| Literature DB >> 34912445 |
Abstract
Network open curriculum provides a new solution for general education in local colleges and universities, which makes the network curriculum widely popularized and applied in colleges and universities. However, due to the lack of good curriculum learning evaluation, it is inconvenient for learners to choose. Therefore, this paper proposes to use the BP neural network model to evaluate the learning process of network general education course. Based on the course and user data provided by the existing platform, this paper constructs an online course learning evaluation model and studies the structure and effect relationship among learning experience, learning investment, and learning performance of ordinary online courses based on the preaging process product (3P) model and structural analysis method. Our research shows that curriculum quality is a key factor in analyzing and predicting learning results, which has a great impact on learning achievement. Learning experience is a direct factor affecting academic achievement. Learning experience, as an intermediary variable, indirectly affects e-learning performance. At the same time, it puts forward some suggestions to optimize the learning effect of ordinary online courses. On the one hand, the evaluation model provided in this paper can provide a reference for learners to select online courses; on the other hand, it can also be used as a supplement to the existing subjective evaluation model.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34912445 PMCID: PMC8668362 DOI: 10.1155/2021/3570273
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Operation data for online general course in Zhejiang Shuren College.
| Semester | Course number | Course selection number | Pass rate (%) | Excellent rate (%) | |
|
| |||||
| Spring 2021 | 371 | 18836 | 88.67 | 71.46 | |
| Fall 2020 | 366 | 18745 | 89.86 | 71.38 | |
| Spring 2020 | 369 | 15184 | 86.29 | 68.96 | |
| Fall 2019 | 12 | 8278 | 92.81 | 71.92 | |
Figure 1Online general course learning influential relationship model.
Figure 2Schematic diagram of online learning impact relationship.
Figure 3BP neural network model structure for analyzing the relationship between learners, learning process variables and learning performance.
Examples for survey item design and references.
| 1st dimension | 2nd dimension |
|
| |
| Online learning experience | Social interaction, support and service, evaluation method, input and output, teaching method [ |
| Course content quality | Appropriateness, scientific, thinking, balance, fun, cutting-edge [ |
| Online learning engagement | Behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement, learning motivation [ |
| Online learning performance | Self-efficacy, knowledge goals, ability goals, emotional goals, learning satisfaction [ |
Measurement model's reliability test results.
| Latent variable | Average | Standard deviation | Cronbach's | Average variance extracted (AVE) | Combination reliability (CR) |
|
| |||||
| Course content quality | 3.899 | 0.674 | 0.869 | 0.8419 | 0.8696 |
| Online learning experience | 3.819 | 0.751 | 0.913 | 0.7759 | 0.8453 |
| Online learning engagement | 3.618 | 0.802 | 0.840 | 0.7518 | 0.9135 |
| Online learning performance | 3.900 | 0.681 | 0.872 | 0.8665 | 0.8701 |
Measurement model's validity test results.
| Latent variable | Observed variable | Factor load | KMO | Approximate Chi-square and | Eigenvalue | Cumulative variance explained rate (%) |
|
| ||||||
| Curriculum content quality | Appropriateness | 0.874 | 0.892 | 874.048 ( | 4.329 | 72.148 |
| Practicality | 0.833 | |||||
| Cutting edge | 0.840 | |||||
| Thinking | 0.842 | |||||
| Systematicness | 0.826 | |||||
| Fun | 0.819 | |||||
|
| ||||||
| Online learning experience | Social interaction | 0.838 | 0.811 | 617.918 ( | 3.321 | 71.424 |
| Input and output | 0.784 | |||||
| Learning support and service | 0.803 | |||||
| Evaluation methods | 0.816 | |||||
| Teaching methods | 0.811 | |||||
|
| ||||||
| Online learning investment | Behavioral investment | 0.846 | 0.844 | 595.826 ( | 3.471 | 69.772 |
| Learning motivation | 0.774 | |||||
| Cognitive investment | 0.848 | |||||
| Emotional investment | 0.893 | |||||
|
| ||||||
| Online learning performance | Learning satisfaction | 0.927 | 0.879 | 727.379 ( | 3.707 | 74.136 |
| Self-efficacy | 0.894 | |||||
| Knowledge goals | 0.891 | |||||
| Ability goals | 0.866 | |||||
| Emotional goals | 0.917 | |||||
Discriminative validity results.
| Course content quality | Online learning experience | Online learning engagement | Online learning performance | |
|
| ||||
| Course content quality | 0.842 | |||
| Online learning experience | 0.433 | 0.776 | ||
| Online learning engagement | 0.394 | 0.383 | 0.752 | |
| Online learning performance | 0.429 | 0.413 | 0.433 | 0.867 |
| Square root of AVE | 0.918 | 0.881 | 0.867 | 0.931 |
Model parameter test values and research hypothesis testing results.
| S.E. | C.R. |
| Hypothesis testing | |
|
| ||||
| H1 | 0.059 | 11.798 |
| Yes |
| H2 | 0.123 | 0.203 | 0.839 | No |
| H3 | 0.111 | 4.267 |
| Yes |
| H4 | 0.142 | 3.634 |
| Yes |
| H5 | 0.096 | 5.217 |
| Yes |
| H6 | 0.514 | 3.729 |
| Yes |
Note: P < 0.001; P < 0.01; and P < 0.05.
Total effect values between variables.
| Dependent variable independent variable | Online learning experience | Online learning engagement | Online learning performance |
|
| |||
| Online learning engagement | 0.311 | ||
| Online learning experience | 0.493 | 0.637 | |
| Course content quality | 0.724 | 0.357 | 0.968 |
Intervening effect between online learning engagement and online learning experience.
| Intervening variable | Path | Effect value | Percentage (%) |
|
| |||
| Learning engagement | Learning experience ➔ learning performance | 0.484 | 75.98 |
| Learning experience ➔ learning engagement ➔ learning performance | 0.153 | 24.02 | |
|
| |||
| Learning experience | Content quality ➔ learning performance | 0.507 | 52.38 |
| Content quality ➔ learning experience ➔ learning performance | 0.461 | 47.62 | |
Figure 4Online learning performance factor's performance.