在线课程教学的交互形式与学生学习投入表现的关系探究

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.07.004

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

教学交互是实现在线教与学再度整合的关键，也是影响学生在线学习投入的重要因素。作为同步课堂特殊交互方式之一的视频交互亦对教学交互和学生在线学习投入的关系产生重要影响。基于30所高校15441名研究生的调查数据，通过结构方程模型与分层回归模型，围绕在线课程教学交互与学习投入的关系展开分析。结果发现，在线课程生生交互、生师交互和内容交互能分别正向预测学生的在线学习行为投入、认知投入和情感投入；生生视频交互正向调节了教学交互与行为投入、认知投入以及情感投入的关系；而生师视频交互对教学交互与在线学习投入的关系无显著影响。在未来的在线教育过程中，可通过营造社会性交互环境、丰富交互内容、关注“触发性”交互事件、保障视频交互质量等方式促进学生在线课程的学习投入。

关键词: 教学交互, 在线学习投入, 视频交互, 调节作用

Abstract:

Teaching interaction is not only the key to the re-integration of online teaching and learning, but also an important factor affecting students’ engagement in online learning. As one of the special interactive modes in synchronous classroom, video interaction also has an important influence on the relationship between teaching interaction and students’ online learning engagement. Based on the survey data of 15441 postgraduates from 30 universities, this study conducted structural equation model and hierarchical multiple regression model to analyze the relationship between online teaching interaction on learning engagement. The results showed that learner-learner interaction, learner-teacher interaction, and learner-content interaction of online courses can positively predict students’ behavioral engagement, cognitive engagement and emotional engagement, respectively. The results also indicated that learner-learner video interaction positively moderates the relationship between teaching interaction and behavioral engagement, teaching interaction and cognitive engagement, and teaching interaction and emotional engagement. However, learner-teacher video interaction had no significant influence on the relationship between teaching interaction and learning engagement. In the future of online education, students’ online learning engagement can be promoted by creating a social interaction environment, enriching interactive content, triggering interactive events, and ensuring the quality of video interaction.

Key words: teaching interaction, online learning engagement, video interaction, moderating effect

王思遥. 在线课程教学的交互形式与学生学习投入表现的关系探究[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2021, 39(7): 38-49.

Siyao Wang. An Exploration of the Relationships between Interactive Forms of Online Course Teaching and Students’ Learning Engagement[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2021, 39(7): 38-49.

图/表 9

表 1

表 2

表 3

教学交互与学习投入的群体差异"

			生生交互		生师交互		内容交互		生师视频交互		生生视频交互		行为投入		认知投入		情感投入
	性别	N	平均值	F/T值	平均值	F/T值	平均值	F/T值	平均值	F/T值	平均值	F/T值	平均值	F/T值	平均值	F/T值	平均值	F/T值
性别	女	9552	3.76	3.716 ^***	4.02	7.567 ^***	4.23	5.053 ^***	2.64	?1.676	1.78	?0.149	2.93	?1.325	3.7	?1.018	3.13	2.114 ^*
性别	男	5889	3.71	3.716 ^***	3.93	7.567 ^***	4.17	5.053 ^***	2.67	?1.676	1.79	?0.149	2.95	?1.325	3.72	?1.018	3.10	2.114 ^*
学校	“一流大学” 建设高校	5665	3.74	5.112 ^**	4.00	14.609 ^***	4.26	36.019 ^***	2.70	30.171 ^***	1.76	13.765 ^***	2.88	27.431 ^**	3.75	22.86 ^***	3.16	18.614 ^***
	“一流学科” 建设高校	4136	3.77		4.02		4.22		2.70		1.84		2.99		3.72		3.14
	非“双一流” 建设高校	5640	3.72		3.95		4.15		2.57		1.78		2.96		3.66		3.07
学科	社会学科	5249	3.74	25.401 ^***	3.97	65.523 ^***	4.19	35.94 ^***	2.77	81.296 ^***	1.85	162.615 ^***	2.87	30.77 ^***	3.71	46.101 ^***	3.06	19.99 ^***
	工程学科	5181	3.68		3.91		4.15		2.49		1.64		2.94		3.64		3.12
	自然学科	2337	3.72		4.01		4.25		2.62		1.71		2.99		3.70		3.21
	人文学科	2674	3.84		4.14		4.31		2.78		2.01		3.03		3.83		3.18
课程类型	专业理论课	13478	3.74	9.775 ^***	3.98	7.935 ^***	4.21	1.901	2.67	25.918 ^***	1.79	33.386 ^***	2.93	8.831 ^***	3.71	7.291 ^***	3.12	1.886
	专业实践课	748	3.85		4.08		4.22		2.69		1.97		3.03		3.81		3.13
	公共思政课	531	3.59		3.88		4.14		2.31		1.47		2.91		3.61		3.15
	公共语言课	489	3.75		4.03		4.24		2.35		1.73		3.08		3.71		3.18
	其他公共课	195	3.61		3.91		4.14		2.70		1.82		3.06		3.66		3.25
课程规模	小规模	3739	3.80	26.711 ^***	4.07	45.211 ^***	4.28	38.02 ^***	2.77	45.218 ^***	2.07	426.143 ^***	2.99	13.699 ^***	3.79	46.744 ^***	3.17	7.783 ^**
	中规模	8676	3.74		3.97		4.19		2.65		1.75		2.92		3.70		3.11
	大规模	3026	3.66		3.91		4.14		2.53		1.54		2.91		3.63		3.11
生源地	直辖市/ 省会城市	3048	3.80	28.623 ^***	4.04	32.123 ^***	4.27	25.379 ^***	2.73	19.474 ^***	1.78	4.299 ^***	2.92	0.877	3.79	44.233 ^***	3.24	31.456 ^***
	其他地级市	3568	3.79		4.03		4.23		2.70		1.82		2.94		3.76		3.15
	县级市/县城	3603	3.75		4.00		4.22		2.66		1.78		2.95		3.71		3.09
	乡镇/农村	5222	3.66		3.91		4.14		2.57		1.77		2.93		3.63		3.05

表 3

表 4

表 5

图 2

表 6

图 1

图 3

参考文献 0

	崔佳, 刘冲协作式在线教学交互模型及动力研究重庆高教研究 2021 9 02 1 14 崔佳, 刘冲. (2021). 协作式在线教学交互模型及动力研究. 重庆高教研究,9(02),1—14.
	陈丽远程学习的教学交互模型和教学交互层次塔中国远程教育 2004 05 24 28+78 陈丽. (2004). 远程学习的教学交互模型和教学交互层次塔. 中国远程教育,(05),24—28+78. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-458X.2004.05.006
	陈丽, 王志军三代远程学习中的教学交互原理中国远程教育 2016 10 30 37+79-80 陈丽, 王志军. (2016). 三代远程学习中的教学交互原理. 中国远程教育,(10),30—37+79-80. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-458X.2016.10.004
	程志, 周铁基于认知负荷理论的教学媒体设计现代教育技术 2008 11 50 52+41 程志, 周铁. (2008). 基于认知负荷理论的教学媒体设计. 现代教育技术,(11),50—52+41. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-8097.2008.11.011
	黄庆双, 李玉斌, 任永功探究社区理论视域下学习者在线学习投入影响研究现代远距离教育 2018 06 73 81 黄庆双, 李玉斌, 任永功. (2018). 探究社区理论视域下学习者在线学习投入影响研究. 现代远距离教育,(06),73—81. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-8700.2018.06.009
	胡小平, 谢作栩疫情下高校在线教学的优势与挑战探析中国高教研究 2020 04 18 22+58 胡小平, 谢作栩. (2020). 疫情下高校在线教学的优势与挑战探析. 中国高教研究,(04),18—22+58.
	贾义敏, 詹春青情境学习: 一种新的学习范式开放教育研究 2011 17 05 29 39 贾义敏, 詹春青. (2011). 情境学习: 一种新的学习范式. 开放教育研究,17(05),29—39. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-2179.2011.05.006
	穆肃, 王孝金参与和投入而非肤浅和简单——在线学习中的深层次学习中国远程教育 2019 02 17 25+92−93 穆肃, 王孝金. (2019). 参与和投入而非肤浅和简单—在线学习中的深层次学习. 中国远程教育,(02),17—25+92−93.
	邬大光, 李文我国高校大规模线上教学的阶段性特征——基于对学生、教师、教务人员问卷调查的实证研究华东师范大学学报(教育科学版) 2020 38 07 1 30 邬大光, 李文. (2020). 我国高校大规模线上教学的阶段性特征—基于对学生、教师、教务人员问卷调查的实证研究. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),38(07),1—30.
	王志军远程教育中“教学交互”本质及相关概念再辨析电化教育研究 2016 37 04 36 41 王志军. (2016). 远程教育中“教学交互”本质及相关概念再辨析. 电化教育研究,37(04),36—41.
	王志军, 陈丽国际远程教育教学交互理论研究脉络及新进展开放教育研究 2015 21 02 30 39 王志军, 陈丽. (2015). 国际远程教育教学交互理论研究脉络及新进展. 开放教育研究,21(02),30—39.
	夏娇远程教育中教学媒体的交互性研究中国成人教育 2018 02 105 108 夏娇. (2018). 远程教育中教学媒体的交互性研究. 中国成人教育,(02),105—108.
	杨金勇, 裴文云, 刘胜峰疫情期间在线教学实践与经验中国电化教育 2020 04 29 41 杨金勇, 裴文云, 刘胜峰. (2020). 疫情期间在线教学实践与经验. 中国电化教育,(04),29—41. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9860.2020.04.008
	翟雪松, 束永红在线学习社区中的知识隐藏行为及影响机制研究——基于专业承诺和变革型指导风格的视角分析远程教育杂志 2019 37 05 85 94 翟雪松, 束永红. (2019). 在线学习社区中的知识隐藏行为及影响机制研究—基于专业承诺和变革型指导风格的视角分析. 远程教育杂志,37(05),85—94.
	Anderson, T Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 2003 4 2 1 14 Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 4(2), 1—14. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.1086
	Bettinger, E., Liu, J., & Loeb, S Connections matter: How interactive peers affect students in online college courses Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2016 35 4 932 954 Bettinger, E., Liu, J., & Loeb, S. (2016). Connections matter: How interactive peers affect students in online college courses. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35(4), 932—954. doi: 10.1002/pam.21932
	Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernández-Ortega, B., & Sese, F. J Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance Computers & Education 2013 62 102 110 Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernández-Ortega, B., & Sese, F. J. (2013). Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance. Computers & Education, 62, 102—110.
	Coates, H A model of online and general campus-based student engagement Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 2007 32 2 121 141 Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121—141.
	Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. London: Routledge.
	Dixson, M. D Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 2010 10 2 1 13 Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging?. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1—13.
	Fornell C, Larcker D F Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error Journal of marketing research 1981 18 1 39 50 Fornell C, Larcker D F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39—50. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104
	Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence Review of educational research 2004 74 1 59 109 Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59—109. doi: 10.3102/00346543074001059
	Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education American Journal of distance education 2001 15 1 7 23 Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of distance education, 15(1), 7—23. doi: 10.1080/08923640109527071
	Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational researcher 2009 38 4 246 259 Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now?. Educational researcher, 38(4), 246—259. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09336671
	Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N Learner‐interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners American Journal of Distance Education 1994 8 2 30 42 Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner‐interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30—42. doi: 10.1080/08923649409526853
	Kahu, E. R Framing student engagement in higher education Studies in higher education 2013 38 5 758 773 Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in higher education, 38(5), 758—773. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.598505
	Kreijns, K., & Kirschner, P. A. (2001). The social affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. In 31st Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Impact on Engineering and Science Education. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No. 01CH37193) (Vol. 1, pp. T1F-12). IEEE.
	Lee, S. J., Srinivasan, S., Trail, T., Lewis, D., & Lopez, S Examining the relationship among student perception of support, course satisfaction, and learning outcomes in online learning The Internet and Higher Education 2011 14 3 158 163 Lee, S. J., Srinivasan, S., Trail, T., Lewis, D., & Lopez, S. (2011). Examining the relationship among student perception of support, course satisfaction, and learning outcomes in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 158—163. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.04.001
	Liyanage, I., & Bartlett, B Personality types and languages learning strategies: Chameleons changing colours System 2013 41 3 598 608 Liyanage, I., & Bartlett, B. (2013). Personality types and languages learning strategies: Chameleons changing colours. System, 41(3), 598—608. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2013.07.011
	Ma, J., Han, X., Yang, J., & Cheng, J Examining the necessary condition for engagement in an online learning environment based on learning analytics approach: The role of the instructor The Internet and Higher Education 2015 24 26 34 Ma, J., Han, X., Yang, J., & Cheng, J. (2015). Examining the necessary condition for engagement in an online learning environment based on learning analytics approach: The role of the instructor. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 26—34. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.09.005
	Meyer, K. A. (Ed.). (2014). Student Engagement Online: What Works and Why. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
	Moore, M. G Three types of interaction The American Journal of Distance Education 1989 3 02 1 6 Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(02), 1—6. doi: 10.1080/08923648909526659
	Moore, M. G Theory of transactional distance Theoretical principles of distance education 1993 1 22 38 Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. Theoretical principles of distance education, 1, 22—38.
	Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T Teaching and learning in their disciplinary contexts: A conceptual analysis Studies in higher education 2002 27 4 405 417 Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary contexts: A conceptual analysis. Studies in higher education, 27(4), 405—417. doi: 10.1080/0307507022000011525
	Paul, R. C., Swart, W., Zhang, A. M., & MacLeod, K. R Revisiting Zhang’s scale of transactional distance: Refinement and validation using structural equation modeling Distance Education 2015 36 3 364 382 Paul, R. C., Swart, W., Zhang, A. M., & MacLeod, K. R. (2015). Revisiting Zhang’s scale of transactional distance: Refinement and validation using structural equation modeling. Distance Education, 36(3), 364—382. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2015.1081741
	Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., Morad, O. A., & Marsh, C Computer-based technology and student engagement: a critical review of the literature International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 2017 14 1 1 28 Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., Morad, O. A., & Marsh, C. (2017). Computer-based technology and student engagement: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 1—28. doi: 10.1186/s41239-017-0046-1
	Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education Computers & Education 2009 52 3 543 553 Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster “epistemic engagement” and “cognitive presence” in online education. Computers & Education, 52(3), 543—553.
	Shukor, N. A., Tasir, Z., Van der Meijden, H., & Harun, J A predictive model to evaluate students’ cognitive engagement in online learning Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 2014 116 4844 4853 Shukor, N. A., Tasir, Z., Van der Meijden, H., & Harun, J. (2014). A predictive model to evaluate students’ cognitive engagement in online learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4844—4853. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1036
	Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S Factors influencing interaction in an online course American Journal of Distance Education 1999 13 3 22 36 Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22—36. doi: 10.1080/08923649909527033
	Wang, Z., Chen, L., & Anderson, T A framework for interaction and cognitive engagement in connectivist learning contexts International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 2014 15 2 121 141 Wang, Z., Chen, L., & Anderson, T. (2014). A framework for interaction and cognitive engagement in connectivist learning contexts. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(2), 121—141.
	Wei, C. W., & Chen, N. S A model for social presence in online classrooms Educational Technology Research and Development 2012 60 3 529 545 Wei, C. W., & Chen, N. S. (2012). A model for social presence in online classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(3), 529—545. doi: 10.1007/s11423-012-9234-9
	Yang, Y. F., & Tsai, C. C Conceptions of and approaches to learning through online peer assessment Learning and Instruction 2010 20 1 72 83 Yang, Y. F., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Conceptions of and approaches to learning through online peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20(1), 72—83. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.01.003
	Young, S., & Bruce, M. A Classroom community and student engagement in online courses Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 2011 7 2 219 230 Young, S., & Bruce, M. A. (2011). Classroom community and student engagement in online courses. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 219—230.

变量名	选项	N	百分比（%）	变量名	选项	N	百分比（%）
性别	女	9552	61.86	学科	社会	5249	33.99
性别	男	5889	38.14		工程	5181	33.55
生源地	直辖市/省会城市	3048	19.74		自然	2337	15.14
	其他地级市	3568	23.11		人文	2674	17.32
	县级市/县城	3603	23.33	学校	“一流大学”建设高校	5665	36.69
	乡镇和农村	5222	33.82		“一流学科”建设高校	4136	26.79
年级	硕士生	14286	92.52		非“双一流”建设高校	5640	36.53
年级	博士生	1155	7.48

	平均值	标准差	生生交互	生师交互	内容交互	行为投入	认知投入	情感投入	生生视频交互	生师视频交互
生生交互	3.737	0.780	—
生师交互	3.984	0.696	0.717^***	—
内容交互	4.215	0.729	0.494^***	0.648^***	—
行为投入	2.937	0.784	0.292^***	0.281^***	0.220^***	—
认知投入	3.708	0.688	0.577^***	0.595^***	0.450^***	0.287^***	—
情感投入	3.122	0.869	0.210^***	0.254^***	0.232^***	0.352^***	0.251^***	—
生生视频交互	1.785	0.775	0.177^***	0.160^***	0.128^***	0.177^***	0.159^***	0.061^***	—
生师视频交互	2.652	1.044	0.142^***	0.170^***	0.189^***	0.112^***	0.136^***	0.075^***	0.474^***	—

	因素载荷量	Cronbach’s α	CR	AVE	χ²	df	GFI	AGFI	TLI	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR
生生交互	0.754-0.934	0.916	0.915	0.730	2071.311	2	0.936	0.876	0.869	0.956	0.079	0.041
生师交互	0.802-0.893	0.901	0.902	0.698	745.436	2	0.976	0.879	0.943	0.981	0.055	0.022
内容交互	0.907-0.950	0.950	0.950	0.865	—	—	—		—	—		—
行为投入	0.621-0.852	0.823	0.827	0.548	17.784	2	0.999	0.997	0.998	0.999	0.023	0.005
认知投入	0.878-0.916	0.943	0.943	0.805	926.295	2	0.969	0.844	0.952	0.984	0.073	0.016
情感投入	0.560-0.869	0.838	0.844	0.582	188.131	2	0.994	0.970	0.979	0.993	0.078	0.017
判定标准	>0.50	>0.70	>0.70	>0.50	—	—	>0.90	>0.90	>0.90	>0.90	<0.08	<0.08

	标准化系数	标准误	临界比	显著性	研究假设
生生交互→行为投入	0.223	0.017	14.707	***	H1a成立
生生交互→认知投入	0.291	0.012	24.588	***	H1b成立
生生交互→情感投入	0.076	0.017	5.058	***	H1c成立
生师交互→行为投入	0.146	0.020	7.686	***	H2a成立
生师交互→认知投入	0.386	0.014	26.029	***	H2b成立
生师交互→情感投入	0.196	0.021	10.396	***	H2c成立
内容交互→行为投入	0.035	0.013	2.739	0.006	H3a成立
内容交互→认知投入	0.048	0.009	4.838	***	H3b成立
内容交互→情感投入	0.091	0.014	7.154	***	H3c成立

	行为投入			认知投入			情感投入
	模型1	模型2	模型3	模型1	模型2	模型3	模型1	模型2	模型3
背景变量	—	已控制	已控制	—	已控制	已控制	—	已控制	已控制
教学交互		0.287^***	0.288^***		0.616^***	0.618^***		0.257^***	0.258^***
生生视频交互		0.126^***	0.122^***		0.045^***	0.041^***		0.010	0.006
生师视频交互		0.007	0.007		?0.014	?0.013		0.023^**	0.024^**
教学交互*生生视频交互			0.031^***			0.017^*			0.021^*
教学交互*生师视频交互			?0.012			0.012			0.016
调整后R²	0.012	0.120	0.121	0.021	0.400	0.401	0.012	0.080	0.081
△R²	0.013	0.108	0.001	0.022	0.379	0.001	0.013	0.068	0.001
F	12.592	630.943	6.141	21.366	541.646	491.266	12.696	71.660	65.710
△F	12.592^***	111.525^***	101.556^**	21.366^***	3244.58^***	7.992^***	12.696^***	381.126^***	8.522^***