Examining the Influence of Using First-Person View Drones as Auxiliary Devices in Matte Painting Courses on College Students’ Continuous Learning Intention
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. FPV Drones Applied to Matte Painting Courses
2.2. Perceived Interactivity (PI)
2.3. Perceived Vividness (PV)
2.4. Novel Experience (NE)
2.5. The Flow Experience (FL)
2.6. Trust (TR)
2.7. Learning Interest (LI)
2.8. Continuous Learning Intention (CLI)
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Study Materials and Teaching Methods
3.2. Study 1—Utilization of FPV Drones to Compare the Observations of the Environment with Traditional Teaching Methods
3.2.1. Research Design
3.2.2. Research Purposes
3.3. Study 2—Increasing the Effectiveness of the Use of FPV Drones in Teaching
3.3.1. Research Design
3.3.2. Research Hypothesis
3.3.3. Research Purposes
4. Results
4.1. Study 1—A Comparison of FPV Drones and Traditional Teaching Methods
4.2. Study 2—Improving the Effectiveness of Teaching with FPV Drones
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
6.1. Theoretical Contributions
6.2. Practical Implication
6.3. Limitations and Future Research
- The study sample consists only of selected universities in eastern China, and there has been no wider survey conducted. As previous research has shown, regional differences in the level of information and communication technology (ICT) development results in differences in students’ learning outcomes (Hu et al. 2018). Future research should test student groups in other regions of China, as well as compare student perceptions across various countries. The validity of this study can be improved by testing the findings in a more diverse student population.
- The course examined in this study is matte painting in the department of media design and is not included in other courses in design. In the future, students can use FPV drones in courses such as visual communication, sketching, and others to observe the environment and learn about the effectiveness of FPV drones as a teaching tool. It is possible to apply this innovative HCI teaching method to the study of other professional fields, such as tourism or geography, for the purpose of educational evaluation and research.
- The results of this study indicate that trust does not directly influence students’ continuous learning intentions. This may be because we did not include any additional mediator variables in our model. Thus, in future research, it may be possible to extend the TIM model to estimate the trail relationship between constructs in a more comprehensive manner.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ai, Zhuming, Mark A. Livingston, and Ira S. Moskowitz. 2016. Real-time unmanned aerial vehicle 3D environment exploration in a mixed reality environment. Paper presented at the 2016 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), Arlington, VA, USA, June 7–10. [Google Scholar]
- Alfadda, Hind Abdulaziz, and Hassan Saleh Mahdi. 2021. Measuring students’ use of zoom application in language course based on the technology acceptance model (tam). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 50: 883–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Almaiah, Mohammed Amin, Mahdi M. Alamri, and Waleed Al-Rahmi. 2019. Applying the UTAUT model to explain the students’ acceptance of mobile learning system in higher education. IEEE Access 7: 174673–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Maroof, Rana Saeed, and Said A. Salloum. 2021. An Integrated model of continuous intention to use of google classroom. In Recent Advances in Intelligent Systems and Smart Applications. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 311–35. [Google Scholar]
- Ashraf, Muhammad, Jamil Ahmad, Wareesa Sharif, Arslan Ali Raza, Muhammad Salman Shabbir, Mazhar Abbas, and Ramayah Thurasamy. 2020. The role of continuous trust in usage of online product recommendations. Online Information Review 44: 745–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bae, Sujin, Timothy Hyungsoo Jung, Natasha Moorhouse, Minjeong Suh, and Ohbyung Kwon. 2020. The influence of mixed reality on satisfaction and brand loyalty in cultural heritage attractions: A brand equity perspective. Sustainability 12: 2956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barhorst, Jennifer Brannon, Graeme McLean, Esta Shah, and Rhonda Mack. 2021. Blending the real world and the virtual world: Exploring the role of flow in augmented reality experiences. Journal of Business Research 122: 423–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, Anol. 2001. Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly 25: 351–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolick, Madeleine M., Elena A. Mikhailova, and Christopher J. Post. 2022. Teaching Innovation in STEM Education Using an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). Education Sciences 12: 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bramley, Ian, Alastair Goode, Laura Anderson, and Elisabeth Mary. 2018. Researching in-store, at home: Using virtual reality within quantitative surveys. International Journal of Market Research 60: 344–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çakir, Erdinç, Mahmut Sami Öztürk, and Ünal Mevlüt. 2019. Interpainting as a creating method in digital illustration: Reinterpretations from movie scenes. Bilim Eğitim Sanat ve Teknoloji Dergisi 3: 78–88. [Google Scholar]
- Cárdenas-Sainz, Brandon Antonio, María Lucia Barrón-Estrada, Ramón Zatarain-Cabada, and José Mario Ríos-Félix. 2022. Integration and acceptance of Natural User Interfaces for interactive learning environments. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 31: 100381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandralal, Lalith, and Fredy-Roberto Valenzuela. 2015. Memorable Tourism Experiences; Scale Development. Contemporary Management Research 11: 291–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, Yuh-Shihng, Kuo-Jui Hu, Cheng-Wei Chiang, and Artur Lugmayr. 2019. Applying Mobile Augmented Reality (AR) to teach Interior Design students in layout plans: Evaluation of learning effectiveness based on the ARCS Model of learning motivation theory. Sensors 20: 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Chen, Jiang-Jie, Yen Hsu, Wei Wei, and Chun Yang. 2021. Continuance intention of augmented reality textbooks in basic design course. Education Sciences 11: 208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 2014. Toward a psychology of optimal experience. In Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 209–26. [Google Scholar]
- da Silva deMatos, Nelson Manuel, Elisabete Sampaio de Sa, and Paulo Alexandre de Oliveira Duarte. 2021. A review and extension of the flow experience concept. Insights and directions for Tourism research. Tourism Management Perspectives 38: 100802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, Hai Min, Timothy Teo, Natasha Anne Rappa, and Fang Huang. 2020. Explaining Chinese university students’ continuance learning intention in the MOOC setting: A modified expectation confirmation model perspective. Computers & Education 150: 103850. [Google Scholar]
- Dallas, Sam. 2011. Blast from the past. Inside Film: If 143: 58–59. [Google Scholar]
- del Blanco García, Federico Luis, and Ismael García Ríos. 2017. Technology transfer: From the film industry to architecture. In Architectural Draughtsmanship. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 105–18. [Google Scholar]
- Deng, Xiaoyan, Hanumantha Rao Unnava, and Hyojin Lee. 2019. “Too true to be good?” when virtual reality decreases interest in actual reality. Journal of Business Research 100: 561–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenmann, Jonathan, and Rick Parent. 2010. Matte painting in stereoscopic synthetic imagery. Paper presented at the Stereoscopic Displays and Applications XXI, San Jose, CA, USA, January 18–20. [Google Scholar]
- Espino-Díaz, Luis, Jose-Luis Alvarez-Castillo, Hugo Gonzalez-Gonzalez, Carmen-Maria Hernandez-Lloret, and Gemma Fernandez-Caminero. 2020. Creating Interactive Learning Environments through the Use of Information and Communication Technologies Applied to Learning of Social Values: An Approach from Neuro-Education. Social Sciences 9: 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, Shaojing, Tian-Tsong Ng, Jonathan S. Herberg, Bryan L. Koenig, Cheston Y.-C. Tan, and Rangding Wang. 2014. An automated estimator of image visual realism based on human cognition. Paper presented at the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Columbus, OH, USA, June 23–28. [Google Scholar]
- Faqih, Khaled M. S., and Mohammed-Issa Riad Mousa Jaradat. 2021. Integrating TTF and UTAUT2 theories to investigate the adoption of augmented reality technology in education: Perspective from a developing country. Technology in Society 67: 101787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandes, Daniel Winter, Roberto Giro Moori, and Valdir Antonio Vitorino Filho. 2018. Logistic service quality as a mediator between logistics capabilities and customer satisfaction. Revista de Gestão 25: 358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. 1981. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
- Gu, Chao, Jiangjie Chen, Jiacheng Lin, Shuyuan Lin, Weilong Wu, Qianling Jiang, Chun Yang, and Wei Wei. 2022a. The impact of eye-tracking games as a training case on students’ learning interest and continuous learning intention in game design courses: Taking Flappy Bird as an example. Learning and Motivation 78: 101808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, Chao, Jiangjie Chen, Chun Yang, Wei Wei, Qianling Jiang, Liao Jiang, Qiuhong Wu, Shu-Yuan Lin, and Yunshuo Yang. 2022b. Effects of AR Picture Books on German Teaching in Universities. Journal of Intelligence 10: 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guo, Qian, Qingfeng Zeng, and Lanlan Zhang. 2022. What social factors influence learners’ continuous intention in online learning? A social presence perspective. Information Technology & People. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, Rolph E. Anderson, and Ronald Tatham. 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis. Uppersaddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
- Hamus-Vallée, Réjane. 2015. Matte painting or the quest for the perfect illusion. Analysis of the illusion processes of a hundred-year-old cinematographic trick. Hybrid. Revue des Arts et Médiations Humaines 2: 1–17. [Google Scholar]
- Harackiewicz, Judith M., Christopher S. Rozek, Chris S. Hulleman, and Janet S. Hyde. 2012. Helping parents to motivate adolescents in mathematics and science: An experimental test of a utility-value intervention. Psychological Science 23: 899–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- He, Xiaoxing, Xianghong Hua, Jean-Philippe Montillet, Kegen Yu, Jingui Zou, Dong Xiang, Huiping Zhu, Di Zhang, Zhengkai Huang, and Bufan Zhao. 2019. An Innovative Virtual Simulation Teaching Platform on Digital Mapping with Unmanned Aerial Vehicle for Remote Sensing Education. Remote Sensing 11: 2993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hofhuis, Jose, Jeannine L. A. Hautvast, Augustinus J. P. Schrijvers, and Jan Bakker. 2003. Quality of life on admission to the intensive care: Can we query the relatives? Intensive Care Medicine 29: 974–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, Yen, Jiangjie Chen, Chao Gu, and Weilong Wu. 2021. Exploring the Flow Experience of Augmented Reality Applied to Basic Design Teaching. Journal of Design 26: 43–66. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, Xiang, Yang Gong, Chun Lai, and Frederick K. S. Leung. 2018. The relationship between ICT and student literacy in mathematics, reading, and science across 44 countries: A multilevel analysis. Computers & Education 125: 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, Shenghua, Hongbiao Yin, Yule Jin, and Wenlan Wang. 2022. More Knowledge, More Satisfaction with Online Teaching? Examining the Mediation of Teacher Efficacy and Moderation of Engagement during COVID-19. Sustainability 14: 4405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jamshidi, Dariyoush, Yousef Keshavarz, Fazlollah Kazemi, and Moghaddaseh Mohammadian. 2018. Mobile banking behavior and flow experience: An integration of utilitarian features, hedonic features and trust. International Journal of Social Economics 45: 57–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jang, Yeonju, and Eunil Park. 2019. An adoption model for virtual reality games: The roles of presence and enjoyment. Telematics and Informatics 42: 101239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Qianling, Chao Gu, Yan Feng, Wei Wei, and Wang-Chin Tsai. 2022. Study on the continuance intention in using virtual shoe-try-on function in mobile online shopping. Kybernetes. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kandiko Howson, Camille, Ian M. Kinchin, and Karen Gravett. 2022. Belonging in Science: Democratic Pedagogies for Cross-Cultural PhD Supervision. Education Sciences 12: 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kawabata, Masato. 2018. Facilitating flow experience in physical education settings. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 38: 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, Dong-Hyun, Yong-Guk Go, and Soo-Mi Choi. 2020. An aerial mixed-reality environment for first-person-view drone flying. Applied Sciences 10: 5436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, Jung-Hwan, Minjeong Kim, Minjung Park, and Jungmin Yoo. 2021. How interactivity and vividness influence consumer virtual reality shopping experience: The mediating role of telepresence. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 15: 502–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, Sanghyun, Moon Jong Choi, and Jae Sung Choi. 2019. Empirical study on the factors affecting individuals’ switching intention to augmented/virtual reality content services based on push-pull-mooring theory. Information 11: 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, Yoo Jung, and JinYoung Han. 2014. Why smartphone advertising attracts customers: A model of Web advertising, flow, and personalization. Computers in Human Behavior 33: 256–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kohli, Ajay K., Tasadduq A. Shervani, and Goutam N. Challagalla. 1998. Learning and performance orientation of salespeople: The role of supervisors. Journal of Marketing Research 35: 263–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kushlev, Kostadin, Danielle M. Drummond, Samantha J. Heintzelman, and Ed Diener. 2020. Do happy people care about society’s problems? The Journal of Positive Psychology 15: 467–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Sae Bom, Sang Chul Lee, and Yung Ho Suh. 2016. Technostress from mobile communication and its impact on quality of life and productivity. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 27: 775–90. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, Un-Kon. 2022. Tourism Using Virtual Reality: Media Richness and Information System Successes. Sustainability 14: 3975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Youngju, and Jaeho Choi. 2013. A structural equation model of predictors of online learning retention. The Internet and Higher Education 16: 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Yiwen, Norihiro Nishimura, Hisanori Yagami, and Hye-Sook Park. 2021. An empirical study on online learners’ continuance intentions in China. Sustainability 13: 889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Dong, Ivan Ka Wai Lai, and Yide Liu. 2019a. The consumer acceptance of smart product-service systems in sharing economy: The effects of perceived interactivity and particularity. Sustainability 11: 928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lu, Yunfan, Bin Wang, and Yaobin Lu. 2019b. Understanding key drivers of MOOC satisfaction and continuance intention to use. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 20: 105–17. [Google Scholar]
- Luan, Yingyue, and Yeun Joon Kim. 2022. An integrative model of new product evaluation: A systematic investigation of perceived novelty and product evaluation in the movie industry. PLoS ONE 17: e0265193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maas, Melanie J., and Janette M. Hughes. 2020. Virtual, augmented and mixed reality in K–12 education: A review of the literature. Technology, Pedagogy and Education 29: 231–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLean, Graeme, and Alan Wilson. 2019. Shopping in the digital world: Examining customer engagement through augmented reality mobile applications. Computers in Human Behavior 101: 210–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mieziene, Brigita, Arunas Emeljanovas, Roma Jusiene, Rima Breidokiene, Sigita Girdzijauskiene, Stanislav Sabaliauskas, Jolita Buzaityte-Kasalyniene, Virginija Budiene, Indre Eiliakaite, and Erika Speicyte-Ruschhoff. 2022. Direct and Indirect Effects of Social Support and School Social Capital on the Academic Success of 11–19-Year-Old Students Using Distance Learning. Sustainability 14: 2131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murayama, Kou, Lily FitzGibbon, and Michiko Sakaki. 2019. Process account of curiosity and interest: A reward-learning perspective. Educational Psychology Review 31: 875–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Newhagen, John E., John W. Cordes, and Mark R. Levy. 1995. [email protected]: Audience scope and the perception of interactivity in viewer mail on the Internet. Journal of Communication 45: 164–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niedlich, Sebastian, Annika Kallfaß, Silvana Pohle, and Inka Bormann. 2021. A comprehensive view of trust in education: Conclusions from a systematic literature review. Review of Education 9: 124–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Özhan, Şeyma Çağlar, and Selay Arkün Kocadere. 2020. The effects of flow, emotional engagement, and motivation on success in a gamified online learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research 57: 2006–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quadir, Benazir, Jie Chi Yang, and Nian-Shing Chen. 2022. The effects of interaction types on learning outcomes in a blog-based interactive learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments 30: 293–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahman, Muhammad Sabbir, and Bashir Hussain. 2014. The impact of trust, motivation and rewards on knowledge sharing attitudes among the secondary and higher secondary level students’: Evidence from Bangladesh. Library Review 63: 637–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramdhan, Zaini, and Novian Denny Nugraha. 2020. Set extention vfx analysis of visual effects from the wiro sableng film the movie. Paper presented at the Proceeding International Conference on Multimedia, Architecture, and Design, Chengdu, China, May 28–30. [Google Scholar]
- Reeves, Thomas C. 1997. Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the World Wide Web. In Web-Based Instruction. Edited by Badrul H. Khan. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Pubns. [Google Scholar]
- Rončević Zubković, Barbara, Svjetlana Kolić-Vehovec, Sanja Smojver-Ažić, Tamara Martinac Dorčić, and Rosanda Pahljina-Reinić. 2022. The role of experience during playing bullying prevention serious game: Effects on knowledge and compassion. Behaviour & Information Technology 41: 401–15. [Google Scholar]
- Santos, J. Reynaldo A. 1999. Cronbach’s alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal of Extension 37: 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, Xianjun, Yingtao Zhang, Lijie Zhang, and Liming Wang. 2016. Virtual Simulation Experiment Teaching Platform Based on 3R-4A Computer System. Paper presented at the International Conference of Pioneering Computer Scientists, Engineers and Educators, Harbin, China, August 20–22. [Google Scholar]
- Shih, Wen-Ling, and Chun-Yen Tsai. 2017. Students’ perception of a flipped classroom approach to facilitating online project-based learning in marketing research courses. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 33: 32–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Smolyanskiy, Nikolai, and Mar Gonzalez-Franco. 2017. Stereoscopic first person view system for drone navigation. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 4: 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Snider, Marika. 2020. Using Cinematographic Tools for Historic House Digital Restorations. Paper presented at the 2020 Intermountain Engineering, Technology and Computing (IETC), Orem, UT, USA, October 2–3. [Google Scholar]
- Tai, Kai-Hsin, Jon-Chao Hong, Chi-Ruei Tsai, Chang-Zhen Lin, and Yi-Hsuan Hung. 2022. Virtual reality for car-detailing skill development: Learning outcomes of procedural accuracy and performance quality predicted by VR self-efficacy, VR using anxiety, VR learning interest and flow experience. Computers & Education 182: 104458. [Google Scholar]
- Tong, Yangfan, Weiran Cao, Qian Sun, and Dong Chen. 2021. The Use of Deep Learning and VR Technology in Film and Television Production From the Perspective of Audience Psychology. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tsai, Jacob Chia-An, and Shin-Yuan Hung. 2019. Examination of community identification and interpersonal trust on continuous use intention: Evidence from experienced online community members. Information & Management 56: 552–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, Ya-Hsun, Chien-Hung Lin, Jon-Chao Hong, and Kai-Hsin Tai. 2018. The effects of metacognition on online learning interest and continuance to learn with MOOCs. Computers & Education 121: 18–29. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Ting, Chien-Liang Lin, and Yu-Sheng Su. 2021. Continuance intention of university students and online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: A modified expectation confirmation model perspective. Sustainability 13: 4586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Zhengpei, Xue Yang, and Xiaolu Zhang. 2020. Relationships among boredom proneness, sensation seeking and smartphone addiction among Chinese college students: Mediating roles of pastime, flow experience and self-regulation. Technology in Society 62: 101319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Wei-Long, Yen Hsu, Qi-Fan Yang, and Jiang-Jie Chen. 2021. A Spherical Video-Based Immersive Virtual Reality Learning System to Support Landscape Architecture Students’ Learning Performance during the COVID-19 Era. Land 10: 561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yim, Mark Yi-Cheon, Shu-Chuan Chu, and Paul L. Sauer. 2017. Is augmented reality technology an effective tool for e-commerce? An interactivity and vividness perspective. Journal of Interactive Marketing 39: 89–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yip, David Kei-Man. 2020. The Invisible Art of Storytelling and Media Production. Paper presented at the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, San Diego, CA, USA, July 16–20. [Google Scholar]
- Yuan, Chunlin, Shuman Wang, Xiaolei Yu, Kyung Hoon Kim, and Hakil Moon. 2021. The influence of flow experience in the augmented reality context on psychological ownership. International Journal of Advertising 40: 922–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, Yang, Fujun Lai, and Zhaofang Chu. 2019. Continuous usage intention of Internet banking: A commitment-trust model. Information Systems and e-Business Management 17: 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zamora-Antuñano, Marco Antonio, Juvenal Rodríguez-Reséndiz, Miguel Angel Cruz-Pérez, Hugo Rodríguez Reséndíz, Wilfrido J. Paredes-García, and José Alfredo Gaytán Díaz. 2021. Teachers’ perception in selecting virtual learning platforms: A case of mexican higher education during the COVID-19 crisis. Sustainability 14: 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, Yanfang, Lihua Liu, and Rui Xu. 2022. The effects of a virtual reality tourism experience on tourist’s cultural dissemination behavior. Tourism and Hospitality 3: 314–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Yiming, Afeng Wang, and Yongqiang Sun. 2020. Technological environment, virtual experience, and MOOC continuance: A stimulus–organism–response perspective. Computers & Education 144: 103721. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, Yue, Jia Hua Zhang, Wing Au, and Greg Yates. 2020. University students’ online learning attitudes and continuous intention to undertake online courses: A self-regulated learning perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development 68: 1485–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zijlmans, Eva A. O., Jesper Tijmstra, L. Andries Van der Ark, and Klaas Sijtsma. 2019. Item-score reliability as a selection tool in test construction. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 2298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
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 |
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 * |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Items | Factor Loading | t Value | p 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 * |
Moderating Variable | IV | → | DV | CMIN | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
Moderating Variable | Path | β | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|
gender | male | TI→FL | .896 | .001 * |
female | .939 | .001 * | ||
grade | sophomore | FL→TR | .874 | .001 * |
junior | .718 | .001 * |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gu, C.; Sun, J.; Chen, T.; Miao, W.; Yang, Y.; Lin, S.; Chen, J. Examining the Influence of Using First-Person View Drones as Auxiliary Devices in Matte Painting Courses on College Students’ Continuous Learning Intention. J. Intell. 2022, 10, 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10030040
Gu C, Sun J, Chen T, Miao W, Yang Y, Lin S, Chen J. Examining the Influence of Using First-Person View Drones as Auxiliary Devices in Matte Painting Courses on College Students’ Continuous Learning Intention. Journal of Intelligence. 2022; 10(3):40. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10030040
Chicago/Turabian StyleGu, Chao, Jie Sun, Tong Chen, Wei Miao, Yunshuo Yang, Shuyuan Lin, and Jiangjie Chen. 2022. "Examining the Influence of Using First-Person View Drones as Auxiliary Devices in Matte Painting Courses on College Students’ Continuous Learning Intention" Journal of Intelligence 10, no. 3: 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10030040
APA StyleGu, C., Sun, J., Chen, T., Miao, W., Yang, Y., Lin, S., & Chen, J. (2022). Examining the Influence of Using First-Person View Drones as Auxiliary Devices in Matte Painting Courses on College Students’ Continuous Learning Intention. Journal of Intelligence, 10(3), 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10030040