| Literature DB >> 35774192 |
Guomin Chen1, Shihui Zheng2, Jianwu He3, Xiaowei Wang4.
Abstract
Based on the role separation scenario in which students need parental support, this paper explores the effect of parents' attitude on secondary school students' online learning. Through structural equation model analysis and regression analysis of 745 valid responses to a questionnaire, the data results show that parents' subjective dimension includes perceived gain and perceived loss, and social factor dimension includes teachers' influence and online comments. Perceived value is the key influencing factor of parents' attitude towards secondary school students in online learning platform. Perceived usefulness and platform information influence parents' attitude positively and significantly, while perceived risk influences parents' attitude negatively and significantly. In the dimension of social factors, teachers' influence positively influences parents' attitude, and online comments modulate the influence of perceived value on parents' attitude.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35774192 PMCID: PMC9239756 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4848738
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Public Health ISSN: 1687-9805
Research hypotheses.
| SN | Hypothesis content |
|---|---|
| H1 | Parents' perceived usefulness of e-learning platforms positively affects parents' attitudes. |
| H2 | Parents' perceived usefulness of e-learning platforms positively affects parents' perceived value. |
| H3 | The information of online learning platform positively affects the attitudes of parents of middle school students. |
| H4 | The information of online learning positively affects the perceived value of parents of middle school students. |
| H5 | Perceived risk negatively affects parents' perceived value for online learning platforms. |
| H6 | Perceived risk negatively affects the attitudes of parents of middle school students for online learning platforms. |
| H7 | Perceived cost negatively affects parents' perceived value for online learning platforms. |
| H8 | Perceived cost negatively affects parents' attitudes towards online learning platforms. |
| H9 | The perceived value of online learning platforms from parents of middle school students was positively affected by teacher influence. |
| H10 | The attitudes towards online learning platform from parents of middle school students were positively affected by teacher influence. |
| H11 | Online comments positively moderate perceived value and parents' attitudes on online learning platforms. |
| H12 | Perceived value positively affects the attitudes of parents of middle school students towards online learning platforms. |
Figure 1Model and hypothesis.
Measurement scale of perceived usefulness.
| Latent variables | Item code | Questionnaire content design | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived usefulness | PU1 | Online learning platforms currently in use can improve children's learning results. | Davis [ |
| PU2 | Online learning platforms are being used to meet the needs of children. | ||
| PU3 | Online learning platforms are being used to solve children's learning puzzles. |
Measurement scale of platform information.
| Latent variables | Item code | Questionnaire content design | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Platform information | PI1 | The online learning platform is rich in resources and can satisfy children's learning needs. | Li [ |
| PI2 | The video quality of online learning platform is high and can satisfy children's learning needs. | ||
| PI3 | The online learning platform is rich in information about courses, which is helpful for children to learn. |
Measurement scale of perceived risk.
| Latent variables | Item code | Questionnaire content design | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived risk | PR1 | Online learning platform course content does not match the description, and the quality of the course is not up to standard. | Zhao et al. [ |
| PR2 | Children use online learning platform to learn courses, and the learning effect is not obvious. | ||
| PR3 | Online learning platform related content offline services are not guaranteed. |
Measurement scale of perceived cost.
| Latent variables | Item code | Questionnaire content design | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived cost | PC1 | Online learning platforms require additional purchase of expensive learning equipment. | Wang et al. [ |
| PC2 | Online learning platforms take children more time to get used to and be familiar with. | ||
| PC3 | Online learning platforms have other hidden and additional fees. | ||
| PC4 | Online learning platforms require parents to spend a lot of time and energy monitoring their children's learning process. |
Measurement scale of teacher influence.
| Latent variables | Item code | Questionnaire content design | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Teacher influence | TI1 | The course content of the online learning platform currently in use is recognized by the school teachers. | Ashwin et al. [ |
| TI2 | Teachers in the school recognize the curriculum design and teaching methods of the online learning platform. | ||
| TI3 | School teachers support online learning after school. | ||
| TI4 | School teachers see online learning as a useful complement to classroom learning. |
Measurement scale of parents' use intention.
| Latent variables | Item code | Questionnaire content design | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent attitude | PA1 | I am willing to spend more money to choose and use effective online learning platforms. | Raghu et al. [ |
| PA2 | I want to take more time to help children choose and use online learning platforms. | ||
| PA3 | I will create a good learning environment and support children to use the online learning platform. |
Measurement scale of perceived value.
| Latent variables | Item code | Questionnaire content design | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived value | PV1 | Children learn better when they use online learning platforms. | Wang et al. [ |
| PV2 | Online learning platforms provide targeted services for children. | ||
| PV3 | Using online learning platforms, children can learn key knowledge more efficiently. | ||
| PV4 | Online learning platform helps children to quickly find the right learning content. |
Measurement scale of online comments.
| Latent variables | Item code | Questionnaire content design | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Online comment | OC1 | When choosing an online learning platform, I refer to other people's comments. | Zhao et al. [ |
| OC2 | I prefer to let kids use online learning platforms with good reviews on content. | ||
| OC3 | I prefer to use an online learning platform with a famous teacher. | ||
| OC4 | Negative comments will affect my choice and use of online learning platforms. |
Demographic data.
| Population profile | Category | Frequency number | Frequency | Cumulative percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 191 | 25.6 | 25.6 |
| Female | 554 | 74.4 | 100.0 | |
|
| ||||
| Education level | Master or above | 14 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Junior college/undergraduate | 243 | 32.6 | 34.5 | |
| Senior middle school | 119 | 16.0 | 50.5 | |
| Junior middle school | 369 | 49.5 | 100.0 | |
|
| ||||
| Age range | 30–35 | 52 | 7.0 | 7.0 |
| 36–40 | 238 | 31.9 | 38.9 | |
| 41–45 | 255 | 34.2 | 73.2 | |
| 46–50 | 135 | 18.1 | 91.3 | |
| Others | 65 | 8.7 | 100.0 | |
|
| ||||
| Monthly income level | 8000 above | 63 | 8.5 | 8.5 |
| 6500–8000 | 41 | 5.5 | 14.0 | |
| 5000–6500 | 88 | 11.8 | 25.8 | |
| 3500–5000 | 208 | 27.9 | 53.7 | |
| 2000–3500 | 345 | 46.3 | 100.0 | |
Descriptive statistics of items.
|
| Min | Max | Mean | SD | Skewness | Kurtosis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistics | Statistics | Statistics | Statistics | Statistics | Statistics | SE | Statistics | SE | |
| PU1 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.790 | 1.158 | −0.683 | 0.090 | −0.198 | 0.179 |
| PU2 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.880 | 1.147 | −0.785 | 0.090 | −0.076 | 0.179 |
| PU3 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.740 | 1.154 | −0.613 | 0.090 | −0.250 | 0.179 |
| PI1 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.690 | 1.121 | −0.489 | 0.090 | −0.309 | 0.179 |
| PI2 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.730 | 1.145 | −0.488 | 0.090 | −0.511 | 0.179 |
| PI3 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.850 | 1.097 | −0.625 | 0.090 | −0.247 | 0.179 |
| PR1 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 2.650 | 1.384 | 0.294 | 0.090 | −1.114 | 0.179 |
| PR2 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 2.910 | 1.304 | 0.100 | 0.090 | −0.983 | 0.179 |
| PR3 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 2.980 | 1.426 | −0.004 | 0.090 | −1.267 | 0.179 |
| PC1 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.830 | 1.206 | −0.782 | 0.090 | −0.261 | 0.179 |
| PC2 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 4.100 | 1.128 | −1.090 | 0.090 | 0.366 | 0.179 |
| PC3 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.590 | 1.276 | −0.532 | 0.090 | −0.671 | 0.179 |
| PC4 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.820 | 1.159 | −0.656 | 0.090 | −0.360 | 0.179 |
| TI1 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.570 | 1.185 | −0.438 | 0.090 | −0.458 | 0.179 |
| TI2 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.750 | 1.151 | −0.602 | 0.090 | −0.363 | 0.179 |
| TI3 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.380 | 1.217 | −0.252 | 0.090 | −0.645 | 0.179 |
| TI4 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.780 | 1.161 | −0.673 | 0.090 | −0.243 | 0.179 |
| PV1 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.370 | 1.081 | −0.117 | 0.090 | −0.245 | 0.179 |
| PV2 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.520 | 1.111 | −0.262 | 0.090 | −0.428 | 0.179 |
| PV3 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.570 | 1.121 | −0.296 | 0.090 | −0.485 | 0.179 |
| PV4 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.590 | 1.114 | −0.327 | 0.090 | −0.424 | 0.179 |
| OC1 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.580 | 1.231 | −0.458 | 0.090 | −0.628 | 0.179 |
| OC2 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.470 | 1.234 | −0.362 | 0.090 | −0.671 | 0.179 |
| OC3 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.490 | 1.212 | −0.397 | 0.090 | −0.541 | 0.179 |
| OC4 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.740 | 1.158 | −0.613 | 0.090 | −0.267 | 0.179 |
| PA1 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.800 | 1.125 | −0.654 | 0.090 | −0.194 | 0.179 |
| PA2 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.880 | 1.116 | −0.717 | 0.090 | −0.143 | 0.179 |
| PA3 | 745 | 1.000 | 5.000 | 3.830 | 1.138 | −0.730 | 0.090 | −0.092 | 0.179 |
Results of exploratory factor analysis of perceived usefulness.
| Item code | Perceived usefulness |
|---|---|
| PU1 | 0.947 |
| PU2 | 0.887 |
| PU3 | 0.947 |
| Eigenvalue | 2.581 |
| Cumulative variation interpretation | 86.03% |
| KMO value = 0.726 | |
| Bartlett's spherical test chi-square value = 1796.925 | |
| DOF = 3 | |
| (Sig.) |
Results of exploratory factor analysis of platform information.
| Item code | Platform information |
|---|---|
| PI1 | 0.782 |
| PI2 | 0.908 |
| PI3 | 0.912 |
| Eigenvalue | 2.268 |
| Cumulative variation interpretation | 75.61% |
| KMO value = 0.671 | |
| Bartlett's spherical test chi-square value = 1054.302 | |
| DOF = 3 | |
| (Sig.) |
Results of exploratory factor analysis of perceived risk.
| Item code | Perceived risk |
|---|---|
| PR1 | 0.831 |
| PR2 | 0.834 |
| PR3 | 0.864 |
| Eigenvalue | 2.134 (%) |
| Cumulative variation interpretation | 71.12 |
| KMO value = 0.705 | |
| Bartlett's spherical test chi-square value = 686.901 | |
| DOF = 3 | |
| (Sig.) |
Results of exploratory factor analysis of perceived cost.
| Item code | Perceived cost |
|---|---|
| PC1 | 0.827 |
| PC2 | 0.768 |
| PC3 | 0.767 |
| PC4 | 0.822 |
| Eigenvalue | 2.537 (%) |
| Cumulative variation interpretation | 63.43 |
| KMO value = 0.743 | |
| Bartlett's spherical test chi-square value = 1012.681 | |
| DOF = 6 | |
| (Sig.) |
Results of exploratory factor analysis of teacher influence.
| Item code | Teacher influence |
|---|---|
| TI1 | 0.870 |
| TI2 | 0.809 |
| TI3 | 0.834 |
| TI4 | 0.838 |
| Eigenvalue | 2.809 |
| Cumulative variation interpretation | 70.21% |
| KMO value = 0.804 | |
| Bartlett's spherical test chi-square value = 1340.387 | |
| DOF = 6 | |
| (Sig.) |
Results of exploratory factor analysis of online comments.
| Item code | Online comment |
|---|---|
| OC1 | 0.774 |
| OC2 | 0.825 |
| OC3 | 0.829 |
| OC4 | 0.736 |
| Eigenvalue | 2.509 |
| Cumulative variation interpretation | 62.72% |
| KMO value = 0.743 | |
| Bartlett's spherical test chi-square value = 951.353 | |
| DOF = 6 | |
| (Sig.) |
Results of exploratory factor analysis of perceived value.
| Item code | Perceived value |
|---|---|
| PV1 | 0.863 |
| PV2 | 0.884 |
| PV3 | 0.905 |
| PV4 | 0.899 |
| Eigenvalue | 3.154 |
| Cumulative variation interpretation | 78.85% |
| KMO value = 0.808 | |
| Bartlett's spherical test chi-square value = 2119.720 | |
| DOF = 6 | |
| (Sig.) |
Results of exploratory factor analysis of parents' use intention.
| Item code | Parent attitude |
|---|---|
| PA1 | 0.922 |
| PA2 | 0.934 |
| PA3 | 0.914 |
| Eigenvalue | 2.559 |
| Cumulative variation interpretation | 85.31% |
| KMO Value = 0.756 | |
| Bartlett's spherical test chi-square Value = 1559.966 | |
| DOF = 3 | |
| (Sig.) |
Confirmatory factor analysis results.
| Dimensionality | Title | Parameter significance estimation | Standardized factor load | Title reliability | Composite reliability | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unstd. | S.E. |
|
| Std. | SMC | CR | ||
| PU | PU1 | 1.000 | 0.942 | 0.887 | 0.921 | |||
| PU2 | 0.826 | 0.028 | 29.718 |
| 0.785 | 0.616 | ||
| PU3 | 0.998 | 0.023 | 42.638 |
| 0.943 | 0.889 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| PI | PI1 | 1.000 | 0.610 | 0.372 | 0.849 | |||
| PI2 | 1.484 | 0.085 | 17.559 |
| 0.887 | 0.787 | ||
| PI3 | 1.446 | 0.083 | 17.456 |
| 0.902 | 0.814 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| PR | PR1 | 1.000 | 0.720 | 0.518 | 0.798 | |||
| PR2 | 0.951 | 0.058 | 16.426 |
| 0.726 | 0.527 | ||
| PR3 | 1.164 | 0.071 | 16.507 |
| 0.814 | 0.663 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| PC | PC1 | 1.000 | 0.766 | 0.587 | 0.809 | |||
| PC2 | 0.833 | 0.050 | 16.501 |
| 0.682 | 0.465 | ||
| PC3 | 0.927 | 0.057 | 16.264 |
| 0.670 | 0.449 | ||
| PC4 | 0.939 | 0.053 | 17.677 |
| 0.748 | 0.560 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| TI | TI1 | 1.000 | 0.835 | 0.697 | 0.859 | |||
| TI2 | 0.854 | 0.041 | 20.813 |
| 0.734 | 0.539 | ||
| TI3 | 0.945 | 0.043 | 21.914 |
| 0.769 | 0.591 | ||
| TI4 | 0.901 | 0.041 | 21.909 |
| 0.768 | 0.590 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| PV | PV1 | 1.000 | 0.775 | 0.601 | 0.910 | |||
| PV2 | 1.072 | 0.046 | 23.533 |
| 0.808 | 0.653 | ||
| PV3 | 1.208 | 0.045 | 26.785 |
| 0.902 | 0.814 | ||
| PV4 | 1.189 | 0.045 | 26.522 |
| 0.893 | 0.797 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| PA | PA1 | 1.000 | 0.879 | 0.773 | 0.914 | |||
| PA2 | 1.031 | 0.031 | 33.263 |
| 0.913 | 0.834 | ||
| PA3 | 0.987 | 0.032 | 30.765 |
| 0.857 | 0.734 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| OC | OC1 | 1.000 | 0.663 | 0.440 | 0.803 | |||
| OC2 | 1.185 | 0.072 | 16.395 |
| 0.783 | 0.613 | ||
| OC3 | 1.159 | 0.071 | 16.372 |
| 0.780 | 0.608 | ||
| OC4 | 0.862 | 0.063 | 13.745 |
| 0.607 | 0.368 | ||
Note: (1) PU = perceived usefulness; PI = platform information; PR = perceived risk; PC = perceived cost; TI = teacher influence; PV = perceived value; PA = parent attitude; OC = online comment; Unstd. = nonstandardized factor load; S.E. = standard error; t-value = t value; NA = not available (regression coefficient fixed at 1.0); Std. = standardized factor load; SMC = topic reliability; CR = constituent reliability. (2) means P < 0.001; N = 745.
Validity evaluation of discriminant validity.
| Dimension | Convergent validity | Discriminant validity | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AVE | PU | PI | PR | PC | TI | OC | PV | PA | |
| PU | 0.860 |
| |||||||
| PI | 0.756 | 0.694 |
| ||||||
| PR | 0.711 | −0.311 | −0.289 |
| |||||
| PC | 0.635 | 0.144 | 0.143 | 0.140 |
| ||||
| TI | 0.702 | 0.722 | 0.708 | −0.321 | 0.210 |
| |||
| OC | 0.627 | 0.750 | 0.683 | −0.319 | 0.271 | 0.843 |
| ||
| PV | 0.788 | 0.722 | 0.787 | −0.376 | 0.091 | 0.738 | 0.720 |
| |
| PA | 0.852 | 0.838 | 0.725 | −0.351 | 0.227 | 0.768 | 0.761 | 0.767 |
|
Note: (1) PU = perceived usefulness; PI = platform information; PR = perceived risk; PC = perceived cost; TI = teacher influence; OC = online comments; PV = perceived value; PA = parental attitude; AVE = convergence validity. (2) The diagonal elements in the matrix are AVE square root values, and the nondiagonal elements represent the correlation of related dimensions.
Modified model fitting index.
| Amount of inspection | Absolute fitness index | Value added fit index | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| GFI | AGFI | RMSEA | NFI | RFI | IFI | TLI | CFI | |
| Good standard | <3 | >0.9 | >0.9 | <0.08 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 |
| Model | 1.44 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.02 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 |
Note: this is the fitting degree of bootstrap model for 2000 times.
Hypothesis test.
| Hypothesis | Standardized path coefficient | Nonstandardized path coefficient | S.E. |
|
| Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hypothesis 1: PU⟶PA | 0.687 | 0.468 | 0.026 | 18.301 |
| True |
| Hypothesis 2: PU⟶PV | 0.406 | 0.239 | 0.020 | 12.132 |
| True |
| Hypothesis 3: PI⟶PA | 0.106 | 0.079 | 0.026 | 3.050 |
| True |
| Hypothesis 4: PI⟶PV | 0.458 | 0.297 | 0.023 | 12.689 |
| True |
| Hypothesis 5: PR⟶PV | −0.153 | −0.084 | 0.018 | −4.688 |
| True |
| Hypothesis 6: PR⟶PA | −0.088 | −0.056 | 0.018 | −3.217 |
| True |
| Hypothesis 7: PC⟶PV | −0.051 | −0.038 | 0.024 | −1.630 | 0.103 | False |
| Hypothesis 8: PC⟶PA | 0.161 | 0.139 | 0.023 | 5.936 |
| False |
| Hypothesis 9: TI⟶PV | 0.481 | 0.327 | 0.026 | 12.397 |
| True |
| Hypothesis 10: TI⟶PA | 0.279 | 0.220 | 0.030 | 7.384 |
| True |
| Hypothesis 12: PV⟶PA | 0.191 | 0.221 | 0.058 | 3.811 |
| True |
Note: (1) PU = perceived usefulness; PI = platform information; PR = perceived risk; PC = perceived cost; TI = teacher influence; PV = perceived value; PA = parent attitude. (2) means P < 0.001; means P < 0.01; means P < 0.05.
Figure 2Hypothesis test results. Note: (1) means P < 0.001; means P < 0.01; means P < 0.05.
The mediating effect tests.
| Variable | Point estimate | Product of coefficients | Bias-corrected | Percentile | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S.E. | Z | Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | ||
| PU->PV-->PA | 0.053 | 0.021 | 2.524 | 0.017 | 0.104 | 0.013 | 0.097 |
| PU-->PA | 0.468 | 0.045 | 10.400 | 0.380 | 0.563 | 0.384 | 0.567 |
| TOTAL EFFECT PU->PV-->PA | 0.521 | 0.044 | 11.841 | 0.430 | 0.606 | 0.433 | 0.608 |
| PI->PV-->PA | 0.066 | 0.026 | 2.538 | 0.020 | 0.124 | 0.016 | 0.117 |
| PI-->PA | 0.079 | 0.039 | 2.026 | 0.003 | 0.160 | 0.002 | 0.159 |
| TOTAL EFFECT PI->PV-->PA | 0.145 | 0.033 | 4.394 | 0.083 | 0.218 | 0.078 | 0.210 |
| PR->PV-->PA | −0.019 | 0.009 | −2.111 | −0.043 | −0.005 | −0.040 | −0.003 |
| PR-->PA | −0.056 | 0.024 | −2.333 | −0.104 | −0.012 | −0.101 | −0.009 |
| TOTAL EFFECT PR->PV-->PA | −0.075 | 0.024 | −3.125 | −0.127 | −0.029 | −0.122 | −0.024 |
| TI->PV-->PA | 0.073 | 0.028 | 2.607 | 0.024 | 0.134 | 0.018 | 0.126 |
| TI-->PA | 0.220 | 0.061 | 3.607 | 0.115 | 0.349 | 0.119 | 0.352 |
| TOTAL EFFECT TI->PV-->PA | 0.292 | 0.055 | 5.309 | 0.196 | 0.406 | 0.197 | 0.409 |
Note: (1) PU = perceived usefulness; PI = platform information; PR = perceived risk; PC = perceived cost; TI = teacher influence; PV = perceived value; PA = parent attitude. (2) Unstandardized estimating of 2000 bootstrap sample.
Figure 3Moderating model of online reviews.
Moderating effect of online reviews.
| Path | Std. | S.E. |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PV⟶PA | 0.266 | 0.061 | 4.339 |
|
| OC⟶PA | 0.611 | 0.064 | 9.508 |
|
| PXO⟶PA | 0.039 | 0.006 | 6.454 |
|
Note: (1) Std. = Standardized factor load; S.E. = standard error; T - value = t value. (2) means P < 0.001; means P < 0.01; means P < 0.05.
Figure 4Final test results. Note: (1) means P < 0.001; means P < 0.01; means P < 0.05.