Frequent deadlines: Evaluating the effect of learner control on healthcare executives' performance in online learning

被引:11
作者
Fulton, Lawrence V. [1 ]
Ivanitskaya, Lana V. [2 ]
Bastian, Nathaniel D. [3 ]
Erofeev, Dmitry A. [4 ]
Mendez, Francis A. [2 ]
机构
[1] Texas State Univ, Dept Comp Informat Syst & Quantitat Methods, San Marcos, TX 78666 USA
[2] Cent Michigan Univ, Dept Hlth Adm, Mt Pleasant, MI 48859 USA
[3] Univ Maryland, Univ Coll, Dept Math, Adelphi, MD 20783 USA
[4] Cent Michigan Univ, Dept Business Adm, Mt Pleasant, MI 48859 USA
关键词
Computer assisted learning; Learner control; Practice distribution; Spacing effect; Locus of control; TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS; SELF-DETERMINATION; HYPERMEDIA; MOTIVATION; AUTONOMY; LOCUS; METAANALYSIS; PERSONALITY; EXPERIENCES; CAUSALITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.09.001
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
In a three-group, gender-matched, preexisting knowledge-controlled, randomized experiment, we evaluated the effect of learner control over study pace on healthcare executives' performance in an online statistics course. Overall, frequent deadlines enhanced distribution of practice and improved learning. Students with less control over pace (in groups with weekly deadlines) spaced their study episodes to a greater extent than their peers with more control over pace (in groups with monthly and end-of-course deadlines). Online learning experience and technology self-efficacy did not explain practice distribution effects. Student perceptions of control over how, when and in which order they learn did not differ significantly across experimental groups. However, perceived control and spaced practice were positively and significantly related to performance on tests of short delayed retention and near transfer. In addition, perceived control and spaced practice predicted performance on a test of delayed retention and far transfer. Locus of control did not explain differences in performance. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:24 / 32
页数:9
相关论文
共 38 条
[1]   A meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria [J].
Alliger, GM ;
Tannenbaum, SI ;
Bennett, W ;
Traver, H ;
Shotland, A .
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 1997, 50 (02) :341-358
[2]   EFFECTS OF EXTERNALLY IMPOSED DEADLINES ON SUBSEQUENT INTRINSIC MOTIVATION [J].
AMABILE, TM ;
DEJONG, W ;
LEPPER, MR .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1976, 34 (01) :92-98
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1966, PSYCHOL MONOGRAPHS
[4]   Procrastination, deadlines, and performance: Self-control by precommitment [J].
Ariely, D ;
Wertenbroch, K .
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2002, 13 (03) :219-224
[5]   Why is externally-facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia? [J].
Azevedo, Roger ;
Moos, Daniel C. ;
Greene, Jeffrey A. ;
Winters, Fielding I. ;
Crornley, Jennifer G. .
ETR&D-EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, 2008, 56 (01) :45-72
[6]   Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis [J].
Cepeda, Nicholas J. ;
Pashler, Harold ;
Vul, Edward ;
Wixted, John T. ;
Rohrer, Doug .
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 2006, 132 (03) :354-380
[7]   Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research [J].
Colquitt, JA ;
LePine, JA ;
Noe, RA .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2000, 85 (05) :678-707
[8]  
Copcha T. J., 2008, ED TECHNOLOGY RES DE, V56, P265
[9]   Dynamic task selection: Effects of feedback and learner control on efficiency and motivation [J].
Corbalan, Gemma ;
Kester, Liesbeth ;
van Merrienboer, Jeroen J. G. .
LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION, 2009, 19 (06) :455-465
[10]  
De-Cecco J.P., 1968, PSYCHOL LEARNING INS