Table 1.
Model overview.
Fig 1.
Empirical results vs. modeling outcomes on classroom engagement in student interaction scenarios.
The trends of engagement vs. disengagement rates within and between three types of student interactions are similar. “T-S” refers to student interactions with the teacher, “S-S” refers to student interactions with peers, and “Alone” refers to no interactions. Error bars in all simulation figures indicate one standard error (i.e., the sample standard deviation divided by the square root of the number of replications).
Fig 2.
Simulated distribution of classroom engagement in model validation.
Students’ classroom engagement rates include four levels: high, high-medium, low-medium and low engagement. The number of students for each level is depicted.
Table 2.
Parameters of the simulation.
Table 3.
Descriptive statistics of classroom engagement for teacher-student proximity and teacher feedback effects.
Fig 3.
Simulated distribution of classroom engagement under teacher feedback effects and near-seated peer group influence.
“TPF” = teacher’s positive feedback. “Composition” refers to class engagement composition, including four scenarios: low-engagement homogeneous (Homo_Low), medium-engagement homogeneous (Homo_Medium), and high-engagement homogeneous (Homo_High) and heterogeneous groups (Hetero: half low- and half high-engagement students). Under the effects of teacher’s positive feedback probability and class engagement composition, the numbers of students with high, high-medium, low-medium and low classroom engagement rate are presented.
Fig 4.
Simulated classroom engagement of front and back rows and the entire class under teacher feedback effects and near-seated peer group influence.
The meanings of TPF, Composition, Homo_Low, Homo_Medium, Homo_High and Hetero are the same to those in Fig 3. The classroom engagement rates of front vs. back rows and the entire class are jointly impacted by the teacher’s positive feedback probability and classroom engagement composition.
Fig 5.
Simulated classroom engagement in interactions with the teacher and peers under teacher feedback effects and near-seated peer group influence.
The meanings of TPF, Composition, Homo_Low, Homo_Medium, Homo_High and Hetero are the same to those in Fig 3. T-S and S-S refer to teacher-student and student-student interactions respectively. The effects of teacher’s positive feedback probability and class engagement composition on classroom engagement rates are asymmetrical and interactive.