The increase in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and other “in-the-moment” learning opportunities suggests the need for an understanding of how to effectively design the global learning environment, which includes more than the content, but also includes the modes of delivery or instructional design, as well as the environment in which the learner receives the content. Therefore, not only must the learning environment match the learning content, but also the technologies used and the characteristics of the learners (e.g., engagement, self-regulated learning). Additionally, the likelihood that online learners are multitasking while interacting with the learning material makes it important to understand other aspects of the learners’ selected environment. Unfortunately, there is little research on the learners’ environment in which the student interacts with the online materials. The purpose of this panel is to address and highlight these issues and offer suggestions for designing effective global learning environments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmickB.C.RobertsonM.M.FernleyM.KingT.K.IbrahimS.VanErdD.MacGregorSteenstraRobsonL. (2015). How to make office ergonomics training more effective: Findings from a field trial. Institute of Work and Health, Toronto, Canada. https://www.iwh.on.ca
2.
AndersonL. W.KrathwohlD. R.(Eds), AirasianP. W.CruikshankK. A.MayerR. E.PintrichP. R.RathsJ.WittrockM. C. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, New York, NY: Longman.
3.
ArghodeV.BriegerE. W.McLeanG. N. (2017) Adult learning theories: implications for online instruction, European Journal of Training and Development, 41(7), 593-609
4.
BachmanL. F. (2002). Alternative interpretations of alternative assessments: Some Validity issues in educational performance assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21, 5-18.
5.
BlickensderferE. L.StrallyS.DohertyS. (2012). The effects of scenario-based training on pilots’ use of an emergency, whole-plane parachute. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 22(2), 184-202.
6.
BoringR.L.LewR.UlrichT.A. (2016). Epistemiation: An approach for knowledge elicitation of expert users during product design. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 60, 1699-1703.
7.
BrinkerD. L.GastilJ.RichardsR. C. (2015). Inspiring and informing citizens online: A media richness analysis of varied civic education modalities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(5), 504-519. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12128
8.
ClarkR.C. (1989). Developing technical training: A structured approach for the development of classroom and computer-based instructional materials. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
CookD.A. (2005). The research we still are not doing: An agenda for the study of computer-based learning. Academic Medicine, 80(6), 541-548.
11.
DaftR. L.LengelR. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191-233.
12.
DunsworthQ.AtkinsonR. K. (2007). Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of an animated agent’s image. Computers & Education, 49(3), 677-690. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.010
13.
FoltzP.W.KintschW.LandauerT.K. (1998). The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 285-307
14.
FowlkesJ.BurkeS. (2006). Event-based approach to training (EBAT). Pp 47-1 to 47-5 in StantonN.HedgeA.BrookhuisK.SalasE.Hendrick’sH. (eds.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods, CRC press, Washington, D.C.
FurmanN.SibthorpJ. (2013). Leveraging experiential learning techniques for transfer. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 137, 17-26. DOI 10.1002/ace.20041
17.
GalaganP. A. (2000). The E-Learning Revolution. Training & Development, 54(12), 24-30.
18.
GastilJ. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
GreeneB.LDeJoyD.M.OlejnikS. (2005). Effects of an active ergonomics training program on risk exposure, worker beliefs, and symptoms in computer users. WORK: A journal for prevention, assessment, and rehabilitation. 24(1), 41 – 52.
20.
Greenhalgh T. (2001). Computer assisted learning in undergraduate medical education. British Medical Journal, 322(7277), 40-44.
JenkinsS. J.DownsE. (2003). Demographic, attitudes, and personality differences reported by students enrolled in online versus traditional courses. Psychological Reports, 93(1), 213-221. doi:10.2466/PR0.93.5.213-221
23.
JohnsonD. A.RubinS. (2011). Effectiveness of interactive computer-based instruction: A review of studies published between 1995 and 2007. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 31(1), 55-94. doi:10.1080/01608061.2010.541821
24.
Juul-KristensenB.SogaardK.StoyerJ. (2004). Computer users’ risk factors for developing shoulder, elbow and back symptoms – the ‘BIT’ study. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health. 30, 390-8.
25.
KennedyCAmickBBrewerSCatliSEvanoffBFranzblauAIrvinEDennerleinJWilliamsRSerraCGerrFRempelD (2008). Systematic review of the role of occupational health and safety interventions in the prevention of upper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms, signs, disorders, injuries, claims and lost time. Institute for Work & Health, Toronto, CA.
26.
KirkpatrickD. (1996). Revisiting Kirkpatrick’s four-level model. Training Development. 50(1), 54-59.
27.
ManwaringK. C.LarsenR.GrahamC. R.HenrieC. R.HalversonL. R. (2017). Investigating student engagement in blended learning settings using experience sampling and structural equation modeling. The Internet and Higher Education, 35, 3521-3533. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.06.00
28.
MerktM.SchwanS. (2014). How does interactivity in videos affect task performance?Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 172-181. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.018
29.
OrtizY.ThomasR. L.BlickensderferB.BeattieM.BoisJ. R.AllenM.CampbellJ.MikhailS. (2016). Flight simulation without an instructor: Missed approach due to weather. Proceedings of the 2016 Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC).
30.
RobertsonM.M. (2002). Macroergonomics in training systems development. In HendrickH…KleinerB.Macroergonomics theory, methods and applications, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.
31.
RossS. M.MorrisonG. R. (1989). In search of a happy medium in instructional technology research: Issues concerning external validity, media replications, and learner control. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 19-33.
32.
SheerV. C.ChenL. (2004). Improving media richness theory: A study of interaction goals, message valence, and task complexity in manager-subordinate communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 18(1), 76-93.
33.
SonC.ParkS.KimM. (2011). Linear text vs. non-linear hypertext in handheld computers: Effects on declarative and structural knowledge, and learner motivation. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 22(2), 241-257.
34.
StoneN. J. (2017). Online education: The how, who, where, and when. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 61th Annual Meeting, 1237-1241.
35.
StoneN. J.BazleyC. M.JacobsK.RobertsonM. M.BoringR. L.RiceV.CaldwellB. (2016). Environmental design in education and training: What do we know and where are we going?Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 60th Annual Meeting, 435-439.
36.
SwezeyR.W.LlanerasR.E. (1977). Models in training and instruction, in Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2nd ed., SalvendyG., Ed., Wiley, New York, pp. 514-577.
37.
WisherR.A.ChampagneM. (2000). Distance learning and training: An evaluation perspective. In TobiasS.FletcherJ. (Eds.), Training and retraining: A handbook for business, industry, government, and military. New York: Macmillan Reference USA.
