Power to the people: Using learner control to improve trainee reactions and learning in web-based instructional environments.

Abstract

This experimental study investigated the mechanisms by which learner control influences learning in an e-learning environment. The authors hypothesized that learner control would enhance learning indirectly through its effect on trainee reactions and learner engagement (in particular, off-task attention), such that learners who were more satisfied with the training and devoted more cognitive resources toward the instructional content versus off-task thoughts would possess greater posttraining knowledge. The study also examined the role of individual differences (training motivation and goal orientation) in the prediction of these 2 mediating variables. A sample of 274 undergraduates completed an e-learning program, either with or without interactive, learner control tools. Results suggest that both training satisfaction and off-task attention predicted subsequent learning. Learner control had a positive impact on training satisfaction but was not related to off-task attention. The individual difference variables had a differential impact on the mediating variables. In particular, performance orientation was linked to off-task attention, whereas mastery orientation was found to indirectly influence satisfaction via its direct effect on training motivation. Implications for the design and further study of e-learning are discussed.

Learner control, user characteristics, platform difference, and their role in adoption intention for MOOC learning in China

“…Kraiger and Jerden (2007) identified learner control as a useful factor high level learning engagement and for e-learning superiority. Orvis et al (2009) found that learner control has a positive impact on learning satisfaction, and that high-level learner control over the learning environment features would influence the learners' affective and utility-based reactions to these features.…”

Costs and Benefits of More Learner Freedom

“…This additional dimension differentiates EL and LC training methods; LC provides learners with options to adapt the learning content to their learning style, skill, or experience; EL requires learners to discover relationships and interactions between variables through exploring the learning content. Proponents emphasize a benefit of LC to learner motivation, level of active involvement (e.g., Corbalan et al, 2009;Schnackenberg & Sullivan, 2000), and trainee satisfaction with the learning environment (Fisher, Wasserman, & Orvis, 2010;Granger & Levine, 2009;Orvis et al, 2009), which should affect learning and transfer. EL proponents argue that it encourages metacognitive activity and self-regulation of learning skills required for developing adaptable complex skills (e.g., Bell & Kozlowski, 2008;Heimbeck, Frese, Sonnentag, & Keith, 2003;Ivancic & Hesketh, 2000;Keith & Frese, 2005).…”

A multilevel examination of the influence of trainee‐trainer gender dissimilarity and trainee‐classroom gender composition dissimilarity on trainee knowledge acquisition

“…The differences in communication style might influence how men and women react to their trainer and other trainees during online communications. In addition, Web-based and hybrid courses allow the learner more control over how they learn (Orvis, Fisher, & Wasserman, 2009). This might allow women to gain more opportunity in their choice of learning tools; for example, given that women are more relational than men (Gilligan, 1982) they might prefer to interact more through online forums or chat rooms.…”