Empirical Study on the Factors Influencing the Web-based Teaching Effect
Jian-Fei Chen 1  
More details
Hide details
Beijing University of Technology, CHINA
Online publish date: 2018-02-04
Publish date: 2018-02-04
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(5):1635–1643
Online teaching has become more and more popular in China, which has also become a widespread way of instructing in the field of mathematics, science, technology and other subjects. Based on the analysis of the characteristics of instructing, students and learning styles, a research on the influential factors of online teaching was conducted by methods of the integrated technology acceptance model and social cognitive theory from the cognitive point of view. Through questionnaire investigation, students were categorized according to different learning styles. Through the establishment of the structural equation that the significant influential factors of students with different learning styles on the effect of web-based teaching were identified. It was concluded that Utility Value possessed significant influence on online teaching for learners with whatever type of learning style. To people that provide online teaching service, individualized and customized teaching strategies can be established for students with different learning styles and cognitive characteristics. Meanwhile, the context further explored the online teaching strategies that were friendly and suitable to students with diverse learning styles.
1. Ayersman, D. J., & Reed, W. M. (1995). Effects of learning styles, programming, and gender on computer anxiety. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(2), 148–161.
2. Bong, M. (2001). Role of self-efficacy and task-value in predicting college students’ course performance and future enrollment intentions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(4), 553–570.
3. Chen, L. H. (2010). Web-based learning programs: use by learners with various cognitive styles. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1028-1035.
4. Chiu, C. M., & Wang, E. T. G. (2008). Understanding web-based learning continuance intention: the role of subjective task value. Information & Management, 45(3), 194-201.
5. Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., Sun, S. Y., Lin, T. C., & Sun, P. C. (2005). Usability, quality, value and e-learning continuance decisions. Computers & Education, 45(4), 399-416.
6. Connolly, T. M., MacArthur, E., Stansfield, M. & McLellan, E. (2007). A quasi- experimental study of three online learning courses in computing. Computers & Education, 11(49), 345-359.
7. Gong, M., Xu, Y., & Yu, Y. (2004). An enhanced technology acceptance model for Web-based learning. Journal of Information Systems Education, 11(4), 365–373. Retrieved from
8. Hamburg, I., & Lindecke, C. (2003). Social aspects of e -learning and blending learning methods. In Proceedings of the 4th European Conference E-Comm-Line, Bucharest, Romania.
9. Hossini, M., & Mahdizadeh, H. (2011). The effect of online quran teaching on physicians’ general and professional ethical conduct. Arak Medical University Journal. Retrieved from:
10. Jr, H. E. M. (2003). The web-based community college student: an examination of factors that lead to success and risk. Internet & Higher Education, 6(3), 241-261.
11. Kira, D. (2007). Mediating the impact of technology usage on perceived ease of use by anxiety. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1189-1204.
12. Mahmod, R., Dahlan, N., Ramayah, T., & Karia, N. (2005). Attitudial belief on adoption of e-mba program in Malaysia. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 6(2), 10.
13. Najah, O. (2014). The effect of online teaching approach in enhancing strategic thinking skills for engineering students. Retrieved from
14. Nordin, N., Samsudin, M. A., & Harun, A. H. (2017). Teaching renewable energy using online PBL in investigating its effect on behaviour towards energy conservation among Malaysian students: an oval repeated measures approach. Physics Education, 52(1), 015001.
15. Ong, C. S., Lai, J. Y., & Wang, Y. S. (2004). Factors affecting engineers’ acceptance of asynchronous e-learning systems in high-tech companies. Information & Management, 41(6), 795-804.
16. Parsons, J. E., Adler, T., & Meece, J. L. (1984). Sex differences in achievement: a test of alternate theories. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 46(1), 26-43.
17. Petrides, L. A. (2002). Web-based technologies for distributed (or distance) learning: creating learning-centered educational experiences in the higher education classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 43(29), 69–77.
18. Pollock, P. H., & Wilson, K. H. B. M. (2005). Teaching and learning online: assessing the effect of gender context on active learning. Journal of Political Science Education, 1(1), 1-15.
19. Ren, T., Yang, D., & University, N. M. (2014). On multidimensional online assessment system for the degree of teaching effect recognition in university. Journal of Liaoning Medical University, 26(3), 45-51.
20. Saadé, R. G., & Kira, D. (2007). Mediating the impact of technology usage on perceived ease of use by anxiety. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1189-1204.
21. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. Mis Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
22. Wigfield, A. (1994). The role of children’s achievement values in the self-regulation of their learning outcomes. Self-regulation of Learning and Performance: Issues and Educational Applications, 27(6), 101–124.
23. Wu, S. Y. (2016). The effect of teaching strategies and students’ cognitive style on the online discussion environment. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(2), 267-277.