| Literature DB >> 35242090 |
Huiju Yu1, Shaofeng Wang2,3, Jiaping Li4, Gaojun Shi4, Junfeng Yang4.
Abstract
Students' active learning behavior determines learning performance. In post-COVID-19 period, Online Merging Offline (OMO) method become a common way of university students' learning. However, at present, there are few studies in active learning behavior in the OMO mode. Combined with learning satisfaction and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), this paper proposes an Online Active Learning (OAL) Model to predict the influencing factors of college students' active learning behavior and then analyzes the differences between OMO model and pure online model by multi-group analysis (MGA) based on the model. The designed questionnaire was distributed, and a total of 498 valid questionnaires were collected. Using SmartPLS to analyze partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and MGA, it is found that: (1) there are differences in the influencing factors of active learning between OMO and pure online model; the moderating effect of learning complaint in OMO mode is not established, and social isolation and age does not affect active learning in OMO mode; (2) learning quality, perceived ease of use, expectation, perceived usefulness, and social isolation indirectly affect active learning through learning satisfaction in both OMO model and pure online model; (3) learning satisfaction is an important mediating variable affecting active learning; and (4) learning complaints will negatively regulate the relationship between learning satisfaction and active learning only in pure online model. According to these findings, the paper provides theoretical and practical implementation suggestions implications for OMO teaching and OAL to ensure the expected learning outcome.Entities:
Keywords: LS-SEM; MGA; OMO; TAM; complaint; learning satisfaction; online active learning
Year: 2022 PMID: 35242090 PMCID: PMC8886045 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.842322
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1Conceptual model.
Instrument.
| Construct | Items |
|---|---|
| Learning complaint | 1.If learning process are not satisfactory, I will have the idea of complaining. |
| Expectation | 1.The experience of Active learning is better than I expected. |
| Learning Quality | 1.Learning support system to ensure my learning effect. |
| Learning Satisfaction | 1.Active learning is enjoyable. |
| Active learning | 1.I actively participate in the discussion of online learning. |
| Perceived ease of use | 1.Active learning is easy to carry out. |
| Perceived usefulness | 1.Active learning can improve my learning efficiency. |
| Social isolation | 1.Active learning reduces the opportunities for communication between students and students. |
AVE, CR, and Cronbach’s alpha.
| Construct | Coding | Item | Cronbach’s alpha | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Learning complaint | CO | 5 | 0.851 | 0.894 | 0.627 |
| Expectation | EPC | 4 | 0.820 | 0.881 | 0.650 |
| Learning Quality | LQ | 4 | 0.824 | 0.883 | 0.655 |
| Learning Satisfaction | LS | 4 | 0.846 | 0.896 | 0.684 |
| Active learning | AL | 5 | 0.835 | 0.884 | 0.603 |
| Perceived ease of use | PEU | 3 | 0.830 | 0.898 | 0.746 |
| Perceived usefulness | PU | 4 | 0.855 | 0.902 | 0.696 |
| Social isolation | SOI | 5 | 0.883 | 0.915 | 0.682 |
Correlation coefficient between latent variables and square root of AVE.
| AL | CO | EPC | LQ | PEU | PU | SAT | SOI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL |
| |||||||
| CO | −0.265 |
| ||||||
| LE | 0.332 | 0.073 |
| |||||
| LQ | 0.346 | 0.061 | 0.274 |
| ||||
| PEU | 0.341 | 0.107 | 0.251 | 0.276 |
| |||
| PU | 0.331 | 0.008 | 0.197 | 0.279 | 0.227 |
| ||
| SAT | 0.588 | −0.141 | 0.431 | 0.46 | 0.445 | 0.394 |
| |
| SOI | −0.232 | −0.006 | −0.155 | −0.127 | −0.149 | −0.115 | −0.315 |
|
The value bold on the diagonal is the square root of AVE.
HTMT.
| AL | CO | LE | LQ | PEOU | PU | SAT | SOI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL | ||||||||
| CO | 0.312 | |||||||
| LE | 0.398 | 0.093 | ||||||
| LQ | 0.416 | 0.089 | 0.331 | |||||
| PEOU | 0.407 | 0.128 | 0.304 | 0.333 | ||||
| PU | 0.391 | 0.043 | 0.237 | 0.331 | 0.269 | |||
| SAT | 0.697 | 0.163 | 0.516 | 0.551 | 0.529 | 0.461 | ||
| SOI | 0.268 | 0.034 | 0.178 | 0.151 | 0.169 | 0.130 | 0.363 |
Figure 2PLS results of online active learning model. **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001. ns, not-significant.
Mediation results.
| Path | Influence | 95% Confidence intervals | Value of | Significance | Mediation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PEU → LS → OAL | Direct effect | (0.048, 0.196) | 0.000 | Yes | Partial |
| Indirect effect | (0.050, 0.117) | 0.000 | Yes | ||
| PU → LS → OAL | Direct effect | (0.034, 0.185) | 0.000 | Yes | Partial |
| Indirect effect | (0.040, 0.097) | 0.000 | Yes | ||
| SOI → LS → OAL | Direct effect | (−0.149, 0.009) | 0.001 | Yes | Partial |
| Indirect effect | (−0.092, 0.036) | 0.001 | Yes | ||
| EPC → LS → OAL | Direct effect | (0.044, 0.184) | 0.000 | Yes | Partial |
| Indirect effect | (0.048, 0.111) | 0.000 | Yes | ||
| LQ → LS → OAL | Direct effect | (0.027, 0.179) | 0.000 | Yes | Partial |
| Indirect effect | (0.051, 0.117) | 0.000 | Yes |
PLS-MGA results.
| Path coefficient | Value of | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OMO model | Online education model | OMO model | Online education model | |
| EPC → SAT | 0.274 | 0.203 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| LQ → SAT | 0.312 | 0.178 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| PEU → SAT | 0.148 | 0.347 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| PU → SAT | 0.220 | 0.174 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| SAT → OAL | 0.538 | 0.585 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| SOI → SAT | −0.091 | −0.266 | 0.059 | 0.000 |
| Moderation of CO | −0.080 | −0.229 | 0.418 | 0.013 |
| Age → OAL | −0.064 | −0.124 | 0.230 | 0.005 |
| Gender → OAL | −0.027 | −0.060 | 0.620 | 0.168 |