| Literature DB >> 36060881 |
Abstract
In order to better adapt to the relevant requirements of blended teaching in colleges and universities under the ecological environment and in the "Internet +" era, the "online + offline" blended teaching mode of college English in the Internet era is innovated to further highlight the subjectivity of students in the process of English learning status. First, this study deeply understands the current situation and problems of College English teaching from the perspective of the Internet by means of a questionnaire survey. On this basis, with the construction of the English teaching concept of "student-centered and teacher-led" as the core, this study puts forward and designs the "online and offline" mixed teaching mode of College English based on the support of mobile network technology. Through the teaching experiment, it is found that the total score of students in the mixed teaching mode is 6 points higher than that before, and the scores for English Cloze, writing, and reading are 2.75 points, 1.3 points, and 1.134 points, respectively. The feasibility and remarkable effect of the mixed teaching mode are verified.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36060881 PMCID: PMC9439910 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4962753
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Public Health ISSN: 1687-9805
Basic information of respondents.
| Item | Option | Number of people | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 347 | 70.1 |
| Female | 134 | 27.7 | |
| Grade | Freshman | 261 | 52.8 |
| Sophomore | 212 | 45.1 |
Descriptive statistics of each dimension score of college students' online course teaching status.
| Category | Score range |
| SD | Single mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A degree of awareness | 4–16 | 6.73 | 2.45 | 1.60 |
| B classroom participation | 5–20 | 9.75 | 3.28 | 4.86 |
| C satisfaction | 5–18 | 8.24 | 2.85 | 1.56 |
| D technology application | 3–12 | 5.18 | 1.85 | 1.65 |
| E sense of harvest | 7–28 | 11.21 | 4.62 | 1.65 |
| Total score | 24–88 | 41.56 | 12.40 | 1.67 |
Note: M refers to the average value and SD refers to the standard deviation.
Description and statistics of the current situation of online course teaching for college students.
| Item |
| SD |
|---|---|---|
| A1 | 1.51 | 0.62 |
| A2 | 1.70 | 0.76 |
| A3 | 1.57 | 0.68 |
| A4 | 1.62 | 0.71 |
| B1 | 1.86 | 0.75 |
| B2 | 2.07 | 0.88 |
| B3 | 1.85 | 0.61 |
| B4 | 1.36 | 0.55 |
| B5 | 2.17 | 1.00 |
| C1 | 1.61 | 0.61 |
| C2 | 1.53 | 0.61 |
| C3 | 1.58 | 0.61 |
Gender differences in the current situation of online course teaching.
| Male ( | Female ( |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| SD |
| SD | ||
| Degree of understanding | 5.55 | 2.46 | 7.17 | 2.37 | −2.405 |
| Classroom participation | 9.35 | 3.31 | 10.73 | 3.01 | −4.277 |
| Satisfaction | 8.07 | 2.87 | 8.66 | 2.80 | −2.045 |
| Technology application | 5.01 | 1.80 | 5.61 | 2.04 | −2.010 |
| Sense of harvest | 10.60 | 4.46 | 12.70 | 3.70 | −3.385 |
| Total score | 40.01 | 12.33 | 45.31 | 11.82 | −3.006 |
Note: , P < 0.05; , P < 0.01.
Figure 1Courses that college students think e-learning is suitable for.
Figure 2Links that college students think online courses are applicable.
Figure 3What kind of resources do college students prefer teachers to provide?
Figure 4The appropriate length of time for college students to adopt network teaching in a course.
Figure 5UTAUT model.
Figure 6Research framework.
Demographic variable information.
| External variable | Frequency | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grade | Grade 2017 | 157 | 18.8 |
| Grade 2018 | 306 | 36.4 | |
| Grade 2019 | 350 | 41.5 | |
|
| |||
| Gender | Male | 410 | 48.7 |
| Female | 423 | 50.1 | |
|
| |||
| Professional category | Liberal arts | 270 | 32.2 |
| Science | 553 | 65.6 | |
Analysis of variables and reliability.
| Variable | Cronbachs alpha | Number of items |
|---|---|---|
| Holistic scale | 0.851 | 29 |
| Performance expectation | 0.686 | 4 |
| Effort expectation | 687 | 4 |
| Social influence | 0.712 | 4 |
| Perceived self energy efficiency | 0.678 | 4 |
| Content and resources | 0.718 | 4 |
| Behavioral intention | 0.714 | 4 |
Comparative analysis of results of experimental class and control class before experiment.
| Item | Compared with the results of preclass test | Pretest results of experimental class |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | Standard deviation | Average | Standard deviation | ||
| Total score | 78.256 | 8.556 | 77.572 | 7.410 | 0.215 |
| Banked cloze | 13.456 | 10.012 | 13.072 | 2.260 | 1.052 |
| Cloze test | 7.100 | 3.161 | 8.540 | 2.722 | −0.414 |
| Reading comprehension | 13.500 | 2.682 | 12.422 | 2.737 | 1.070 |
| English Chinese translation | 8.60 | 0.823 | 8.700 | 0.251 | −0.436 |
| Chinese-english translation | 8.400 | 1.071 | 8.315 | 0.827 | 0.2180 |
| Writing | 21.800 | 2.122 | 22156 | 1.373 | −0.938 |
Note: , P < 0.05, , P < 0.01, and , P < 0.001.
Analysis on the difference of scores before and after the experimental class.
| Item | Pretest scores of control class | Pretest results of experimental class |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | Standard deviation | Average | Standard deviation | ||
| Total score | 77.572 | 6.410 | 83.616 | 5.887 | −3.120 |
| Banked cloze | 13.072 | 2.161 | 13.356 | 0.770 | −0.705 |
| Cloze test | 8.640 | 3.722 | 10.300 | 3.476 | −3.108 |
| Reading comprehension | 12.422 | 3.737 | 13.556 | 3.551 | −1.484 |
| English Chinese translation | 8.700 | 0.251 | 8.700 | 0.226 | 0.001 |
| Chinese-English translation | 8.316 | 0.827 | 8.740 | 0.187 | −2.402 |
| Writing | 22.156 | 1.373 | 23.456 | 1.005 | −3.881 |
Note: , P < 0.05, , P < 0.01, and , P < 0.001.