Application and Effectiveness Evaluation of Big Data Technology in International Students’ Chinese Language Learning as a Foreign Language
22. Sept. 2025
Über diesen Artikel
Online veröffentlicht: 22. Sept. 2025
Eingereicht: 01. Jan. 2025
Akzeptiert: 25. Apr. 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2025-0944
Schlüsselwörter
© 2025 Tianyang Jia, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Psychological distance and various factors analysis
| Factor | Group | Number | Mean | Standard deviation | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Language shock | Control group | 60 | 3.19 | 0.55 | 0.97 | 4.45 |
| Experimental group | 60 | 3.86 | 0.51 | 1.95 | 5 | |
| Cultural shock | Control group | 60 | 3.58 | 0.52 | 0.95 | 4 |
| Experimental group | 60 | 3.96 | 0.51 | 2.11 | 5 | |
| Instrumental learning motivation | Control group | 60 | 3.99 | 0.56 | 1.02 | 4.8 |
| Experimental group | 60 | 4.55 | 0.49 | 1.85 | 5 | |
| Fusion learning motivation | Control group | 60 | 3.85 | 0.54 | 1.07 | 4.55 |
| Experimental group | 60 | 4.22 | 0.49 | 2.16 | 5 | |
| Language boundary permeability | Control group | 60 | 2.89 | 0.53 | 0.92 | 4.75 |
| Experimental group | 60 | 3.86 | 0.49 | 1.93 | 5 | |
| Psychological distance score | Control group | 60 | 3.62 | 0.51 | 0.98 | 54.5 |
| Experimental group | 60 | 4.01 | 0.49 | 2.01 | 5 |
Differences in the satisfaction of gender
| Analysis term | Gender | Case number | Mean value | Standard deviation | T | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall satisfaction | Man | 60 | 3.680 | 0.820 | 0.845 | 0.312 |
| Female | 60 | 3.781 | 0.679 | |||
| Total | 60 | 3.633 | 0.701 | |||
| Learner expectation | Man | 60 | 3.576 | 0.670 | 0.518 | 0.512 |
| Female | 60 | 3.647 | 0.660 | |||
| Perceived mass | Man | 60 | 3.912 | 0.793 | 0.442 | 0.64 |
| Female | 60 | 3.982 | 0.669 | |||
| Perceived value | Man | 60 | 3.367 | 0.671 | 1.025 | 0.305 |
| Female | 60 | 3.536 | 0.752 | |||
| Learners satisfaction | Man | 60 | 3.792 | 0.732 | 0.867 | 0.398 |
| Female | 60 | 3.811 | 0.707 | |||
| Continued learning will | Man | 60 | 3.455 | 0.694 | 2.116 | 0.032* |
| Female | 60 | 3.813 | 0.823 |
Analyzed by the social distance and variance of the participants
| Dimension | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F | Sig | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Language shock | Intergroup | 0.45 | 1 | 0.67 | 0.63 | 0.453 |
| Within group | 54.56 | 76 | 0.78 | |||
| Total amount | 55.89 | 77 | ||||
| Cultural shock | Intergroup | 0.45 | 1 | 0.43 | 1.68 | 0.206 |
| Within group | 20.34 | 76 | 0.27 | |||
| Total amount | 21.67 | 77 | ||||
| Instrumental learning motivation | Intergroup | 0.37 | 1 | 0.38 | 0.78 | 0.432 |
| Within group | 38.99 | 76 | 0.5 | |||
| Total amount | 39.86 | 77 | ||||
| Fusion learning motivation | Intergroup | 6.68 | 1 | 6.88 | 10.566 | 0.003 |
| Within group | 51.69 | 76 | 0.67 | |||
| Total amount | 59.76 | 77 | ||||
| Language boundary permeability | Intergroup | 22.33 | 1 | 22.16 | 21.388 | 0.000 |
| Within group | 81.65 | 76 | 1.06 | |||
| Total amount | 103.89 | 77 | ||||
| Psychological distance score | Intergroup | 0.87 | 1 | 0.89 | 5.797 | 0.018 |
| Within group | 12.05 | 76 | 0.18 | |||
| Total amount | 12.93 | 77 |
Satisfaction overall description
| Analysis term | Case number | Minimum value | Maximum value | Mean value | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Learner expectation | 60 | 1 | 5 | 3.65 | 0.65 |
| Perceived mass | 60 | 1.5 | 5 | 3.98 | 0.55 |
| Perceived value | 60 | 1 | 5 | 3.56 | 0.68 |
| Learner satisfaction | 60 | 5 | 5 | 3.86 | 0.23 |
| Continued learning will | 60 | 1.2 | 5 | 3.62 | 1.05 |
| Overall satisfaction | 60 | 1.6 | 5 | 3.73 | 0.69 |
Psychological distance factors and the regression analysis of Chinese learning
| Factor | Normalized regression coefficient | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Language shock | 0.086 | 0.445 |
| Cultural shock | 0.167 | 0.156 |
| Instrumental learning motivation | 0.093 | 0.412 |
| Fusion learning motivation | -0.365 | 0.003 |
| Language boundary permeability | 0.387 | 0.002 |
