Hybrid learners' intention on B-station: A case study of Art primary students at A University in the People’s Republic of China
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60027/ijsasr.2024.4571Keywords:
Art History; , Design History; , Art Primary Students;, Intention on B-stationAbstract
Background and Aim: Information technology skills are crucial for teachers and students. Strengthening the support of technology in the history of art or the history of design courses can enhance teaching quality, foster students' comprehensive artistic literacy and innovation ability, and advance the development and progress of art education. With the continuous progress and development of technology, it is increasingly important in the education of art and design history, providing students with a broader understanding of the subject. This research not only investigates students' intention to use B-station, a video website, to learn the history of art or the history of design but also provides practical insights into the role of technology integration in learning art and design history, which can be applied in the classroom setting.
Materials and Methods: To ensure the reliability of the study, a questionnaire was distributed to College of Fine Arts students at a university in China, resulting in 506 valid responses. The quantitative data were then analyzed using JAMOVI2.4.6. To measure the internal consistency of the questionnaire, Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω were used. Factor analysis was performed using EFA and CFA, and hypothesis testing was conducted using SEM, further enhancing the robustness of the study's findings.
Results: The research proposed ten alternative hypotheses. The results indicated that eight hypotheses were accepted, and two were rejected. It was found that ACL, as a mediator variable, cannot enhance the impact of LII on ILB. Similarly, PBC, as a mediating variable, cannot enhance the impact of AL on ILB.
Conclusion: The survey questionnaire employed in this study was adapted from willingness scales used in other countries. Unlike previous studies, the findings imply that ACL and PBC did not have a significant mediating effect. This may be attributed to differences in research subjects and environments. This study helps study Chinese students' learning habits, preferences, and teaching styles.
References
Abrantes, J.L., Seabra, C., & Lages, L.F. (2007). Pedagogical affect, student interest, and learning performance. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 960–964. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.10.026
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. SSSP Springer series in social psychology: Action control.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683.
Atwater, M. M. (1996). Social constructivism: infusion into the multicultural science education research agenda. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 821–837.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy is the exercise of control. Freeman and Company.
Bandura, A. (2022). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. East China Normal University Press.
Barbara, R. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. New York: Wiley, pp. 2, 679–744.
Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2013). Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing for 21st Century Learning. 2nd edition. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203078952
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Longman Press.
Blin, F. (2004). Call and the development of learner autonomy: Towards an activity-theoretical perspective. Cambridge University Press, 16(2),377–395.
Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S.M. & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers & Education, 59(3), 1054–1064.
Chi, M.T.H. (2009). Active-Constructive-Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.
Chi, M.T.H. (2021). Translating a theory of active learning: an attempt to close the research-practice gap in education. Topics in Cognitive Science, 13, 441–463.
Chi, M.T.H.,& Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
Cho, G., Hwang, H., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C.M. (2020). Cutoff criteria for overall model fit indexes in generalized structured component analysis. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 8, 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-020-00089-1
Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: The untapped potential. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 5(4), 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(84)90006-6
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Fisher, R., Perényi, Á., &Birdthistle, N. (2018). The positive relationship between flipped and blended learning and student engagement, performance, and satisfaction. Active Learning in Higher Education, 22(1), 1–17.
Fonseca, D., Martí, N., Redondo, E., Navarro, I., & Sánchez, A. (2014). Relationship between student profile, tool use, participation, and academic performance with Augmented Reality technology for visualized architecture models. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 434-445, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.03.006
Groß, A., & Wolff, D. (2001). A multimedia tool to develop learner autonomy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14, 233–249. doi:10.1076/call.14.3.233.5794
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis. 6th edition. Pearson: Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson: Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.
Hong, Z.X. (2016). Chinese History of Art. Chinese Academy of Fine Arts Press.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modeling: guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.
Jaskot, P.B. (2019). Digital Art History as the Social History of Art: Towards the Disciplinary Relevance of Digital Methods. Visual Resources, 35(2), 1-13. doi: 10.1080/01973762.2019.1553651
Kaltenbock, G. (2001). Learner autonomy: A guiding principle in designing a CD-ROM for intonation practice. ReCALL, 13(2), 179-190.
Lemke, J.L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 296–316.
Liu, I., Chen, M.C., Sun, Y.S., Wible, D., & Kuo, C-H. (2010). Extending the TAM model to explore the factors that affect Intention to Use an Online Learning Community. Computers & Education, 54(2), 600-610. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.009
Marrett, C.B. (2021). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. East China Normal University Press. 217.
Navarro, D.J., & Foxcroft, D.R. (2022). learning statistics with jamovi: a tutorial for psychology students and other beginners. (Version 0.75). DOI: 10.24384/hgc3-7p15
O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85–95.
Palincsar, A.S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.
Piaget, J., Brown, T., &Thampy, K.J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: the central problem of intellectual development. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Qureshi, M.A., Khaskheli, A., Qureshi, J.A., Raza, S.A., &Yousufi, S.Q. (2021). Factors affecting students’ learning performance through collaborative learning and engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(4), 2371–2391. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1884886
Rafal, C.T. (1996). From co-construction to takeovers: Science talk in a group of four girls. Journal of Learning Sciences, 5, 279–293.
Rashid, T., & Asghar, H.M. (2016). Technology Use, Self-Directed Learning, Student Engagement, and Academic Performance: Examining the Interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 604–612. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.084.
Roorda, D.L., Koomen, H.M.Y., Spilt, J.L., & Oort, F.J. (2011). The Influence of Affective Teacher–Student Relationships on Students' School Engagement and Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493–529. doi: 10.3102/0034654311421793.
Sawyer, R. Keith. (2021). The Cambridge Handbook of Learning Sciences: Second Edition. Educational Science Press.
Sharma, S., Mukherjee, S., Kumar, A., & Dillon, W.R. (2005). A simulation study will investigate the use of cutoff values to assess model fit in covariance structure models. Journal of Business Research, 58(7), 935–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.10.007
Stajkovic, A.D., Bandura, A., Locke, E.A., Lee, D., & Sergent, K. (2018). Test of three conceptual models of the influence of the big five personality traits and self-efficacy on academic performance: A meta-analytic path-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 238–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.014
UNESCO. (2011). ICT Competency Framework for Teachers. Retrieved from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/notice?id=p%3A%3Ausmarcdef_0000265721&queryId=ed1ab709-a23a-4b2e-bcfe-fe0cd9c9baa3&posInSet=1
UNESCO. (2018). ICT Competency Framework for Teachers. Retrieved from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265721
UNESCO. (2021). Educause Horizon Report Teaching and Learning edition. Retrieved from: https://library.educause.edu/resources/2021/4/2021-educause-horizon-report-teaching-and-learning-edition
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 2015. Retrieved from: https://sdgs.un.org/publications/transforming-our-world-2030-agenda-sustainable-development-17981
United Nations. (2021). UNESCO Global Survey: The COVID-19 pandemic has increased online education, and mixed teaching mode has become mainstream. Retrieved from: http://news.un.org/zh/story/2021/07/1088162
Vygotsky, L S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
Webb, N.M., Franke, M.L., De, T., Chan, A. G., Freund, D., Shein, P. & Melkonian, D.K. (2009).‘Explain to your partner’: teachers' instructional practices and students' dialogue in small groups. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1),49–70. doi: 10.1080/03057640802701986
Webb, N.M., Troper, J.D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 406–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.406
World Economic Forum. (2016). The future of jobs: Employment, skills, and workforce strategy for the fourth industrial revolution. Global Challenge Insight Report. Retrieved from: http://www3.weforum.org/docs /WEF_Future_of_Jobs.pdf
Yarbro J, Arfstrom, K.M., McKnight, K., & McKnight, P. (2014). Extension of a review of flipped learning. Flipped Learning Network. Retrieved from: https://www.flippedlearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Extension-of-FLipped-Learning-LIt-Review-June-2014.pdf
Zhu, Q.S. (2019). History of art as a career: teaching, research and professional construction: Interview with Professor Zhu Qingsheng. Journal of Art Theory and History of Art, 2, 310–323.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 International Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright on any article in the International Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews is retained by the author(s) under the under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permission to use text, content, images, etc. of publication. Any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose. But do not use it for commercial use or with the intent to benefit any business.
