Perceived Value of an Online Interactive Learning Tool and Its Critical Antecedents: An Abstract
With the rapid advancement of information technology, students show increasing interest in technology-enhanced pedagogies (Jackson et al., 2011; Sun et al., 2017), and experiential learning can be promoted by interactive online teaching. Previous study reveals that online courses with great levels of interactivity combine higher levels of student motivation, enhanced learning outcomes, and satisfaction over interactive learning environments (Espasa & Meneses, 2010). LearnSmart is an adaptive learning tool that evaluates students’ knowledge levels by tracking the topics students have mastered and thus identifies the areas that need further instruction and practice (Norman, 2011). Based on constructivism theory (Leidner & Jarvenpaa, 2006), it is important for marketing professors to emphasize the engaging learning experience among college students. This study extends the literature on interactive learning and teaching and empirically evaluates the perceived value of LearnSmart as a subjective evaluation measure of student learning effectiveness, with respect to several relevant factors in the literature such as perceived competence, perceived challenge, satisfaction with LearnSmart, semesters, instructors, course delivery format, and devices to access the course.
The data was collected through an online survey from several undergraduate marketing and management courses over two semesters, offered at a public university in the western US. Total of 236 valid questionnaires were received. All latent constructs were tested to have acceptable reliability (Churchill, 1979), as well as adequate convergent validity (McDonald & Ho, 2002) and discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The regression results showed that perceived competency (β = 0.408, p = 0.000), perceived challenge (β = 0.088, p = 0.017), and satisfaction with LearnSmart (β = 0.442, p = 0.000) are positively related to perceived value. In addition, perceived value of LearnSmart varies across different instructors (β = −0.355, p = 0.000), different course delivery formats (β = −0.184, p = 0.009), and different devices to access LearnSmart (β = −0.273, p = 0.029). However, no significant difference was found for perceived values across the two semesters.
The findings indicate that the use of LearnSmart improves student’s perceived competency and their satisfaction with LearnSmart, thus increasing their perceived value of using LearnSmart. Although perceived challenge is negatively associated with satisfaction with LearnSmart, it actually increases the perceived value of LearnSmart. One possible explanation is that students who are challenged might work harder and thus perceive better value from the use of LearnSmart. In addition, the devices used to access LearnSmart have a significant impact on perceived value of LearnSmart. Course delivery format was also found to negatively impact the perceived value of LearnSmart. Additional analysis would help disclose insights on the use of different devices and course delivery formats to enhance student learning experience and learning effectiveness.