| Literature DB >> 35893271 |
Chao Gu1, Jie Sun1, Tong Chen2, Wei Miao3, Yunshuo Yang4, Shuyuan Lin5, Jiangjie Chen6.
Abstract
In terms of the teaching process of matte painting, it is essential for students to develop a sound understanding of the relationship between virtual and physical environments. In this study, first-person view (FPV) drones are applied to matte painting courses to evaluate the effectiveness of the teaching, and to propose more effective design suggestions for FPV drones that are more suitable for teaching. This provides students with a better learning environment using a digital education system. The results of the study indicate that the flow experience, learning interest, and continuous learning intention of students who use FPV drones in matte painting are significantly greater than those of students who only utilize traditional teaching methods. Furthermore, the technology incentive model (TIM) was developed in this study after being verified by the structural equation model. The results demonstrate that the second-order construct 'technology incentive' comprising perceived interactivity, perceived vividness, and novel experience positively influence students' learning interest and continuous learning intentions under the mediation of flow experience.Entities:
Keywords: continuous learning intention; first-person view drones; interaction learning; matte painting
Year: 2022 PMID: 35893271 PMCID: PMC9326556 DOI: 10.3390/jintelligence10030040
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Intell ISSN: 2079-3200
Figure 1Hypothesis of the study.
Homogeneity and equality of covariance matrices.
| Levene’s Test | Box’s Test | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Construct | Leaven Statistic | Sig. | Box’s M | F | Sig. |
| FL | .660 | .517 | 18.698 | 1.535 | .103 |
| LI | 1.773 | .171 | |||
| CLI | 1.941 | .145 | |||
* The level of significance is .05.
Multiple comparisons.
| Construct | (I) Group | (I) Mean | (J) Group | (J) Mean | Mean Difference (I-J) | Std. Error | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FL | 1 | 3.799 | 2 | 3.679 | .120 | .103 | .242 |
| 1 | 3.799 | 3 | 4.054 | −.255 | .082 | .002 * | |
| 2 | 3.679 | 3 | 4.054 | −.375 | .109 | .002 * | |
| LI | 1 | 3.861 | 2 | 3.758 | .103 | .105 | .327 |
| 1 | 3.861 | 3 | 4.099 | −.238 | .085 | .005 * | |
| 2 | 3.758 | 3 | 4.099 | −.341 | .112 | .003 * | |
| CLI | 1 | 3.723 | 2 | 3.513 | .210 | .111 | .060 |
| 1 | 3.723 | 3 | 4.011 | −.288 | .089 | .001 * | |
| 2 | 3.513 | 3 | 4.011 | −.498 | .118 | .000 * |
* The level of significance is .05.
Results of the reliability analysis.
| Construct | Item | Corrected Item Total Correlation | Cronbach’s Alpha If Item Deleted | Cronbach’s Alpha |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PI | PI1 | .550 | .549 | .691 |
| PI2 | .521 | .578 | ||
| PI3 | .454 | .669 | ||
| PV | PV1 | .533 | .680 | .733 |
| PV2 | .604 | .591 | ||
| PV3 | .538 | .669 | ||
| NE | NE1 | .524 | .653 | .721 |
| NE2 | .598 | .566 | ||
| NE3 | .507 | .679 | ||
| FL | FL1 | .650 | .757 | .813 |
| FL2 | .599 | .781 | ||
| FL3 | .625 | .770 | ||
| FL4 | .658 | .753 | ||
| TR | TR1 | .599 | .717 | .779 |
| TR2 | .525 | .754 | ||
| TR3 | .569 | .734 | ||
| TR4 | .642 | .694 | ||
| LI | LI1 | .635 | .768 | .815 |
| LI2 | .676 | .748 | ||
| LI3 | .632 | .769 | ||
| LI4 | .597 | .786 | ||
| CLI | CLI1 | .696 | .763 | .832 |
| CLI2 | .671 | .787 | ||
| CLI3 | .707 | .751 |
Exploratory factor analysis results.
| Construct | KMO | Bartlett’s Sphere Test | Item | Commonality | Factor Loading | Eigenvalue | Total Variation Explained |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PI | .658 | .000 * | PI1 | .672 | .820 | 1.865 | 62.173% |
| PI2 | .645 | .803 | |||||
| PI3 | .548 | .740 | |||||
| PV | .677 | .000 * | PV1 | .623 | .789 | 1.962 | 65.406% |
| PV2 | .705 | .840 | |||||
| PV3 | .634 | .796 | |||||
| NE | .668 | .000 * | NE1 | .627 | .792 | 1.933 | 64.438% |
| NE2 | .706 | .841 | |||||
| NE3 | .600 | .775 | |||||
| FL | .799 | .000 * | FL1 | .663 | .814 | 2.568 | 64.209% |
| FL2 | .602 | .776 | |||||
| FL3 | .632 | .795 | |||||
| FL4 | .672 | .819 | |||||
| TR | .760 | .000 * | TR1 | .619 | .787 | 2.409 | 60.216% |
| TR2 | .532 | .730 | |||||
| TR3 | .587 | .766 | |||||
| TR4 | .670 | .819 | |||||
| LI | .803 | .000 * | LI1 | .644 | .802 | 2.577 | 64.419% |
| LI2 | .693 | .832 | |||||
| LI3 | .643 | .802 | |||||
| LI4 | .597 | .773 | |||||
| CLI | .722 | .000 * | CLI1 | .753 | .868 | 2.245 | 74.843% |
| CLI2 | .727 | .853 | |||||
| CLI3 | .765 | .875 |
* The level of significance is .05.
Figure 2First-order CFA results.
Model fitting index comparison results of CFA and CCLFM.
| Common Indices | χ2/df | RMSEA | GFI | IFI | CFI | TLI | SRMR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Judgment criteria | <3 | <.08 | >.9 | >.9 | >.9 | >.9 | <.08 |
| CFA Value | 1.616 | .037 | .937 | .969 | .969 | .963 | .034 |
| CCLFM Value | 1.508 | .033 | .942 | .975 | .975 | .970 | .035 |
Results of the convergent validity test.
| Items | Factor Loading | t Value | SMC | AVE | CR | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PI | PI1 | .663 | 14.332 | .001 * | .440 | .432 | .695 |
| PI2 | .650 | 13.995 | .001 * | .423 | |||
| PI3 | .657 | 14.180 | .001 * | .432 | |||
| PV | PV1 | .636 | 13.734 | .001 * | .404 | .486 | .738 |
| PV2 | .774 | 17.467 | .001 * | .599 | |||
| PV3 | .675 | 14.776 | .001 * | .455 | |||
| NE | NE1 | .679 | 14.818 | .001 * | .461 | .471 | .727 |
| NE2 | .723 | 15.985 | .001 * | .522 | |||
| NE3 | .654 | 14.144 | .001 * | .427 | |||
| FL | FL1 | .734 | 17.098 | .001 * | .539 | .524 | .815 |
| FL2 | .701 | 16.090 | .001 * | .492 | |||
| FL3 | .723 | 16.736 | .002 * | .522 | |||
| FL4 | .736 | 17.157 | .001 * | .542 | |||
| TR | TR1 | .686 | 15.428 | .001 * | .470 | .473 | .782 |
| TR2 | .646 | 14.300 | .001 * | .417 | |||
| TR3 | .673 | 15.064 | .001 * | .453 | |||
| TR4 | .742 | 17.105 | .002 * | .551 | |||
| LI | LI1 | .734 | 17.316 | .001 * | .538 | .527 | .817 |
| LI2 | .757 | 18.085 | .001 * | .574 | |||
| LI3 | .717 | 16.780 | .001 * | .514 | |||
| LI4 | .695 | 16.086 | .001 * | .483 | |||
| CLI | CLI1 | .781 | 18.914 | .001 * | .610 | .623 | .832 |
| CLI2 | .759 | 18.166 | .001 * | .576 | |||
| CLI3 | .827 | 20.532 | .001 * | .684 |
* The level of significance is .05.
Results of discriminant validity tests.
| PI | PV | NE | FL | TR | LI | CLI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PI | .657 | ||||||
| PV | .525 * | .697 | |||||
| NE | .490 * | .492 * | .686 | ||||
| FL | .500 * | .496 * | .500 * | .724 | |||
| TR | .499 * | .513 * | .472 * | .577 * | .688 | ||
| LI | .537 * | .539 * | .591 * | .579 * | .597 * | .726 | |
| CLI | .598 * | .484 * | .555 * | .572 * | .541 * | .645 * | .789 |
* The level of significance is .05.
Figure 3CFA second order results.
Second-Order CFA model fit.
| Common Indices | χ2/df | RMSEA | GFI | IFI | CFI | TLI | SRMR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Judgment criteria | <3 | <.08 | >.9 | >.9 | >.9 | >.9 | <.08 |
| Value | 1.487 | .033 | .983 | .990 | .990 | .985 | .029 |
Figure 4Results of the structural equation model test.
Structural equation model fit.
| Common Indices | χ2/df | RMSEA | GFI | IFI | CFI | TLI | SRMR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Judgment criteria | <3 | <.08 | >.9 | >.9 | >.9 | >.9 | <.08 |
| Value | 2.041 | .048 | .914 | .946 | .945 | .938 | .045 |
Paths affect results.
| Path | Direct Effect | Indirect Effect | Total Effect | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | B-C Sig. | β | B-C Sig. | β | B-S Sig. | |
| TI→FL | .925 | .001 * | / | / | .925 | .001 * |
| TI→TR | / | / | .756 | .001 * | .756 | .001 * |
| TI→LI | / | / | .777 | .001 * | .777 | .001 * |
| TI→CLI | / | / | .747 | .001 * | .747 | .001 * |
| FL→TR | .817 | .001 * | / | / | .817 | .001 * |
| FL→LI | .841 | .001 * | / | / | .841 | .001 * |
| FL→CLI | .515 | .001 * | .292 | .069 | .808 | .001 * |
| TR→CLI | −.004 | .978 | / | / | −.004 | .978 |
| LI→CLI | .352 | .016 * | / | / | .352 | .016 * |
* The level of significance is .05.
Results of mediation effect.
| Moderating Variable | IV | → | DV | CMIN |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| gender | TI | → | FL | 3.849 | .050 * |
| FL | → | TR | .045 | .833 | |
| FL | → | LI | 2.366 | .124 | |
| FL | → | CLI | .605 | .437 | |
| TR | → | CLI | .044 | .835 | |
| LI | → | CLI | .964 | .326 | |
| grade | TI | → | FL | 2.408 | .121 |
| FL | → | TR | 3.784 | .052 ** | |
| FL | → | LI | .203 | .652 | |
| FL | → | CLI | .055 | .814 | |
| TR | → | CLI | .499 | .480 | |
| LI | → | CLI | .011 | .915 |
* The level of significance is .05. ** Approximately significant effect.
Comparison between path coefficients with significant moderating effects.
| Moderating Variable | Path | β |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| gender | male | .896 | .001 * | |
| female | .939 | .001 * | ||
| grade | sophomore | FL→TR | .874 | .001 * |
| junior | .718 | .001 * | ||
* The level of significance is .05.
Figure 5Technology incentive model (TIM).