Technology, trainees, metacognitive activity and e‐learning effectiveness

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to integrate previous research findings on the factors which affect e-learning effectiveness. To do this, a model is developed which proposes that the effects of individual learner characteristics and technology characteristics on e-learning outcomes are partially mediated by the metacognitive learning processes in which the learner engages. Design/methodology/approach -A survey of 914 individuals in an online introductory information systems course examines the relations between general computer self-efficacy (GCSE), locus of control, age, peer interaction, technology reliability, social presence, media synchronicity, and metacognitive activity and the e-learning outcomes of course, performance, course utility, and course satisfaction. Findings -The results indicate that GCSE, age, social presence, reliability, media synchronicity, and metacognitive activity are related to course satisfaction and utility judgments. In addition, age, metacognitive activity, and reliability are related to course performance and interaction is related to satisfaction. Finally, metacognitive activity partially mediates the relationship between social presence, media synchronicity and satisfaction, and utility judgments. Originality/value -This paper represents one of the first to investigate a model of e-learning effectiveness which integrates research on metacognitive activity as well as the role of technology and trainee characteristics.

Application of Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in Ranking Modern Educational Systems’ Success Criteria

“…Picoli et al [1] site individual features of trainee such as maturity and ability to work with computer and design/technology features such as reliability of technology and individual interactions have significant effects on e-learning effectiveness. According to the studies of Picoli et al [18], Johnson et al [8] also highlight the importance of interacting and participating educational environment and mention trainees features and technology have influence on e-learning outcomes. Table (1) shows briefly some studies about e-learning CSFs.…”

“…Furthermore, more than three million students registered in web based learning courses and large companies saved million dollars yearly [8]. E-learning is a new educational trend and also a challenge for traditional learning.…”

“…Volery and Lord [1] define e-learning as a combination of learner, faculty, instructor, technical staff, administrative, learner support, and use of the Internet and other technologies. E-learning can be defined as learning initiatives which offer educational materials through online repositories where course interactions and communications are technology mediated [8]. Keramati et al [1] consider e-learning as a new method of training which complements traditional methods and its final ambition is to build an advanced society for citizens and support creativity and innovation.…”

“…E-learning is a new educational trend and also a challenge for traditional learning. E-learning has been viewed synonymous with web-based learning (WBL), online learning, advanced distributed learning, open/flexible learning, internet-based learning (IBL) [8]. Volery and Lord [1] define e-learning as a combination of learner, faculty, instructor, technical staff, administrative, learner support, and use of the Internet and other technologies.…”

Process is King: Evaluating the Performance of Technology-mediated Learning in Vocational Software Training

“…Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2005) suggest the use of four learning dimensions when considering the systematic evaluation of vocational training and education: Reaction describes the emotional reaction to the course, learning refers to the learning success, application of knowledge relates to the actual usage of acquired knowledge in the real world, and company success describes effects within the company caused by the knowledge of the course participant. The most common measure for reaction is satisfaction, one of the frequent measures used in the evaluation of TML, also considered as an affective learning outcome measure (Alonso et al, 2011;Arbaugh, 2001;Johnson et al, 2009;Gupta et al, 2010). Another frequent measure that is examined is learning success, often referred to as course performance (Arbaugh, 2001;Benbunan-Fich and Arbaugh, 2006;Hiltz et al, 2000;Santhanam et al, 2008).…”