In response to the higher requirements for teaching effectiveness imposed by the construction of new liberal arts, addressing the differentiation in the effectiveness of lightweight instruction across different majors is key to achieving its high-quality development. Based on data from 116 students in an economics and management course, we constructed a “perception–behavior–competence” mediation model and a chained mediation pathway to distinguish and test two mechanisms of academic major (front-end cognitive differences vs. process moderation), thereby exploring the adaptability challenges of lightweight instruction in interdisciplinary classrooms. Research findings indicate that (1) perceived lightweight teaching quality not only directly promotes students’ perceived competence but also significantly influences these perceptions through the key pathway of stimulating post-class case sharing behavior and (2) differences in academic background primarily manifest as front-end cognitive differences—students majoring in financial management show significantly lower “perceived relevance” of case studies compared with those in business administration. This disparity constitutes an initial cognitive barrier constraining teaching effectiveness but does not further transmit to perceived competence via the “perception–behavior” chain. In other words, different starting points do not necessarily lead to different outcomes—lightweight instruction plays a relatively equitable role in enhancing the competencies of students from different majors. This study identified the root cause of professional alignment challenges at the cognitive level and developed a practical framework of “initial assessment–process design–iterative optimization,” thereby providing an operational approach to streamlined interdisciplinary teaching.

1. [1] M. Ljubojević, M. Savić, D. Mijić, and G. Vico, “Improving the efficiency of multimedia learning and the quality of experience by reducing cognitive load,” Appl. Sci., Vol.15, No.3, Article No.1054, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15031054
2. [2] P. Li, Q. Liu, and L. Bai, “Teaching design and practice of university computer courses based on a lightweight teaching strategy,” Comput. Educ., Vol.2024, No.3, pp. 218-222, 2024 (in Chinese). https://doi.org/10.16512/j.cnki.jsjjy.2024.03.015
3. [3] J. Sweller, “Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning,” Cogn. Sci., Vol.12, No.2, pp. 257-285, 1988. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
4. [4] D. A. Kolb, “Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development,” Prentice-Hall, 1984.
5. [5] D. L. Kirkpatrick, “Techniques for evaluating training programs,” J. Am. Soc. Train. Dir., Vol.13, pp. 1-10, 1959.
6. [6] D. C. Hambrick and P. A. Mason, “Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers,” Acad. Manag. Rev., Vol.9, No.2, pp. 193-206, 1984. https://doi.org/10.2307/258434
7. [7] T. Haile, “Understanding individual differences in learning strategies, cognitive characteristics and task demands: One-size does not fit all but tailoring is difficult,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington, 2023.
8. [8] Q. L. Sheng, “Classroom teaching innovation for learning transfer,” Beihang University News Network Report, 2025 (in Chinese). https://news.buaa.edu.cn/info/1005/64454.htm [Accessed December 18, 2025]
9. [9] Y. Cao, A. A. Aziz, and W. N. R. Mohd Arshard, “Performance and perception disparities in blended learning across varied vocational academic backgrounds,” J. Educ. Technol. Dev. Exch., Vol.17, No.2, pp. 176-198, 2024. https://doi.org/10.18785/jetde.1702.08
10. [10] K. L. Wilson, A. Lizzio, and P. Ramsden, “The development, validation and application of the Course Experience Questionnaire,” Stud. High. Educ., Vol.22, No.1, pp. 33-53, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079712331381121
11. [11] M. H. Knol, C. V. Dolan, G. J. Mellenbergh, and H. L. J. van der Maas, “Measuring the quality of university lectures: Development and validation of the instructional skills questionnaire (ISQ),” PLOS ONE, Vol.11, No.2, Article No.e0149163, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149163
12. [12] B. T. Sexton, “Exploring the influence of students’ perceptions of instructional message content relevance and experienced cognitive load on students’ cognitive learning,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Kentucky, 2017. https://doi.org/10.13023/ETD.2017.035
13. [13] Y. Zhang et al., “Teaching presence promotes learner affective engagement: The roles of cognitive load and need for cognition,” Teach. Teach. Educ., Vol.123, Article No.104167, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104167
14. [14] K. Kozan, “The incremental predictive validity of teaching, cognitive and social presence on cognitive load,” Internet High. Educ., Vol.31, pp. 11-19, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.003
15. [15] R. S. D. Silva, G. Q. Souki, A. S. D. Oliveira, L. S. G. Vieira, and M. Serra, “Cognitive, affective and behavioural repercussions of perceived quality in tourism vocational education: Insights from self-determination theory,” Int. J. Educ. Manag., Vol.38, No.6, pp. 1710-1734, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-11-2023-0544
16. [16] L. Bergkvist and J. R. Rossiter, “The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs,” J. Mark. Res., Vol.44, No.2, pp. 175-184, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175
17. [17] C. Fuchs and A. Diamantopoulos, “Using single-item measures for construct measurement in management research: Conceptual issues and application guidelines,” Betriebswirtschaft, Vol.69, No.2, pp. 195-210, 2009.
18. [18] Y. Wang, H. Wang, S. Wang, S. A. Wind, and C. Gill, “A systematic review and meta-analysis of self-determination-theory-based interventions in the education context,” Learn. Motiv., Vol.87, Article No.102015, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2024.102015
19. [19] A. Bandura, “Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change,” Psychol. Rev., Vol.84, No.2, pp. 191-215, 1977. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
20. [20] R. E. Mayer and R. Moreno, “Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning,” Educ. Psychol., Vol.38, No.1, pp. 43-52, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
21. [21] R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci, “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being,” Am. Psychol., Vol.55, No.1, pp. 68-78, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1037110003-066X.55.1.68
22. [22] A. Bandura, “Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,” Prentice-Hall, 1986.
23. [23] S. Yu and C. Levesque-Bristol, “A cross-classified path analysis of the self-determination theory model on the situational, individual and classroom levels in college education,” Contemp. Educ. Psychol., Vol.61, Article No.101857, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101857
24. [24] A. F. Hayes, “Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach,” 3rd Edition, Guilford Press, 2022.