Learner Control and e-Learning: Taking Stock and Moving Forward

Abstract

Research has historically adopted one of two views toward learner discretion in training: Learner discretion is controlled by training characteristics (i.e., the instruction-centric view), or learner discretion is a substantive learning process, the understanding of which is essential to developing more effective training (i.e., the learner-centric view). More recently, training scholars have followed the general trend in scientific psychology toward increasingly nuanced and interactionist views of individual behavior. That is, the effectiveness of providing learner discretion is a joint and interactive function of both instruction-centric and learner-centric processes. Taken together, learner-centric, instruction-centric, and interactionist-centric processes propose a constellation of constructs necessary to understand learner control. Here we review the diverse literatures examining learner-control-related constructs and derive specific practical recommendations for designing e-learning. These recommendations follow from the interactionist perspective of learning in modern work environments.

How Do Learners Interact with E-learning? Examining Patterns of Learner Control Behaviors

“…Learner control A set of constructs describing a situation where learners are provided with discretion over behaviors related to formal learning activities. Brown, Howardson & Fisher (2016) Pace control Learners can manipulate the pace (speed or tempo) in which learning activities are delivered to them. Kraiger & Jerden (2007) Content control Learners can choose which specific content they learn.…”

“…Researchers have recently suggested scheduling control (choices about when and where to complete the training) as an additional dimension that one should regularly consider when designing training interfaces (Karim & Behrend, 2014) based on evidence that scheduling control has a positive relationship with both reactions to training and to learning. This dimension is less central to the core pedagogical decisions about training design (Brown et al, 2016) but clearly a feature that trainees in our study used. Similar to Karim and Behrend, we found a significant relationship between scheduling control and learning performance.…”

“…It is generally an effective strategy to present learners with some type of control during training for the positive motivational effects (Brown et al, 2016). However, one pattern of behaviors we observed in this training was a group of trainees who simply used the control functions to skip through as much of the training as quickly as possible (i.e., the unengaged).…”

“…Brown (2005) found that learners react differently to various types of media, which impacts their learning through attitudes toward the course. Media control is a more peripheral type of learner control than other types such as content or pace control and, thus, not as directly related to learning (Brown et al, 2016). However, making choices about media may help provide learners with more perceived control and make them more engaged in the training.…”

“…From the learner perspective, we need to consider the extent to which learners actually use the learner control features designed into the training (Kraiger & Jerden, 2007;Brown et al, 2016). One interesting aspect of the nature of the learner control construct is that one cannot (by definition) require learners to use any of these training features even if the use of these features may enhance learning outcomes.…”