M. J. (2002). Designing collaborative learning places: Psychological foundations and new frontiers. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2002, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, P. A. (2020). Teacher perceptions on flexible seating in the classroom: Effects on student engagement and student achievement (Doctoral dissertation, William Woods University).

  • Gunter, P. L., Shores, R. E., Jack, S. L., Rasmussen, S. K., & Flowers, J. (1995). On the move using teacher/student proximity to improve students’ behavior. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28, 12–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension (Vol. 609). Anchor. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005999502800103

  • Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., DeCoster, J., Mashburn, A. J., Jones, S. M., & Hamagami, A. (2013). Teaching through interactions: Testing a developmental framework of teacher effectiveness in over 4,000 classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 113(4), 461–487. https://doi.org/10.1086/669616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haya, P. A., Daems, O., Malzahn, N., Castellanos, J., & Hoppe, H. U. (2015). Analysing content and patterns of interaction for improving the learning design of networked learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 300–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhua, J. (2005). The new curriculum concept and the reconstruction of classroom management—Based on the classroom observation analysis of a primary school. Global Education Perspectives, 09, 42–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, F. H., Jones, P., & Jones, J. L. (2007). Fred Jones tools for teaching: Discipline, instruction, motivation. Fredric H Jones & Assocs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kale, U. (2008). Levels of interaction and proximity: Content analysis of video-based classroom cases. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latané, B., Liu, J. H., Nowak, A., Bonevento, M., & Zheng, L. (1995). Distance Matters: Physical Space and Social Impact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 795–805. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295218002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, F. V., O’Halloran, K. L., & Podlasov, A. (2012). Spatial pedagogy: Mapping meanings in the use of classroom space. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(2), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2012.676629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809433

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, T.-C., Wang, H.-Y., Liang, J.-K., Chan, T.-W., & Yang, J.-C. (2002). Applying wireless technologies to a build highly interactive learning environment. In IEEE international workshop on wireless and mobile technologies in education, Va¨xjo¨, Sweden. https://doi.org/10.1109/WMTE.2002.1039222

  • Macheridis, N., & Paulsson, A. (2016). Governance of higher education—The role of proximity in teaching quality. Tertiary Education and Management, 22(3), 202–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2016.1183036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, P. D., & Losonczy-Marshall, M. (2010). Classroom ecology: Relations between seating location, performance, and attendance. Psychological Reports, 107, 567–577. https://doi.org/10.2466/11.22.PR0.107.5.567-577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Maldonado, R., Echeverria, V., Schulte, J., Shibani, A., Mangaroska, K., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2020a). Moodoo: Indoor positioning analytics for characterising classroom teaching. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 360–373). Springer.

  • Martinez-Maldonado, R., Mangaroska, K., Schulte, J., Elliott, D., Axisa, C., & Shum, S. B. (2020b). Teacher tracking with integrity: What indoor positioning can reveal about instructional proxemics. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 4(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3381017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Maldonado, R., Schulte, J., Echeverria, V., Gopalan, Y., & Shum, S. B. (2020c). Where is the teacher? Digital analytics for classroom proxemics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(5), 741–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, J., Fisher, J., & Hoover, G. (2003). The key elements of classroom management: Managing time and space, student behavior, and instructional strategies. ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, S. A., & Claus, C. J. (2012). The relationship between students’ motives to communicate with their instructors and classroom environment. Communication Quarterly, 60(3), 386–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2012.688672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McArthur, J.A. (2008). Instructional Proxemics: Creating a place for space in instructional communication discourse.

  • McArthur, J. A. (2015). Matching instructors and spaces of learning: The impact of space on behavioral, affective and cognitive learning. Journal of Learning Spaces, 4(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messinger, D. S., Prince, E. B., Zheng, M., Martin, K., Mitsven, S. G., Huang, S., Stölzel, T., Johnson, N., Rudolph, U., Perry, L. K., Laursen, B., & Song, C. (2019). Continuous measurement of dynamic classroom social interactions. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 43(3), 263–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025418820708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. F. (1978). The effects of four Proxemic zones on the performance of selected sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade students. East Tennessee State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muirhead, B., & Juwah, C. (2003). Interactivity in computer-mediated college and university education: A recent review of the literature. In International forum of educational technology & society. Retrieved December 7, 2003, from http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss_november2003.html.

  • Nguyen, T. D., Cannata, M., & Miller, J. (2018). Understanding student behavioral engagement: Importance of student interaction with peers and teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1220359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child (Trans. D. Coltman).

  • Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 365–386). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_17.

  • Prammanee, N. (2003). Understanding participation in online courses: A case study of perceptions of online interaction. IT Forum. Retrieved February 29, 2004, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper68/paper68.html

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Moore, J. (1999). Cognitive education and the cognitive domain. Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, 2, 51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sezer, B. (2017). The effectiveness of a technology-enhanced flipped science classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(4), 471–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116671325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shernoff, D. J., Sannella, A. J., Schorr, R. Y., Sanchez-Wall, L., Ruzek, E. A., Sinha, S., & Bressler, D. M. (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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shores, R. E., Jack, S. L., Gunter, P. L., Ellis, D., DeBriere, T. J., & Wehby, J. H. (1993). Classroom interactions of children with behavior disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1, 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/106342669300100106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stadler-Altmann, U. (2015). Learning environment: The influence of school and classroom space on education. In J. M. Stephens & C. M. Rubie-Davies (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of social psychology of the classroom (pp. 252–262). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tian, S. (2012). Ergonomics. Peking University Press.

  • Vargas, M, (1986). Louder than Words: An introduction to nonverbal communication. Iowa State University Press.

  • Wagner, E. D. (2006). On designing interaction experiences for the next generation of blended learning. In C. J. Bonk, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives and local designs (pp. 41–55). Pfeiffer.

  • Walker, J. D., Brooks, D. C., & Baepler, P. (2011). Pedagogy and space: Empirical research on new learning environments. Educause Quarterly, 34(4), n4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall, K. (2015). The environment of primary schools: Interactions between the space, learning and pupil needs. In P. Woolner (Ed.), School design together (pp. 32–54). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C., Hsu, H. C. K., Bonem, E. M., Moss, J. D., Yu, S., Nelson, D. B., & Levesque-Bristol, C. (2019). Need satisfaction and need dissatisfaction: A comparative study of online and face-to-face learning contexts. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, C. E., Jarodzka, H., den Bogert, N., & Boshuizen, H. (2016). Teacher vision: Expert and novice teachers’ perception of problematic classroom management scenes. Instructional Science, 44, 243–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, L., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Zhao, L., Deppeler, J., Corrigan, D., & Gasevic, D. (2022). How do teachers use open learning spaces? Mapping from teachers’ socio-spatial data to spatial pedagogy. In LAK22: 12th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (pp. 87–97).

  • Yueh, H.-P., Lin, W., Shoji, T., & Minoh, M. (2014). The development of an interaction support system for international distance education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7(2), 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2014.2308952

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhan, Z., Wu, Q., Lin, Z., & Cai, J. (2021). Smart classroom environments affect teacher-student interaction: Evidence from a behavioral sequence analysis. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6523

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The funded was provided by 8/5000 National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No: 62077022). Innovation Funding Project of Central China Normal University (Grant No: 2022CXZZ032). National Collaborative Innovation Experimental Base for Teacher Development of Central China Normal University (Grant No: CCNUTEIII 2021-21).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Artificial Intelligence in Education, Central China Normal University, Nanhu Campus, 382 Xiongchu Avenue, Hongshan District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China

    Mengke Wang, Taotao Long, Zengzhao Chen & Yawen Shi

  2. Department of Educational Technology, Zhejiang Normal University, 688 Yingbin Dadao, Wucheng District, Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province, China

    Xuemei Wu

  3. Xiamen Experimental Middle School, 6666 Binhai West Avenue, Tong an District, Xiamen City, Fujian Province, China

    Ling Xu

Authors
  1. Mengke Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Taotao Long
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zengzhao Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xuemei Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yawen Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ling Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zengzhao Chen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

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

Wang, M., Long, T., Chen, Z. et al. Investigating the Interaction Types and Instructional Proxemics in Information Technology Enhanced Exemplary Lessons. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 33, 129–141 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00714-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00714-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation