skip to main content
research-article

Individual and Group-wise Classroom Seating Experience: Effects on Student Engagement in Different Courses

Published: 07 September 2022 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Seating location in the classroom can affect student engagement, attention and academic performance by providing better visibility, improved movement, and participation in discussions. Existing studies typically explore how traditional seating arrangements (e.g. grouped tables or traditional rows) influence students' perceived engagement, without considering group seating behaviours under more flexible seating arrangements. Furthermore, survey-based measures of student engagement are prone to subjectivity and various response bias. Therefore, in this research, we investigate how individual and group-wise classroom seating experiences affect student engagement using wearable physiological sensors. We conducted a field study at a high school and collected survey and wearable data from 23 students in 10 courses over four weeks. We aim to answer the following research questions: 1. How does the seating proximity between students relate to their perceived learning engagement? 2. How do students' group seating behaviours relate to their physiologically-based measures of engagement (i.e. physiological arousal and physiological synchrony)? Experiment results indicate that the individual and group-wise classroom seating experience is associated with perceived student engagement and physiologically-based engagement measured from electrodermal activity. We also find that students who sit close together are more likely to have similar learning engagement and tend to have high physiological synchrony. This research opens up opportunities to explore the implications of flexible seating arrangements and has great potential to maximize student engagement by suggesting intelligent seating choices in the future.

    References

    [1]
    Callie Allen. 2018. Flexible seating: effects of student seating type choice in the classroom. Master's thesis. Western Illinois University.
    [2]
    Rick D Axelson and Arend Flick. 2010. Defining student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 43, 1 (2010), 38--43.
    [3]
    Ebrahim Babaei, Benjamin Tag, Tilman Dingler, and Eduardo Velloso. 2021. A critique of electrodermal activity practices at CHI. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--14.
    [4]
    Albert Bandura and David C McClelland. 1977. Social learning theory. Vol. 1. Englewood cliffs Prentice Hall.
    [5]
    Franklin D Becker, Robert Sommer, Joan Bee, and Bart Oxley. 1973. College classroom ecology. Sociometry (1973), 514--525.
    [6]
    Mary Ellen Benedict and John Hoag. 2004. Seating location in large lectures: Are seating preferences or location related to course performance? The Journal of Economic Education 35, 3 (2004), 215--231.
    [7]
    Benjamin S Bloom et al. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay 20 (1956), 24.
    [8]
    Wolfram Boucsein. 2012. Electrodermal activity. Springer Science & Business Media.
    [9]
    Wolfram Boucsein, Don C Fowles, Sverre Grimnes, Gershon Ben-Shakhar, Walton T Roth, Michael E Dawson, and Diane L Filion. 2012. Publication recommendations for electrodermal measurements. Psychophysiology 49, 8 (2012), 1017--1034.
    [10]
    Jason J Braithwaite, Derrick G Watson, Robert Jones, and Mickey Rowe. 2013. A guide for analysing electrodermal activity (EDA) & skin conductance responses (SCRs) for psychological experiments. Psychophysiology 49, 1 (2013), 1017--1034.
    [11]
    Per Brodal. 2004. The central nervous system: structure and function. Oxford University Press.
    [12]
    Jeffrey M Burda and Charles I Brooks. 1996. College classroom seating position and changes in achievement motivation over a semester. Psychological Reports 78, 1 (1996), 331--336.
    [13]
    Samantha Burgeson. 2017. Flexible seating influencing student engagement. (2017).
    [14]
    John T Cacioppo, Louis G Tassinary, and Gary Berntson. 2007. Handbook of Psychophysiology. Cambridge university press.
    [15]
    Ryan Cain and Victor R Lee. 2016. Measuring electrodermal activity to capture engagement in an afterschool maker program. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education. 78--81.
    [16]
    Neil R Carlson and Neil R Carlson. 2007. Physiology of behavior. Pearson Boston.
    [17]
    Ka Long Chan, David C.W. Chin, Man Sing Wong, Roy Kam, Benedict Shing Bun Chan, Chun-Ho Liu, Frankie Kwan Kit Wong, Lorna K.P. Suen, Lin Yang, Simon Ching Lam, Wallace Wai lok Lai, and Xiaolin Zhu. 2021. Academic discipline as a moderating variable between seating location and academic performance: implications for teaching. Higher Education Research & Development 0, 0 (2021), 1--15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1928000 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1928000
    [18]
    Adrian Colomer Granero, Félix Fuentes-Hurtado, Valery Naranjo Ornedo, Jaime Guixeres Provinciale, Jose M Ausín, and Mariano Alcañiz Raya. 2016. A comparison of physiological signal analysis techniques and classifiers for automatic emotional evaluation of audiovisual contents. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 10 (2016), 74.
    [19]
    Lyn Corno and Ellen B Mandinach. 1983. The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist 18, 2 (1983), 88--108.
    [20]
    Hugo D Critchley, Jessica Eccles, and Sarah N Garfinkel. 2013. Interaction between cognition, emotion, and the autonomic nervous system. In Handbook of Clinical Neurology. Vol. 117. Elsevier, 59--77.
    [21]
    Elena Di Lascio, Shkurta Gashi, and Silvia Santini. 2018. Unobtrusive assessment of students' emotional engagement during lectures using electrodermal activity sensors. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 2, 3 (2018), 1--21.
    [22]
    Sidney D'Mello, Andrew Olney, Claire Williams, and Patrick Hays. 2012. Gaze tutor: A gaze-reactive intelligent tutoring system. International Journal of human-computer studies 70, 5 (2012), 377--398.
    [23]
    Zhe Dong, Haiyan Liu, and Xinqi Zheng. 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 (2021), e0244935.
    [24]
    Stephen H Fairclough, Louise Venables, and Andrew Tattersall. 2005. The influence of task demand and learning on the psychophysiological response. International Journal of Psychophysiology 56, 2 (2005), 171--184.
    [25]
    Amanda Careena Fernandes, Jinyan Huang, and Vince Rinaldo. 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 (2011).
    [26]
    Jeremy D Finn, Gina M Pannozzo, and Kristin E Voelkl. 1995. Disruptive and inattentive-withdrawn behavior and achievement among fourth graders. The Elementary School Journal 95, 5 (1995), 421--434.
    [27]
    Jennifer A Fredricks, Phyllis C Blumenfeld, and Alison H Paris. 2004. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research 74, 1 (2004), 59--109.
    [28]
    Jennifer A Fredricks and Wendy McColskey. 2012. The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. Springer, 763--782.
    [29]
    Kathryn A Fuller, Nilushi S Karunaratne, Som Naidu, Betty Exintaris, Jennifer L Short, Michael D Wolcott, Scott Singleton, and Paul J White. 2018. Development of a self-report instrument for measuring in-class student engagement reveals that pretending to engage is a significant unrecognized problem. PloS one 13, 10 (2018), e0205828.
    [30]
    Nan Gao. 2022. Human behaviour sensing and profiling in the wild. Ph.D. Dissertation. RMIT University.
    [31]
    Nan Gao, Max Marschall, Jane Burry, Simon Watkins, and Flora D Salim. 2022. Understanding occupants' behaviour, engagement, emotion, and comfort indoors with heterogeneous sensors and wearables. Scientific Data 9, 1 (2022), 1--16.
    [32]
    Nan Gao, Mohammad Saiedur Rahaman, Wei Shao, and Flora D Salim. 2021. Investigating the reliability of self-report data in the wild: The quest for ground truth. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2021 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2021 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers. 237--242.
    [33]
    Nan Gao, Wei Shao, Mohammad Saiedur Rahaman, and Flora D Salim. 2020. n-Gage: Predicting in-class emotional, behavioural and cognitive engagement in the wild. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 4, 3 (2020), 1--26.
    [34]
    Shkurta Gashi, Elena Di Lascio, and Silvia Santini. 2018. Using students' physiological synchrony to quantify the classroom emotional climate. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Joint Conference and 2018 International Symposium on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Wearable Computers. 698--701.
    [35]
    Shkurta Gashi, Elena Di Lascio, and Silvia Santini. 2019. Using unobtrusive wearable sensors to measure the physiological synchrony between presenters and audience members. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 3, 1 (2019), 1--19.
    [36]
    Michail N. Giannakos, Kshitij Sharma, Sofia Papavlasopoulou, Ilias O. Pappas, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2020. Fitbit for learning: Towards capturing the learning experience using wearable sensing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 136 (2020), 102384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.102384
    [37]
    John Clifford Gower. 1985. Properties of Euclidean and non-Euclidean distance matrices. Linear Algebra Appl. 67 (1985), 81--97.
    [38]
    Alberto Greco, Gaetano Valenza, Antonio Lanata, Enzo Pasquale Scilingo, and Luca Citi. 2015. cvxEDA: A convex optimization approach to electrodermal activity processing. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 63, 4 (2015), 797--804.
    [39]
    Mariola C Gremmen, Yvonne HM Van den Berg, Christian Steglich, René Veenstra, and Jan Kornelis Dijkstra. 2018. The importance of near-seated peers for elementary students' academic engagement and achievement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 57 (2018), 42--52.
    [40]
    Pepper Anne Grimm. 2020. Teacher perceptions on flexible seating in the classroom: effects on student engagement and student achievement. Ph.D. Dissertation. William Woods University.
    [41]
    Shaun R Harper. 2009. Institutional seriousness concerning black male student engagement: Necessary conditions and collaborative partnerships. Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations (2009), 137--156.
    [42]
    Javier Hernandez, Ivan Riobo, Agata Rozga, Gregory D Abowd, and Rosalind W Picard. 2014. Using electrodermal activity to recognize ease of engagement in children during social interactions. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. 307--317.
    [43]
    William B Holliman and Howard N Anderson. 1986. Proximity and student density as ecological variables in a college classroom. Teaching of Psychology 13, 4 (1986), 200--203.
    [44]
    Beth Hurst, Randall R Wallace, and Sarah B Nixon. 2013. The impact of social interaction on student learning. Reading Horizons (2013).
    [45]
    Sinh Huynh, Seungmin Kim, JeongGil Ko, Rajesh Krishna Balan, and Youngki Lee. 2018. EngageMon: Multi-Modal engagement sensing for mobile games. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 2, 1 (2018), 1--27.
    [46]
    Gyanendra Prasad Joshi, Sudan Jha, Seongsoo Cho, Changho Seo, Le Son, and Thong Pham. 2019. Influence of multimedia and seating location in academic engagement and grade performance of students. Computer Applications in Engineering Education 28 (12 2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22190
    [47]
    Steven Kalinowski and Mark L Toper. 2007. The effect of seat location on exam grades and student perceptions in an introductory biology class. Journal of College Science Teaching 36, 4 (2007).
    [48]
    Naz Kaya and Brigitte Burgess. 2007. Territoriality: Seat preferences in different types of classroom arrangements. Environment and Behavior 39, 6 (2007), 859--876.
    [49]
    Tae Kyun Kim. 2015. T-test as a parametric statistic. Korean journal of anesthesiology 68, 6 (2015), 540.
    [50]
    Reed Larson and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 2014. The experience sampling method. In Flow and the foundations of positive psychology. Springer, 21--34.
    [51]
    Aristidis Likas, Nikos Vlassis, and Jakob J Verbeek. 2003. The global k-means clustering algorithm. Pattern recognition 36, 2 (2003), 451--461.
    [52]
    Rosa Lleti, M Cruz Ortiz, Luis A Sarabia, and M Sagrario Sánchez. 2004. Selecting variables for k-means cluster analysis by using a genetic algorithm that optimises the silhouettes. Analytica Chimica Acta 515, 1 (2004), 87--100.
    [53]
    Qifeng Lyu, Yunhong Jiang, and Junyong Wu. 2021. Relations between university students' academic achievement and their seating positions in classrooms. In 2021 7th International Conference on Education and Training Technologies. 36--43.
    [54]
    Jonna Malmberg, Eetu Haataja, Tapio Seppänen, and Sanna Järvelä. 2019. Are we together or not? The temporal interplay of monitoring, physiological arousal and physiological synchrony during a collaborative exam. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 14, 4 (2019), 467--490.
    [55]
    Michael D Meeks, Tami L Knotts, Karen D James, Felice Williams, John A Vassar, and Amy Oakes Wren. 2013. The impact of seating location and seating type on student performance. Education Sciences 3, 4 (2013), 375--386.
    [56]
    Luca Menghini, Evelyn Gianfranchi, Nicola Cellini, Elisabetta Patron, Mariaelena Tagliabue, and Michela Sarlo. 2019. Stressing the accuracy: Wrist-worn wearable sensor validation over different conditions. Psychophysiology 56, 11 (2019), e13441.
    [57]
    Richard J Millard and David V Stimpson. 1980. Enjoyment and productivity as a function of classroom seating location. Perceptual and Motor Skills (1980).
    [58]
    Andreas Möller, Matthias Kranz, Barbara Schmid, Luis Roalter, and Stefan Diewald. 2013. Investigating self-reporting behavior in long-term studies. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2931--2940.
    [59]
    Hamed Monkaresi, Nigel Bosch, Rafael A Calvo, and Sidney K D'Mello. 2016. Automated detection of engagement using video-based estimation of facial expressions and heart rate. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 8, 1 (2016), 15--28.
    [60]
    Dan Monster, Dorthe Dojbak Håkonsson, Jacob Kjær Eskildsen, and Sebastian Wallot. 2016. Physiological evidence of interpersonal dynamics in a cooperative production task. Physiology & behavior 156 (2016), 24--34.
    [61]
    Daniel R Montello. 1988. Classroom seating location and its effect on course achievement, participation, and attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 8, 2 (1988), 149--157.
    [62]
    KA Moore and L Lippman. 2005. Conceptualizing and Measuring Indicators of positive Development: What do Children Need to Flourish.
    [63]
    Kristin Anderson Moore and Laura H Lippman. 2006. What do children need to flourish?: Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development. Vol. 3. Springer Science & Business Media.
    [64]
    Matthew A Napierala. 2012. What is the Bonferroni correction? Aaos Now (2012), 40--41.
    [65]
    Moses Waithanji Ngware, James Ciera, Peter K Musyoka, Moses Oketch, et al. 2013. The influence of classroom seating position on student learning gains in primary schools in Kenya. Creative Education 4, 11 (2013), 705.
    [66]
    Richard V Palumbo, Marisa E Marraccini, Lisa L Weyandt, Oliver Wilder-Smith, Heather A McGee, Siwei Liu, and Matthew S Goodwin. 2017. Interpersonal autonomic physiology: A systematic review of the literature. Personality and Social Psychology Review 21, 2 (2017), 99--141.
    [67]
    Fabian Pedregosa, Gaël Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Olivier Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, Peter Prettenhofer, Ron Weiss, Vincent Dubourg, et al. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12 (2011), 2825--2830.
    [68]
    Paul R Pintrich and Elisabeth V De Groot. 1990. Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 82, 1 (1990), 33.
    [69]
    Robin L Plackett. 1983. Karl Pearson and the chi-squared test. International Statistical Review/Revue Internationale de Statistique (1983), 59--72.
    [70]
    James A Russell. 1980. A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, 6 (1980), 1161.
    [71]
    Martha J. Sanders. 2013. Classroom design and student engagement. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 57, 1 (2013), 496--500. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213571107 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213571107
    [72]
    Tali Sharot and Elizabeth A Phelps. 2004. How arousal modulates memory: Disentangling the effects of attention and retention. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 4, 3 (2004), 294--306.
    [73]
    David J Shernoff, Alexander J Sannella, Roberta Y Schorr, Lina Sanchez-Wall, Erik A Ruzek, Suparna Sinha, and Denise M Bressler. 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 (2017), 55--64.
    [74]
    Saul Shiffman, Arthur A Stone, and Michael R Hufford. 2008. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 4 (2008), 1--32.
    [75]
    Ellen Skinner, Carrie Furrer, Gwen Marchand, and Thomas Kindermann. 2008. Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology 100, 4 (2008), 765.
    [76]
    Ellen A Skinner, Thomas A Kindermann, and Carrie J Furrer. 2009. A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children's behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and psychological measurement 69, 3 (2009), 493--525.
    [77]
    Justin Storbeck and Gerald L Clore. 2008. Affective arousal as information: How affective arousal influences judgments, learning, and memory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2, 5 (2008), 1824--1843.
    [78]
    Ivo Stuldreher. 2020. Multimodal physiological synchrony as measure of attentional engagement. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction. 718--722.
    [79]
    Daniel Szafir and Bilge Mutlu. 2013. ARTFul: adaptive review technology for flipped learning. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1001--1010.
    [80]
    Vicki Trowler. 2010. Student engagement literature review. The higher education academy 11, 1 (2010), 1--15.
    [81]
    Nilgun Turkileri, David T Field, Judi A Ellis, and Michiko Sakaki. 2021. Emotional arousal enhances the impact of long-term memory in attention. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 33, 2 (2021), 119--132.
    [82]
    Deepali Virmani, Shweta Taneja, and Geetika Malhotra. 2015. Normalization based K-means clustering algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.00900 (2015).
    [83]
    Chen Wang and Pablo Cesar. 2015. Physiological measurement on students' engagement in a distributed learning environment. PhyCS 10 (2015), 0005229101490156.
    [84]
    Jamie A Ward, Daniel Richardson, Guido Orgs, Kelly Hunter, and Antonia Hamilton. 2018. Sensing interpersonal synchrony between actors and autistic children in theatre using wrist-worn accelerometers. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers. 148--155.
    [85]
    Robert R Weaver and Jiang Qi. 2005. Classroom organization and participation: College students' perceptions. The Journal of Higher Education 76, 5 (2005), 570--601.
    [86]
    Beverly Woolf, Winslow Burleson, Ivon Arroyo, Toby Dragon, David Cooper, and Rosalind Picard. 2009. Affect-aware tutors: recognising and responding to student affect. International Journal of Learning Technology 4, 3-4 (2009), 129--164.
    [87]
    Xiaoming Yang, Xing Zhou, and Jie Hu. 2021. Students' preferences for seating arrangements and their engagement in cooperative learning activities in college English blended learning classrooms in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development 0, 0 (2021), 1--16. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1901667 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1901667
    [88]
    Jie Yu, Jaume Amores, Nicu Sebe, Petia Radeva, and Qi Tian. 2008. Distance learning for similarity estimation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 30, 3 (2008), 451--462.
    [89]
    Chunhui Yuan and Haitao Yang. 2019. Research on K-value selection method of K-means clustering algorithm. J---Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal 2, 2 (2019), 226--235.

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)The NEDC-GTOPSIS Node Influence Evaluation Algorithm Based on Multi-Layer Heterogeneous Classroom NetworksInternational Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education10.4018/IJICTE.34682220:1(1-24)Online publication date: 16-Jul-2024
    • (2024)Ongoing tracking of engagement in motor learningOpen Research Europe10.12688/openreseurope.17034.14(28)Online publication date: 15-Feb-2024
    • (2024)ClassID: Enabling Student Behavior Attribution from Ambient Classroom Sensing SystemsProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/36595868:2(1-28)Online publication date: 15-May-2024
    • Show More Cited By

    Index Terms

    1. Individual and Group-wise Classroom Seating Experience: Effects on Student Engagement in Different Courses

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Information & Contributors

        Information

        Published In

        cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies
        Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies  Volume 6, Issue 3
        September 2022
        1612 pages
        EISSN:2474-9567
        DOI:10.1145/3563014
        Issue’s Table of Contents
        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        Published: 07 September 2022
        Published in IMWUT Volume 6, Issue 3

        Permissions

        Request permissions for this article.

        Check for updates

        Author Tags

        1. Electrodermal Activity
        2. Seating Arrangement
        3. Student Engagement
        4. Wearable

        Qualifiers

        • Research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

        Funding Sources

        Contributors

        Other Metrics

        Bibliometrics & Citations

        Bibliometrics

        Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)356
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)36

        Other Metrics

        Citations

        Cited By

        View all
        • (2024)The NEDC-GTOPSIS Node Influence Evaluation Algorithm Based on Multi-Layer Heterogeneous Classroom NetworksInternational Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education10.4018/IJICTE.34682220:1(1-24)Online publication date: 16-Jul-2024
        • (2024)Ongoing tracking of engagement in motor learningOpen Research Europe10.12688/openreseurope.17034.14(28)Online publication date: 15-Feb-2024
        • (2024)ClassID: Enabling Student Behavior Attribution from Ambient Classroom Sensing SystemsProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/36595868:2(1-28)Online publication date: 15-May-2024
        • (2024)Going Beyond XAI: A Systematic Survey for Explanation-Guided LearningACM Computing Surveys10.1145/364407356:7(1-39)Online publication date: 9-Apr-2024
        • (2024)Spatial-Temporal Masked Autoencoder for Multi-Device Wearable Human Activity RecognitionProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/36314157:4(1-25)Online publication date: 12-Jan-2024
        • (2024)Assisting International Migrants with Everyday Information Seeking: From the Providers’ LensWisdom, Well-Being, Win-Win10.1007/978-3-031-57867-0_26(338-355)Online publication date: 15-Apr-2024
        • (2024)Using AutoML to Analyze the Effect of Attendance and Seat Location on University Student GradesIntelligent Systems and Applications10.1007/978-3-031-47721-8_42(617-632)Online publication date: 10-Jan-2024
        • (2023)Key Student Nodes Mining in the In-Class Social Network Based on Combined Weighted GRA-TOPSIS MethodInternational Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education10.4018/IJICTE.32277319:1(1-19)Online publication date: 5-May-2023
        • (2023)Does the Seat Matter? The Influence of Seating Factors and Motivational Factors on Situational Engagement and Satisfaction in the Smart ClassroomSustainability10.3390/su15231639315:23(16393)Online publication date: 28-Nov-2023
        • (2023)Human-computer interaction for virtual-real fusionJournal of Image and Graphics10.11834/jig.23002028:6(1513-1542)Online publication date: 2023
        • Show More Cited By

        View Options

        Get Access

        Login options

        Full Access

        View options

        PDF

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        Media

        Figures

        Other

        Tables

        Share

        Share

        Share this Publication link

        Share on social media