Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10824-5

Psychological capital development effectiveness

of face-to-face, online, and Micro-learning interventions

Justin W. Carter1 · Carolyn Youssef‑Morgan2

Received: 26 May 2021 / Accepted: 17 November 2021 / Published online: 19 January 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
There is growing empirical support for the benefits of developing psychological cap-
ital (PsyCap), and the effectiveness of PsyCap interventions (PCIs) in the workplace.
However, to-date, PCI delivery modes have not been compared. The first study in
this article compares a face-to-face to an online PCI. The second study compares
an online PCI to a micro-learning PCI utilizing a mobile application. Results from
228 participants assessed three times (before, immediately after, and six weeks after
PCI completion) support the effectiveness and comparability of the three delivery
modes, but also highlight notable advantages for online and micro-learning.

Keywords Psychological capital · Hope · Optimism · Resilience · Self-efficacy ·

Online learning · Microlearning

The unprecedented measures taken during the Covid-19 pandemic have left perma-
nent marks on life and business. As many organizations (e.g., businesses, schools,
dining, entertainment) have been forced to switch to remote, minimal contact, or
virtual settings, there is a renewed focus and need for online learning. Addition-
ally, social distancing and remote working during the pandemic has been shown to
result in a host of mental health problems, including increased feelings of loneliness,
helplessness, fear, and anxiety; decreased productivity; and a diminished sense of
control in general. These adverse effects were evident, even among employees of
multinational technology companies that specialize in internet-related services, such
as Google, Amazon, and Facebook (Robinson, 2020).
As a result, there is growing interest in positivity and wellbeing in general, and
more specifically positive psychological interventions that can facilitate coping and
promote wellbeing (Bolier et al., 2013; Seligman et al., 2005; Sin & Lyubomirsky,
2009). These positive interventions can help supplement other professional mental

* Justin W. Carter
[email protected]
1
University of North Alabama, 1 Harrison Plaza, Florence, AL 35632, USA
2
Bellevue University, 1000 Galvin Rd S, Bellevue, NE 68005, USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
6554 Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575

health services, or fill gaps where these services are unavailable. Moreover, they can
have wider reach because they can be successfully implemented in everyday con-
texts (e.g., schools, workplaces). Importantly, positive interventions are accessible
to individuals who do not necessarily meet the criteria for a mental health diagnosis,
but for those who do, positive interventions do not have the same stigma as pursuing
treatment for mental illness, which makes them attractive to a wider population base
(Broad & Luthans, 2020; Luthans & Broad, in press).
Positive psychology has been instrumental in promoting the study and applica-
tion of positivity in various life domains. Positive organizational behavior, a more
specific application of positive psychology, focuses on the study and application of
four specific positive psychological resources that can be measured and developed
to promote performance and wellbeing (Luthans, 2002a). Hope, efficacy, resilience,
and optimism have been integrated into a multidimensional construct psychological
capital (PsyCap), which is defined as “an individual’s positive psychological state
of development that is characterized by: (1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take
on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a posi-
tive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering
toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to suc-
ceed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back
and even beyond (resilience) to attain success” (Luthans et al., 2015, p.2).
Interventions to increase PsyCap have been successfully administered face-to-
face (Dello Russo & Stoykova, 2015; Demerouti et al., 2011; Ertosun et al., 2015;
Luthans et al., 2006; Luthans et al., 2010; Luthans et al., 2014; Stratman & Youssef-
Morgan, 2019) and online (Luthans et al., 2008). However, no study to-date has
compared the effectiveness of these two approaches. Moreover, online learning is
not a single method. There are numerous approaches and technologies available for
online learning, some of which have been implemented in the context of positive
psychology (Baños et al., 2017). However, research that directly compares the effec-
tiveness of these alternative approaches and technologies is lacking in general, and
particularly in the context of PsyCap development.
This study endeavors to fill these gaps, by comparing the effectiveness of face-
to-face and two types of online PsyCap development interventions. The first online
PsyCap development intervention follows the most common approach to online
learning, which is delivering identical content to face-to-face learning on an online
platform. The second PsyCap development intervention follows a “micro-learning”
approach, in which content is delivered gradually in shorter modules over a six-
week period, allowing participants more time to cognitively process and apply that
content in-between modules.

1 Psychological capital

In a special edition of the American Psychologist, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi

(2000) highlight the need for research that focuses on human excellence and posi-
tivity, rather than just mental illness and other deficits. Their call to action spear-
headed the field of study coined “positive psychology” which quickly found its way

13
Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575 6555

into the workplace (Cameron et al., 2003) and many other life domains. Positive
organizational behavior focuses on specific positive psychological resources that can
be measured, developed, and managed, with evidence for impact on performance
and wellbeing (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). Grounded in positive psychology and
evidence-based management, PsyCap is a multidimensional higher order construct
that synergistically includes four resources: hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism
(Luthans et al., 2007).

Hope Hope is defined as “a positive motivational state that is based on an interac-

tively derived sense of successful (1) agency (goal-directed energy) and (2) path-
ways (planning to meet goals)” (Snyder et al., 1991, p. 287). Hope is a positive state
that exhibits agency (willpower) and pathways (waypower) in the pursuit of goals
(Snyder, 1994). Agency is the belief that one can influence action (Bandura, 1998).
Pathways involve the ability to generate multiple options and ways to overcome
obstacles when pursuing a goal. Individuals with hope view goals through the lens
of success, which gives them an “empowering way of thinking” (Snyder, 1994, p.2).

Self‑efficacy Self-efficacy is defined as “one’s conviction (or confidence) about his

or her ability to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action
needed to successfully execute a specific task within a given context” (Stajkovic &
Luthans, 1998, p. 66). Self-efficacy is considered “the foundation of action” (Ban-
dura, 1998, p.52). It requires observation and self-reflection by the individual (Ban-
dura, 1997). It is central to social cognitive theory, which argues that an individual’s
development is influenced by both social learning and internal agency (Bandura,
2001). Therefore, it is the ability to self-reflect on cause and effect relationships that
strengthens self-efficacy, ultimately promoting self-directed actions and the pursuit
of challenging goals (Bandura, 1997; Bandura, 1998; Bandura, 2001).

Resilience Luthans (2002b, p.702) defines resilience as “the capacity to rebound or

bounce back from adversity, conflict, failure, or even positive events, progress, and
increased responsibility.” Resilience is the ability to move on from a negative expe-
rience in a positive way (Tugade et al., 2004). This implies that resilience is not
simply bouncing back, but also reacting and adapting effectively to both negative
and positive (but possibly challenging or overwhelming) events, learning from and
growing through them. In other words, resilience involves not only going back to
‘normal’ after a challenge or a setback, but reaching new heights of strength and
growth. Resilience is influenced by the assessment of risks, assets, and adaptational
processes (Masten, 2001).

Optimism Tiger (1979) defines optimism as a “mood or attitude associated with an

expectation about the social or material future - one which the evaluator regards as
socially desirable, to his advantage, or for his please” (p.18). Optimism is a learned
thought process of explaining the causes of events (Seligman, 1998) where posi-
tive events are attributed to personal, permanent, and pervasive causes, and nega-
tive events to external, temporary, and situational causes (Buchanan & Seligman,

13
6556 Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575

1995). Optimistic individuals link negative events to external sources and positive
events to internal sources (Seligman, 1998), allowing them to take credit for positive
events, and distance themselves from the harmful effects of negative events, espe-
cially when they cannot be changed or altered (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). However,
this view is grounded in reality (Schneider, 2001). Therefore, optimism is a learned
realistic positive assessment of causes when an event takes place. In addition to this
attributional perspective, optimism is also an overall positive outlook that involves
positive future expectancies in general. In other words, optimists generally expect
good things to happen (Mens et al., 2016).

Psychological capital as a higher‑order construct PsyCap is a multidimensional

higher order construct with interrelated dimensions. Although each of the four
resources has been independently theorized, measured, and empirically supported
(Bandura, 1997; Masten, 2001; Seligman, 1998; Snyder, 2000), their convergent
and discriminant validity have been established (Bryant & Cvengros, 2004; Carifio
& Rhodes, 2002; Magaletta & Oliver, 1999). Luthans and Youssef (2007) argue,
and Luthans et al. (2007) empirically show that the four psychological resources
work together and have more predictive power than any of the individual resources.
Luthans et al. (2007) describe the commonality between hope, self-efficacy, resil-
ience, and optimism as a “positive appraisal of circumstances and probability for
success based on motivated effort and perseverance” (p. 550). Therefore, each
resource contributes to PsyCap’s internalized agency, positive expectancies, motiva-
tion, and perseverance. Stajkovic (2006) argues that hope, self-efficacy, resilience,
and optimism share a common foundation referred to as “core confidence” (p.1209).

2 Psychological capital and positive outcomes

PsyCap is positively related to multiple desirable attitudes, behaviors, and perfor-

mance, and negatively related to undesirable outcomes (Avey et al., 2011; Luthans
et al., 2007). For example, PsyCap is negatively related to stress and anxiety (Avey
et al., 2009), unsafe workplace behaviors (Stratman & Youssef-Morgan, 2019), cyn-
icism, intentions to quit, and counterproductive work behaviors (Avey, Luthans, &
Youssef, 2010a). Conversely, PsyCap has been found to predict positive attitudes
such as job satisfaction (Luthans et al., 2007), organizational citizenship behaviors
(Avey et al., 2010b, b), general wellbeing and satisfaction with various life domains
(Avey et al., 2010b, b; Luthans et al., 2013).
Performance is the most researched work-related outcome for PsyCap (Avey
et al., 2011), and PsyCap has been shown to be a better predictor of work perfor-
mance than any of the four sub-constructs individually (Luthans et al., 2007). Lon-
gitudinally, changes in PsyCap over time predict both performance ratings (Carter
& Youssef-Morgan, 2019) and sales performance (Peterson et al., 2011), and both
leader and follower PsyCap interact to positively predict performance (Walumbwa
et al., 2010). A meta-analysis using 51 independent samples found a significant
positive relationship between PsyCap and self-reported performance measures,
performance evaluations, and objective performance measures, with no significant

13
Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575 6557

differences between the different types (Avey et al., 2011). Additionally, PsyCap was
found to have a positive ROI for organizations (Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Beyond
work performance, PsyCap has also been shown to predict academic performance
(Martínez et al., 2019), as well as health and relationships (Luthans et al., 2013).
These findings highlight the importance of developing PsyCap.

3 Psychological capital development interventions

Luthans (2002a) argues that positive organizational behavior resources must be open
to development. The requirement of being open to development is an important dis-
tinction from many other positive psychology concepts. Luthans and Youssef (2007)
place PsyCap in an intermediate “state-like” position on the trait-state continuum.
Traits and trait-like constructs (e.g., intelligence, personality) are stable and difficult
to change, while states (e.g. emotions) are volatile and momentary. On the other
hand, state-like resources such as PsyCap can be developed through short inter-
ventions, with reasonably sustainable benefits (Luthans & Youssef, 2007; Luthans
& Youssef-Morgan, 2017). For example, Dello Russo and Stoykova (2015) show
the durability of PsyCap development effects over time, which supports its state-
like nature. This notion is also supported by Corbu et al. (2021) recent study, which
shows PsyCap increased significantly directly after a positive micro-coaching inter-
vention, and the increase was sustained four months after.
There is growing evidence for the effectiveness of PsyCap development interven-
tions (Dello Russo & Stoykova, 2015; Luthans et al., 2008; Luthans et al., 2010;
Luthans et al., 2014; Stratman & Youssef-Morgan, 2019). The development of Psy-
Cap does not require a large investment of time or resources and can be accom-
plished in a few hours (Luthans et al., 2006), and these interventions can have a
positive return on investment if done thoughtfully (Youssef-Morgan, 2014).
The synergistic nature of the four positive psychological resources that constitute
PsyCap led Luthans et al. (2006) to develop a prototype for psychological capital
interventions (PCIs) that aim to develop these resources together, rather than one
at a time. This “shotgun” approach has been found to be more effective in posi-
tive psychological interventions in general (Seligman et al., 2005; Sin & Lyubomir-
sky, 2009). In a typical PCI, participants set clearly defined goals and subgoals. The
goals should be measurable, internalized, challenging, and framed as approach-ori-
ented, rather than avoidance-oriented. Participants work through a process of iden-
tifying multiple pathways to accomplish their goals, addressing potential obstacles,
listing available resources, and mentally rehearsing their journey of goal pursuit.
These exercises build the participant’s hope, self-efficacy, resilience and optimism.
Although the original PCI developed by Luthans et al. (2006) was a face-to-face
intervention, additional studies show that online learning can also be effective in
developing participants’ PsyCap (Luthans et al., 2008). The development of Psy-
Cap online through remote and technologically-enabled learning tools is particu-
larly appealing in the current environment due to the shift of work, education, ser-
vices, and many other areas of life to virtual settings. This trend has been on the
rise prior to COVID-19, but was accelerated by the pandemic. Moreover, successful

13
6558 Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575

implementation and experience gained through the pandemic are likely to make
this trend persist in the long term. Broad and Luthans (2020) argue that developing
PsyCap remotely and using new technologies is a necessity in the emerging “fourth
industrial revolution” that has been accelerated by COVID-19, but more impor-
tantly by an increasingly Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous (VUCA)
environment. In this environment, there is an immense need for positivity in order
to promote mental health and overcome the harmful side effects of isolation and
rapid change. Simultaneously, there are unprecedented opportunities to capital-
ize on technology and deliver evidence-based positive interventions to all types of
audiences to promote wellbeing and performance. These opportunities go beyond
just online delivery, which has become commonplace in many educational settings.
For these reasons, this study attempts to compare the effectiveness of two of these
options, namely online versus microlearning, in comparison to traditional face-to-
face learning.

4 Online and face‑to‑face learning

Over a decade ago, Lam (2009) asserted that face-to-face instruction made up the
vast majority of delivery methods used. Online instruction attempts to mirror face-
to-face delivery, but take place electronically through online platforms (Sampson,
2003), while face-to-face instruction takes place in person. Although face-to-face
instruction has dominated over the last decade, web-based instruction has quickly
grown in popularity because of its flexibility, cost effectiveness, and potential to
reach a larger audience (Greenhalgh, 2001), and has grown exponentially due to
COVID-19 (Lieberman, 2020).
From its early beginnings, online learning has generated much debate around its
effectiveness (Stromso & Braten, 2010; Robinson & Hullinger, 2008), especially
in comparison to face-to-face learning. Russell’s (1999) No Significant Difference
Phenomenon utilized evidence to-date to build compelling arguments and settle that
debate. In support of online learning, and to refute arguments against its effective-
ness, Russell (1999) provides an in-depth review of numerous studies that compares
the two approaches from a broad spectrum of subjects, asserting that there is no sig-
nificant difference between them.
More recent studies have also concluded that there is no significant difference
between online and face-to-face instruction for learning languages (Ghonsooly &
Seyyedrezaie, 2014), evidence-based medicine (Davis et al., 2008) fall prevention
practices (Maloney et al., 2012), and evaluation methodologies (Francescato et al.,
2006).
However, there are those that have questioned the validity of the evidence for
the equivalence of online and face-to-face learning. Merisotis and Phipps (1999)
pointed out that the majority of the studies used in Russell’s (1999) research failed
to control for extraneous variables or use valid tools to measure outcomes. There are
also plenty of studies with conflicting conclusions. Summers et al. (2005) compared
the grades for students in an online and face-to-face introductory statistics class and
found no significant difference in performance, but Wakil et al. (2019) more recently

13
Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575 6559

found a highly significant difference in grades between online and face-to-face stu-
dents in a tenth grade statistics course. Similarly, Motiwalla and Tello (2000) posited
that online students are more satisfied with their courses, but Johnson et al. (2000)
found that face-to-face students had more positive perceptions about their instructor
and overall course quality.
Sanders (2006) argues that online platforms can’t replicate the serendipitous
moments of learning that happen naturally with the physical presence of an instruc-
tor and peers. Jenkins (2009) adds that online learning can create a “participation
gap” for certain populations that lack the resources needed. Patterson and McFad-
den (2009) found that online programs had six to seven times higher dropout rates
when compared to face-to-face programs. Conversely, Kearns et al. (2004) found
that online nursing students perform better when compared to face-to-face students.
More specific to psychological interventions, online programs have been effective
in developing stress management techniques (Zetterqvist et al., 2003) and improv-
ing cognitive wellbeing (Mitchell et al., 2009), supporting the argument that online
learning can go beyond basic skills and influence mental health. A recent meta-anal-
ysis by Carlbring et al. (2018) shows that online cognitive behavior therapy is just as
effective as face-to-face cognitive behavior therapy. Similarly, a meta-analysis of 92
internet-based psychotherapeutic interventions showed comparable effectiveness to
face-to-face therapy (Barak et al., 2008).
Even more specific to positive psychological interventions, online learning has
been shown to be effective in inducing positive emotions and reinforcing psycho-
logical resources (Baños et al., 2014) and promoting self-compassion and optimism
(Shapira and Mongrain (2010). Strengths-based positive interventions have also
been shown to be effective in enhancing wellbeing and alleviating depression (Gan-
der et al., 2013; Proyer et al., 2014). Considering the balance of this evidence, we
anticipate face-to-face and online PsyCap development interventions to be compa-
rable in effectiveness. In other words, we expect no significant difference between
face-to-face and online PCIs.

Hypothesis 1. There is no significant difference between face-to-face and online

PCI.

5 Micro‑learning

Despite the rapid growth in online learning, the methods used for online learn-
ing have remained relatively static (Buchem & Hamelmann, 2010). As a result,
online programs have struggled to adapt to the demands of today’s adult learners
that require short learning opportunities (Gassler et al., 2004) preferably on mobile
devices (Agah & Ayse, 2011). While typical online learning focuses on replicat-
ing face-to-face instruction using an online platform, micro-learning takes complex
topics and breaks them down into smaller learning modules, spaced out over time.
Although there is no unified definition of micro-learning at this time (Mohammed
et al., 2018), the basic pedagogy centers on learning in short segments (Major &
Calandrino, 2018). This approach is compatible with today’s communication and

13
6560 Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575

information delivery. The use of mobile technology has provided a cost-effective

way to space out instruction, providing the learner time to reflect on the material
before moving to the next topic. Mobile devices have the additional benefit of being
always available, personalized to the user, and adaptable to their owner’s schedule
and location (Wong, 2012).
Although the concept of micro-learning is relatively new, breaking down com-
plex information into smaller digestible chunks can be traced back to distributed
learning (Youtz, 1941) and spaced learning (Ebbinghaus, 1964). The distributed
learning effect refers to the increase in retention when information is presented over
multiple small sessions distributed across time (Litman & Davachi, 2008). Bruck
et al. (2012) point out that a key characteristic of micro-learning is the time required
to complete each assignment. Goodyear (2006) argues that time is oddly under-
examined in the online learning literature. Typically, micro-activities are between
two to ten minutes each (Cole & Torgerson, 2017). When compared to mass learn-
ing sessions conducted at one time, distributed learning has been shown to provide a
mnemonic advantage in the learning process (Cepeda et al., 2006; Janiszewski et al.,
2003). Specifically, it increases memory consolidation (Litman & Davachi, 2008).
This notion is supported by cognition theories, which highlight limitations on the
amount of information that can be processed in short-term memory at any given
time (Cowan, 2001).
Similarly, the spacing effect is well established in memory literature. Spaced rep-
etitions have been shown to produce superior interpolation and extrapolation per-
formance (Cepeda et al., 2006). A meta-analysis performed by Donovan and Rado-
sevich (1999) supports that information presented over spaced periods has a clear
advantage in the amount of learning that occurs when compared to material pre-
sented in a single session. Additionally, participants in spaced practice conditions
perform significantly higher when compared to those in mass practice conditions
(Donovan & Radosevich, 1999). Although the majority of research on spaced meth-
ods focused on basic skill development, Cole and Torgerson (2017) argue that this
approach can also be used for more complex topics. Their assertion is supported in
complex domains such as medical training (Moulton et al., 2006), statistics (Smith
& Rothkopf, 1984), biology (Reynolds & Glaser, 1964), sales training (Kauffeld &
Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2010), and artistic styles (Kornell & Bjork, 2008).
Micro-learning presents information in the most common way people learn today.
Mobile devices are the fastest growing technology worldwide. In 2020 there are 5.24
billion unique mobile device users around the world, and this number is expected
to increase to 7.33 billion in 2023 (Turner, 2020). Rapid adoption of smartphones,
along with online platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, have opened up new
pathways of communication using condensed content. At the same time student
attention spans have continued to decrease over the last thirteen years (Mohammed
et al., 2018). Micro-learning embraces these changes by taking condensed short-
form information focused on a singular topic, referred to as micro-content, and pro-
ducing micro-activities through mobile applications (Skalka & Drlík, 2018), with
the purpose of breaking down complex information into more manageable chunks.
The literature on the effectiveness of micro-learning is limited. However,
Mohammed et al. (2018) found that primary school students perform 18% better

13
Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575 6561

using micro-learning when compared to students taught under the traditional

method. Similarly, international property law students at Dresden University
of Technology in Germany performed 20% better on assessment questions and
8 % better on computational questions after micro-learning (Kapp et al., 2015).
Additionally, micro-learning has been successfully implemented in workplace
learning initiatives (Werkle et al., 2015), including patient safety training (Gross
et al., 2019). Given its cost-effective nature and potential, it is not surprising that
93% of organizations plan to increase the use of micro-learning (Cole & Torg-
erson, 2017). Therefore, this study aims to compare the effectiveness of online
and micro-learning in the context of PsyCap development. Based on earlier argu-
ments, we expect both types of learning to be comparable. In other words, we
expect no significant difference between online and micro-learning PCIs.

Hypothesis 2. There is no significant difference between online and micro-

learning PCI.

6 Methods

6.1 Sample, design and procedures

Participants were employees at a large, well-established U.S.-based construction

materials supplier. The company has over 6500 employees in more than 400 facil-
ities in 21 states. The training was conducted in two waves, which constituted the
samples for Study 1 and Study 2, respectively.

Study 1 sample The sample for this study included 118 participants. Aver-
age tenure was 5.17 years (SD = 3.52 years). Average years of education (high
school = 13 years) was 12.68 years (SD = 1.12 years). The sample included 27%
females and 48% minorities. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups.
The first group (N = 60) received a face-to-face PsyCap development intervention.
The second group (N = 58) received an online PsyCap development intervention.
Participants completed assessments of their PsyCap and successful goal achieve-
ment before, immediately after, and six weeks after the intervention. Four partici-
pants in the first group, and three participants in the second group, did not complete
the assessments six weeks after the intervention.

Study 2 sample The sample for this study included 110 participants. Aver-
age tenure was 4.94 years (SD = 3.48 years). Average years of education (high
school = 13 years) was 12.72 years (SD = 1.11 years). The sample included 20%
females and 48% minorities. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups.
The first group (N = 56) received a micro-learning PsyCap development inter-
vention. The second group (N = 54) received an online PsyCap development

13
6562 Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575

intervention. Five participants in the first group, and four participants in the second
group, did not complete the assessments six weeks after the intervention.

6.2 The PsyCap development interventions

The PCI was designed in strict adherence to the guidelines provided in Luthans et al.
(2006), Luthans et al. (2015), and Luthans and Youssef-Morgan (2017), and applied
in all PsyCap development interventions to-date. Specifically, participants were first
asked to identify a recent adverse situation they had experienced. This event was
used as the foundation for the first two exercises focused on increasing the partici-
pants’ ability to accurately frame events. Participants were then asked to make a
list of their current goals, prioritize those goals, and select one to focus on for the
remainder of the course. Using the participants’ goals as the foundation, the remain-
ing exercises focused on designing strategies to leverage resources, pinpointing
potential pathways, and identifying obstacles. Each module introduced a new con-
cept and allowed the participant to use what they had learned in guided exercises.
The content of the face-to-face, online, and micro-learning PCIs was identical.
Participants completed the components sequentially. However, the face-to-face and
online PCIs presented all the modules in one three-hour session. The micro-learning
PCI presented one module each week. The face-to-face PCI was facilitated by an
instructor in a classroom at the corporate office of the organization. The online PCI
was hosted on the organization’s learning management system. The micro-learning
PCI was delivered using a mobile application.

6.3 Variables and measures

PsyCap was measured using the 24-item psychological capital questionnaire (PCQ-
24; Luthans et al., 2007). This measure includes six items measuring each of the
PsyCap resources (hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism). Cronbach’s Alphas for
this scale before, immediately after, and six weeks after the intervention were .895,
.911, and .905 in Study 1; and .885, .931, and .926 in Study 2.
In addition to PsyCap, a single-item outcome variable, successful goal achieve-
ment, was assessed using the following question: “Up to today, how successful have
you been in achieving the goals set during your performance dialogues?” This item
was also rated on a six-point scale. This variable was also assessed immediately
after, and six weeks after the intervention.
Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the measurement model.
To maintain an acceptable sample-to-item ratio, content-based parceling (Lan-
dis et al., 2000) was used to reduce the number of PsyCap indicators. Specifi-
cally, the six items measuring each of the PsyCap resources were averaged, which
resulted in four indicators for PsyCap. The measurement model showed excel-
lent fit. Sample 1 fit indices were as follows: before intervention, X2(5) = 3.640,
p = .602, X2/df = .728, CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = .000; immediately after intervention,
X2(5) = 1.430, p = .921, X2/df = .286, CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = .000; and six weeks

13
Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575 6563

after intervention, X2(5) = 1.988, p = .851, X2/df = .398, CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = .000.
Sample 2 fit indices were as follows: immediately before intervention, X2(5) = 5.328,
p = .377, X2/df = 1.066, CFI = .996, RMSEA = .025; immediately after intervention,
X2(5) = 6.517, p = .259, X2/df = 1.303, CFI = .991, RMSEA = .053; and six weeks
after intervention, X2(5) = 8.060, p = .153, X2/df = 1.612, CFI = .983, RMSEA = .075.

7 Results

7.1 Descriptive statistics

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables are pre-
sented in Table 1.

7.2 Pre‑intervention group equivalence

Before examining the relative effectiveness of the PCIs in developing PsyCap

and promoting successful goal achievement, it is important to ensure that random
assignment yielded equivalent groups in both studies. There were no significant dif-
ferences between the online and face-to-face groups in Study 1 with respect to pre-
intervention PsyCap [F (1,116) = .343, p = .559], pre-intervention successful goal
achievement [F (1,116) = .122, p = .727], tenure [F (1,116) = .720, p = .398] educa-
tion [F (1,97) = 2.662, p = .106], gender [X2(1) = .277, p = .680], or race (minority vs.
nonminority) [X2(1) = .296, p = .713].
Similarly, there were no significant differences between the online and
micro-learning groups in Study 2 with respect to pre-intervention PsyCap
[F (1,108) = 1.425, p = .235], pre-intervention successful goal achievement

Table 1  Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among the Study Variables

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

Study 1 (N = 111)
1. PsyCap T1 4.69 .490 .895
2. PsyCap T2 4.89 .446 .970** .911
3. PsyCap T3 4.87 .445 .974** .996** .905
4. Goal Achievement T1 4.88 .584 .214* .173 .176 NA
5. Goal Achievement T2 4.92 .542 .231* .189* .193* .947** NA
6. Goal Achievement T3 5.06 .510 .139 .107 .116 .636** .710** NA
Study 2 (N = 101)
1. PsyCap T1 4.67 .477 .885
2. PsyCap T2 4.92 .505 .961** .931
3. PsyCap T3 4.90 .497 .965** .997** .926
4. Goal Achievement T1 4.89 .598 −.031 −.013 −.016 NA
5. Goal Achievement T2 4.95 .572 .013 .022 .018 .831** NA
6. Goal Achievement T3 5.08 .483 .091 .114 .139 .410** .484** NA

13
6564 Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575

[F (1,108) = .454, p = .502], tenure [F (1,108) = .266, p = .607] education [F

(1,94) = 1.245, p = .267], gender ­[X2(1) = 1.782, p = .235], and race (minority vs.
nonminority) ­[X2(1) = .151, p = .708]. Thus, pre-intervention group equivalence is
supported.

7.3 Intervention effectiveness

Because each study included a between-subjects variable (PCI: face-to-face vs.

online in Study 1, online vs. micro-learning in Study 2) and a within-subjects vari-
able (repeated measures of PsyCap over time), two-way mixed-design ANOVA was
used. This method allowed us to concurrently compare the effectiveness of two PCIs
in each study in developing PsyCap and promoting successful goal achievement
over time, and to examine the interaction between PCI and time in order to explore
potential differences in change patterns.

Fig. 1  Effectiness of face-to- (a)

face, online, and micro-learning
PCIs

(b)

13
Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575 6565

Study 1 results Mixed-Design ANOVA results of Study 1 are shown in Fig. 1.

With respect to PsyCap, the main effect of PCI was not significant [F
(1,109) = .004, p = .949]. Thus, online and face-to-face PCIs yielded comparable
results in terms of PsyCap development. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assump-
tion of sphericity has been violated [W = .306, ­X2(2) = 128.020, p = .000]. Therefore,
degrees of freedom were corrected using Greehouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity
(Ɛ = .590). As shown in Fig. 1(a), there was a significant main effect for time [F
(1.18,128.662) = 302.602, p = .000]. Bonferroni corrected post hoc tests and tests of
within-subjects contrasts indicated that PsyCap increased significantly immediately
after the intervention [F (1,109) = 322.104, p = .000], and then decreased signifi-
cantly six weeks later [F (1,109) = 21.408, p = .000]. A quadratic contrast was also
supported [F (1,109) = 274.005, p = .000]. This reversal is consistent with the state-
like nature of PsyCap. However, PsyCap six weeks after the intervention was still
significantly higher than pre-intervention PsyCap (p = .000). Furthermore, there was
a significant interaction between time and PCI [F (1.18,128.662) = 9.556, p = .001].
Specifically, the online group experienced a steeper increase in PsyCap than the
face-to-face group immediately after the intervention [F(1,109) = 7.669, p = .007],
but a comparable reversal six weeks later [F(1,109) = 2.265, p = .135], as shown in
Fig. 1(a).
With respect to successful goal achievement, again the main effect of PCI (online
vs. face-to-face) was not significant [F (1,109) = .201, p = .655], indicating both
PCIs yielded comparable results. Again, Mauchly’s test indicated that the assump-
tion of sphericity has been violated [W = .372, ­X2(2) =106.674, p = .000]. Therefore,
degrees of freedom were corrected using Greehouse-Geisser estimates of spheric-
ity (Ɛ = .614). As shown in Fig. 1(b), there was a significant main effect for time
[F (1.229,133.942) = 14.376, p = .000]. Bonferroni corrected post hoc tests indicated
that successful goal achievement did not change significantly immediately after the
intervention (p = .132), but did increase significantly six weeks later (p = .000). This
delayed change supports PsyCap development as the driving force toward success-
ful goal achievement. PsyCap increased immediately after the intervention, then
successful goal achievement increased six weeks later. On the other hand, tests of
within-subjects contrasts indicated that successful goal achievement significantly
increased, both immediately after the intervention [F (1,109) = 4.152, p = .044] and
six weeks later [F (1,109) = 14.202, p = .000], although the immediate change was
substantially smaller than the long term change. A quadratic contrast was also sup-
ported [F (1,109) = 7.571, p = .007]. The interaction between time and PCI was not
significant [F (1.229,133.942) = .163, p = .739], indicating that both groups expe-
rienced a similar pattern of successful goal achievement over time, as shown in
Fig. 1(b).

Study 2 results Mixed-Design ANOVA results of Study 2 are shown in Fig. 2. The
results were remarkably similar to Study 1.
With respect to PsyCap, the main effect of PCI was not significant [F
(1,99) = 2.033, p = .157]. Thus, online and micro-learning yielded comparable
results in terms of PsyCap development. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assump-
tion of sphericity has been violated [W = .270, ­X2(2) = 128.138, p = .000]. Therefore,

13
6566 Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575

Fig. 2  Convergent parallel (a)

mixed method design (Creswell,
2013)

(b)

degrees of freedom were corrected using Greehouse-Geisser estimates of spheric-

ity (Ɛ = .578). As shown in Fig. 2(a), there was a significant main effect for time
[F (1.156,114.483) = 323.059, p = .000]. Similar to Study 1, Bonferroni corrected
post hoc tests and tests of within-subjects contrasts indicated that PsyCap increased
significantly immediately after the intervention [F (1,99) = 337.329, p = .000], and
then decreased significantly six weeks later [F (1,99) = 14.038, p = .000]. A quad-
ratic contrast was also supported [F (1,99) = 285.027, p = .000]. Again, PsyCap six
weeks after the intervention was still significantly higher than pre-intervention Psy-
Cap (p = .000). Furthermore, there was a significant interaction between time and
PCI [F (1.156,114.483) = 13.976, p = .000]. Specifically, the micro-learning group
experienced a steeper increase in PsyCap than the online group immediately after
the intervention [F(1,99) = 13.720, p = .000], but a comparable reversal six weeks
later [F(1,99) = 0.000, p = .992], as shown in Fig. 2(a). A quadratic contrast was also
supported for this interaction [F (1,99) = 10.241, p = .002].

13
Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575 6567

With respect to successful goal achievement, again the main effect of PCI (online
vs. micro-learning) was not significant [F (1,99) = 1.288, p = .259], indicating both
PCIs yielded comparable results. Again, Mauchly’s test indicated that the assump-
tion of sphericity has been violated [W = .666, ­X2(2) =39.896, p = .000]. Therefore,
degrees of freedom were corrected using Greehouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity
(Ɛ = .749). As shown in Fig. 2(b), there was a significant main effect for time [F
(1.499,148.379) = 7.328, p = .003]. Bonferroni corrected post hoc tests and tests of
within-subjects contrasts indicated that successful goal achievement only margin-
ally increased immediately after the intervention [F (1,99) = 3.119, p = .080], but
did increase significantly six weeks later [F (1,99) = 5.694, p = .019]. The interac-
tion between time and PCI was not significant [F (1.499,148.379) = 1.247, p = .283].
However, upon examination of the within-subjects contrasts, and as shown in
Fig. 2(b), the two groups experienced different patterns of successful goal achieve-
ment. Whereas the micro-learning group experienced a nearly steady increase in
successful goal achievement, the online group experienced a slight decrease imme-
diately after the intervention, followed by a comparable increase six weeks later.
Thus, there was a significant difference between the two PCIs in their change in
successful goal achievement before and immediately after the intervention [F
(1,99) = 5.609, p = .020].

7.4 Replicability

The two studies provided an opportunity for examining replicability of the results.
Specifically, we compared the online groups from both studies to examine the sta-
bility of the findings across samples. Examination of pre-intervention equiva-
lence yielded no significant differences between the two online groups. Mixed-
design ANOVA yielded a significant main effect for time only, but not for group or
group*time interaction. Thus, the results of the intervention were replicated with
remarkable consistency across the two online groups in the two studies.

8 Discussion

Despite common suspicions regarding the efficacy of online learning compared to

face-to-face learning, consistent with Russell’s (1999) No Significant Difference,
this study shows that these two approaches yield comparable results in the context of
PsyCap development. Specifically, the effects of a face-to-face and an online PCI on
PsyCap and successful goal achievement were similar. Moreover, a third approach,
micro-learning, where content is disseminated in smaller units over a longer period
of time, was examined in comparison with online learning. Again, overall, the
micro-learning and online PCI appear to yield comparable results. Overall, there
was remarkable consistency across the three PCIs and the two studies reported.
However, there are also some subtle but important differences to be noted.
Although the overall results are comparable (immediate increase in PsyCap followed

13
6568 Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575

by reversal; delayed increase in successful goal achievement), it appears that micro-

learning yields the steepest immediate post-intervention results, both in PsyCap
development and in successful goal achievement. With respect to successful goal
achievement, the delayed results in the face-to-face and online PCIs are expected,
because the face-to-face and online PCIs were administered in one session. Thus,
participants did not have any opportunity to improve their goal achievement efforts
between the first two measurements (immediately before and immediately after PCI
completion). In contrast, the micro-learning PCI was administered over a six-week
period. Thus, participants had time to capitalize on earlier modules to improve their
goal achievement in the interim. On the other hand, the steeper increase in PsyCap
immediately after the micro-learning PCI provides evidence that administering the
same content in shorter modules over a longer time period may be a more effective
learning approach.

8.1 Strengths and limitations

This study provides encouraging new evidence for the efficacy of virtual learning,
both when content is delivered in one sitting or over time (micro-learning). Moreo-
ver, it tests this notion in the context of positive psychology and PsyCap, which adds
to the body of knowledge in these emerging fields of study. Evidence is emerging for
the efficacy of positive interventions in general (Bolier et al., 2013), and particularly
online (Baños et al., 2017). However, this is the first study that compares face-to-
face, online, and micro-learning in general, and specifically in the context of positive
psychology interventions or PCIs.
Some of the notable strengths of this study include being administered in a real
organizational setting, as well as the random assignment of the participants to the
interventions. The equivalence of the groups on demographics and pre-intervention
variables has also been established. Sample sizes were adequate, and the groups
were roughly equal in size. Another strength is the replicability of the results with
remarkable consistency over two studies.
Limitations of the study include inability to administer and compare the three
PCIs side-by-side in one study due to time and logistics. However, many organiza-
tions have had to abruptly switch to virtual learning due to COVID-19. Thus, the
ability to include a face-to-face PCI in this study was a notable advantage, even
though it could only be included in Study 1. Furthermore, objective performance
outcomes could not be used in this study. Instead, a one-item self-reported proxy
was used to measure successful goal achievement. However, this single item was
consistent with the approach being used in the organization in performance appraisal
settings, making it a good fit in this context. Finally, the samples in this study came
from a single organization, which represents a challenge to the external validity and
generalizability of the findings.

13
Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575 6569

8.2 Implications for future research

The state-like nature of PsyCap (Luthans & Youssef, 2007), along with its asso-
ciation with employee performance and wellbeing (Avey et al., 2011), makes the
development of effective PsyCap interventions a pertinent area for future research.
However, comparative studies to assess the efficacy of various PsyCap develop-
ment approaches are lacking. Our findings show no significant differences between
face-to-face, online, and micro-learning PCIs. Future research may consider other
approaches such as flipped classrooms (Tucker, 2012), gamification (Johnson et al.,
2016), and coaching (Passmore & Oades, 2014; Peláez et al., 2019). Given the
benefits of positive interventions in general (add references), and particularly PCIs
(add references that have work or non-work DVs), it is important to explore various
approaches to PsyCap development, as well as the contextual and boundary condi-
tions that may render some approaches more effective than others. Future research
should also utilize performance measures from multiple sources, including super-
visory, peer, and self-ratings, as well as objective performance outcomes, to assess
the impact of PCIs more comprehensively. Finally, follow up studies are encouraged
to take multi-organizational, multi-industry, and/or multi-cultural approaches to
expand external validity and uncover potential unique differences and boundary con-
ditions that may render one approach more effective in some contexts than others.

8.3 Implications for practice

Passmore and Oades (2014) posit that a limitation in positive psychology is the dom-
inance of theory over practical solutions. This study explores practical approaches to
PsyCap development through various delivery modes. Results showed no significant
differences between the three delivery modes examined, namely face-to-face, online,
and micro-learning. Practitioners should be particularly interested in these findings
given the growing volatility and complexity of the current business environment.
Bennett and Lemoine (2014) define complexity as a situation with many intercon-
nected parts, and volatility as an unexpected or unstable challenge with no known
duration. Using tools and resources like remote learning applications and other tech-
nologies to develop PsyCap will be vital in the emerging “fourth industrial revolu-
tion” (Broad & Luthans, 2020). The business world is increasingly Volatile, Uncer-
tain, Complex, and Ambiguous (VUCA), and this trend has only been accelerated by
COVID-19 (Broad & Luthans, 2020). Although there already was a slow and steady
move towards virtual settings, COVID-19 and multiple government enforced lock-
downs forced millions to become remote works overnight. It is currently unknown if
virtual work will persist, but it is likely as organizations and workers become more
accustomed to these changes.
It is also worth noting that in this environment, there is an immense need for
positivity in order to promote mental health and overcome the harmful side effects
of isolation and rapid change. Simultaneously, there are unprecedented opportunities
to capitalize on technology and deliver evidence-based positive interventions to all
types of audiences to promote wellbeing and performance. This study shows that

13
6570 Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575

practitioners can use technology to develop PsyCap without any fear of compromis-
ing the outcome.
There are situations where face-to-face development makes sense. These can include
workforces with limited access to technology, or organizations that wish to monitor
participation. On the other hand, online learning offers the flexibility for employees to
learn anywhere they have access, while offering the same structure and schedule as
a face-to-face intervention. Micro-learning offers the same benefits as online learning
with the additional benefit of spacing the material out in smaller modules. This can
be less intrusive for some employees who cannot take long periods of time away from
their daily activities. On the other hand, micro-learning also takes a longer timespan to
deliver the same content. Thus, utilization of micro-learning should depend on (a) the
available time to disseminate the training, and (b) the urgency of beginning to realize
the benefits of the training. Thus, based on the results of this study, practitioners are
encouraged to utilize the type of learning that fits the available resources and prefer-
ences of their organizations, without worrying about compromising the results.

9 Conclusion

Online and micro-learning PCIs delivered via mobile applications are at least as effec-
tive as or can be more advantageous than face-to-face PCIs. These results support uti-
lizing the approach that fits the available resources and preferences of the organiza-
tion and employees, without fear of compromising the results. Anecdotal arguments
in support of the superiority of face-to-face learning have been repeatedly refuted in
the literature, and this study adds to this evidence by showing that in the context of
PsyCap development, face-to-face, online, and micro-learning PCIs are comparable in
their effectiveness despite some subtle differences.

Availability of data and material The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study
are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit
sectors.

Declarations

Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of
interest.

Ethics approval Data for this study was collected in the normal course of business, as part of the organiza-
tion’s ongoing commitment to, investment in, and assessment of human resource development initiatives.
All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later
amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the HR Council of the organiza-
tion, which oversees all company-wide HR initiatives.

Consent to participate Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the
study.

13
Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575 6571

References
Agah, T. K., & Ayse, A. (2011). Differences between m-learning (mobile learning) and e-learning, basic
terminology and usage of m-learning in education. Third World Conference on Educational Sci-
ences Procedia, 15, 1925–1930.
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. M. (2009). Psychological capital: A positive resource for combating
employee stress and turnover. Human Resource Management, 48, 677–693.
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2010a). The additive value of positive psychological capital in
predicting work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 430–452.
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., Smith, R. M., & Palmer, N. F. (2010b). Impact of positive psychological capital
on employee well-being over time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 17–28.
Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2011). Meta-analysis of the impact of positive
psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human Resource Devel-
opment Quarterly, 22, 127–152.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman & Co.
Bandura, A. (1998). Personal and collective efficacy in human adaptation and change. In J. G. Adair, D.
Belander, & K. L. Dion (Eds), Advances in psychological science: Vol. 1 Personal, social and cul-
tural aspects (pp. 51-71). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,
1–26.
Baños, R. M., Etchemendy, E., Farfallini, L., García-Palacios, A., Quero, S., & Botella, C. (2014).
EARTH of well-being system: A pilot study of an information and communication technology-
based positive psychology intervention. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(6), 482–488.
Baños, R. M., Etchemendy, E., Mira, A., Riva, G., Gaggioli, A., & Botella, C. (2017). Online posi-
tive interventions to promote well-being and resilience in the adolescent population: A narrative
review. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 8, 10.
Barak, A., Hen, L., Boniel-Nissim, M., & Shapira, N. A. (2008). A comprehensive review and a meta-
analysis of the effectiveness of internet-based psychotherapeutic interventions. Journal of Technol-
ogy in Human Services, 26, 109–160.
Bennett, N., & Lemoine, G. J. (2014). What VUCA really means for you. Harvard Business Review,
92(1/2), 27–27.
Bolier, L., Haverman, M., Westerhof, G. J., Riper, H., Smit, F., & Bohlmeijer, E. (2013). Positive psy-
chology interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Public Health, 13,
1–20.
Broad, J. D., & Luthans, F. (2020). Positive resources for psychiatry in the fourth industrial revolution:
Building patient and family focused psychological capital (PsyCap). International Review of Psy-
chiatry, 32, 542–554.
Bruck, P. A., Motiwalla, L., & Foerster, F. (2012). Mobile learning with micro-content: A framework and
evaluation. Bled eConference, 25, 527–543.
Bryant, F. B., & Cvengros, J. A. (2004). Distinguishing hope and optimism: Two sides of a coin, or two
separate coins? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 273–302.
Buchanan, G. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1995). Afterword: The future of the field. In G. M. Buchanan &
M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Explanatory style (pp. 247–252). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Buchem, I., & Hamelmann, H. (2010). Microlearning: A strategy for ongoing professional development.
eLearning Papers, 21(7), 1–15.
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). Foundations of positive organizational scholarship.
In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp.
3–13). Berrett-Koehler.
Carifio, J., & Rhodes, L. (2002). Construct validities and the empirical relationships between optimism,
hope, self-efficacy, and locus of control. Work, 19(2), 125–136.
Carlbring, P., Andersson, G., Cuijpers, P., Riper, H., & Hedman-Lagerlöf, E. (2018). Internet-based vs.
face-to-face cognitive behavior therapy for psychiatric and somatic disorders: An updated system-
atic review and meta-analysis. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 47(1), 1–18.
Carter, J. W., & Youssef-Morgan, C. M. (2019). The positive psychology of mentoring: A longitudinal
analysis of psychological capital development and performance in a formal mentoring program.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 30(3), 383–405.

13
6572 Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575

Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal
recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354–380.
Cole, M., Torgerson, C. (2017). Highlights from ATD’s new micro-learning research report. Retrieved
from http://webcasts.td.org/webinar/2266.
Corbu, A., Peláez Zuberbühler, M. J., & Salanova, M. (2021). Positive psychology micro-coaching inter-
vention: Effects on psychological capital and goal-related self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology,
12, 315.
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage
capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–114.
Davis, J., Crabb, S., Rogers, E., Zamora, J., & Khan, K. (2008). Computer-based teaching is as good
as face to face lecture-based teaching of evidence based medicine: a randomized controlled trial.
Medical Teacher, 30, 302–307.
Dello Russo, S., & Stoykova, P. (2015). Psychological capital intervention (PCI): A replication and exten-
sion. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 26, 329–347.
Demerouti, E., Erik, V. E., Snelder, M., & Wild, U. (2011). Assessing the effects of a "personal effective-
ness" training on psychological capital, assertiveness and self-awareness using self-other agree-
ment. Career Development International, 16, 60–81.
Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect:
Now you see it, now you don’t. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 795–805.
Ebbinghaus, H. (1964). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. Dover.
Ertosun, Ö. G., Erdil, O., Deniz, N., & Alpkan, L. (2015). Positive psychological capital development: A
field study by the Solomon four group design. International Business Research, 8, 102.
Francescato, D., Porcelli, R., Mebane, M., Cuddetta, M., Klobas, J., & Renzi, P. (2006). Evaluation of
the efficacy of collaborative learning in face-to-face and computer-supported university contexts.
Computers in Human Behavior, 22(2), 163–176.
Gander, F., Proyer, R. T., Ruch, W., & Wyss, T. (2013). Strength-based positive interventions: Further
evidence for their potential in enhancing well-being and alleviating depression. Journal of Happi-
ness Studies, 14(4), 1241–1259.
Gassler, G., Hug, T., & Glahn, C. (2004). Integrated Micro learning–an outline of the basic method and
first results. Interactive Computer Aided Learning, 4, 1–7.
Ghonsooly, B., & Seyyedrezaie, Z. S. (2014). The comparison of language learning strategies and reading
comprehension of Iranian EFL students taking web-based and face-to-face instruction. Theory and
Practice in Language Studies, 4(6), 1296.
Goodyear, P. (2006). Technology and the articulation of vocational and academic interests: Reflections on
time, space and e-learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(2), 83–98.
Greenhalgh, T. (2001). Computer assisted learning in undergraduate medical education. Bmj, 322, 40–44.
Gross, B., Rusin, L., Kiesewetter, J., Zottmann, J. M., Fischer, M. R., Prückner, S., & Zech, A. (2019).
Microlearning for patient safety: Crew resource management training in 15-minutes. PLoS One,
14(3), e0213178.
Janiszewski, C., Noel, H., & Sawyer, A. G. (2003). A meta-analysis of the spacing effect in verbal learn-
ing: Implications for research on advertising repetition and consumer memory. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 30, 138–149.
Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st cen-
tury. Mit Press.
Johnson, D., Deterding, S., Kuhn, K. A., Staneva, A., Stoyanov, S., & Hides, L. (2016). Gamification for
health and wellbeing: A systematic review of the literature. Internet Interventions, 6, 89–106.
Johnson, S. D., Aragon, S. R., & Shaik, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learn-
ing outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning
Research, 11(1), 29–49.
Kapp, F., Proske, A., Narciss, S., & Körndle, H. (2015). Distributing vs. blocking learning questions in
a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(4), 397–416.
Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2010). Sales training: Effects of spaced practice on training
transfer. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34(1), 23–37.
Kearns, L. E., Shoaf, J. R., & Summey, M. B. (2004). Performance and satisfaction of second-degree
BSN students in web-based and traditional course delivery environments. Journal of Nursing Edu-
cation, 43(6), 280–284.
Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induc-
tion”? Psychological Science, 19(6), 585–592.

13
Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575 6573

Lam, M. (2009). Effectiveness of web-based courses on technical learning. Journal of Education for
Business, 84(6), 323–331.
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming composite
measures in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 186–207.
Lieberman, M. (2020, September 23). COVID-19 fuels big enrollment increases in virtual schools.
Retrieved December 20, 2020 from: https://​www.​edweek.​org/​leade​rship/​covid-​19-​fuels-​big-​enrol​
lment-​incre​ases-​in-​virtu​al-​schoo​ls/​2020/​09
Litman, L., & Davachi, L. (2008). Distributed learning enhances relational memory consolidation. Learn-
ing & Memory, 15, 711–716.
Luthans, B. C., Luthans, K. W., & Avey, J. B. (2014). Building the leaders of tomorrow: The development
of academic psychological capital. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21, 191–199.
Luthans, F. (2002a). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths.
The Academy of Management Executive, 16, 57–72.
Luthans, F. (2002b). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 23, 695–706.
Luthans, F., & Broad, J. D. (in press). Positive psychological capital to help combat the mental health
fallout from the pandemic and VUCA environment. Organizational Dynamics, in press.
Luthans, F., & Youssef-Morgan, C. M. (2017). Psychological capital: An evidence-based positive
approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 339–366.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Manage-
ment, 33, 321–349.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Patera, J. L. (2008). Experimental analysis of a web-based training interven-
tion to develop positive psychological capital. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7,
209–221.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., & Peterson, S. J. (2010). The development and resulting perfor-
mance impact of positive psychological capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(1),
41–67.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S. M., & Combs, G. M. (2006). Psychological capital
development: Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 387–393.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measure-
ment and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541–572.
Luthans, F., Youssef-Morgan, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2015). Psychological capital and beyond. Oxford
University Press.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., Sweetman, D. S., & Harms, P. D. (2013). Meeting the leadership challenge
of employee well-being through relationship PsyCap and health PsyCap. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 20, 118–133.
Magaletta, P. R., & Oliver, J. M. (1999). The hope construct, will, and ways: Their relations with self-
efficacy, optimism, and general well-being. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(5), 539–551.
Major, A., & Calandrino, T. (2018). Beyond chunking: micro-learning secrets for effective online design.
FDLA Journal, 3(1), 13.
Maloney, S., Haas, R., Keating, J. L., Molloy, E., Jolly, B., Sims, J., et al. (2012). Breakeven, cost benefit,
cost effectiveness, and willingness to pay for web-based versus face-to-face education delivery for
health professionals. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(2), e47.
Martínez, I. M., Youssef-Morgan, C. M., Chambel, M. J., & Marques-Pinto, A. (2019). Antecedents of
academic performance of university students: Academic engagement and psychological capital
resources. Educational Psychology, 39(8), 1047–1067.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56,
227–238.
Mens, M. G., Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (2016). Optimism. In S. J. Lopez, L. M. Edwards, & S. C.
Marques (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Merisotis, J. P., & Phipps, R. A. (1999). What’s the difference?: Outcomes of distance vs. traditional
classroom-based learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 31(3), 12–17.
Mitchell, J., Stanimirovic, R., Klein, B., & Vella-Brodrick, D. (2009). A randomized controlled trial of
a self-guided internet intervention promoting well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(3),
749–760.
Mohammed, G. S., Wakil, K., & Nawroly, S. S. (2018). The effectiveness of microlearning to improve
students’ learning ability. International Journal of Educational Research Review, 3(3), 32–38.

13
6574 Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575

Motiwalla, L., & Tello, S. (2000). Distance learning on the internet: An exploratory study. The Internet
and Higher Education, 2(4), 253–264.
Moulton, C. A. E., Dubrowski, A., MacRae, H., Graham, B., Grober, E., & Reznick, R. (2006). Teaching
surgical skills: What kind of practice makes perfect?: A randomized, controlled trial. Annals of
Surgery, 244(3), 400–409.
Passmore, J., & Oades, L. G. (2014). Positive psychology coaching: A model for coaching practice. The
Coaching Psychologist, 10(2), 68–70.
Patterson, B., & McFadden, C. (2009). Attrition in online and campus degree programs. Online Journal
of Distance Learning Administration, 12, 1–8.
Peláez, M. J., Coo, C., & Salanova, M. (2019). Facilitating work engagement and performance through
strengths-based micro-coaching: A controlled trial study. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21,
1265–1284.
Peterson, S. J., Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Zhang, Z. (2011). Psychological capi-
tal and employee performance: A latent growth modeling approach. Personnel Psychology, 64,
937–963.
Proyer, R. T., Gander, F., Wellenzohn, S., & Ruch, W. (2014). Positive psychology interventions in peo-
ple aged 50–79 years: Long-term effects of placebo-controlled online interventions on well-being
and depression. Aging & Mental Health, 18(8), 997–1005.
Reynolds, J. H., & Glaser, R. (1964). Effects of repetition and spaced review upon retention of a complex
learning task. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55(5), 297.
Robinson, B. (2020). What studies reveal about social distancing and remote working during coronavirus.
Forbes, Retrieved June 18, 2020 from https://​www.​forbes.​com/​sites/​bryan​robin​son/​2020/​04/​04/​
what-7-​studi​es-​show-​about-​social-​dista​ncing-​and-​remote-​worki​ng-​during-​covid-​19/#​228a1​0df75​
7e
Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in
online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101–109.
Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Office of Instructional Telecommunica-
tions, North Carolina State University.
Sampson, N. (2003). Meeting the needs of distance learners. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3),
103–118.
Sanders, R. (2006). The" imponderable bloom": Reconsidering the role of technology in education. Inno-
vate: Journal of online Education, 2(6).
Schneider, S. L. (2001). In search of realistic optimism: Meaning, knowledge, and warm fuzziness. Amer-
ican Psychologist, 56(3), 250.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). Learned optimism. Simon and Schuster.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology. American Psychologist, 55,
5–14.
Seligman, M. E., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical
validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410.
Shapira, L. B., & Mongrain, M. (2010). The benefits of self-compassion and optimism exercises for indi-
viduals vulnerable to depression. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 377–389.
Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with
positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 65, 467–487.
Skalka, J., & Drlík, M. (2018). Conceptual framework of microlearning-based training mobile applica-
tion for improving programming skills. In Auer M., Tsiatsos T. (eds) interactive Mobile communi-
cation. Technologies and Learning, 725, 213–224.
Smith, S. M., & Rothkopf, E. Z. (1984). Contextual enrichment and distribution of practice in the class-
room. Cognition and Instruction, 1(3), 341–358.
Snyder, C. R. (1994). The psychology of hope: You can get there from here. Free Press.
Snyder, C. R. (2000). The past and possible futures of hope. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
19, 11–28.
Snyder, C. R., Irving, L., & Anderson, J. (1991). Hope and health: Measuring the will and the ways. In
C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health per-
spective (pp. 285–305). Pergamon.
Stajkovic, A. D. (2006). Development of a core confidence-higher order construct. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 1208–1224.

13
Education and Information Technologies (2022) 27:6553–6575 6575

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy. Organizational Dynam-
ics, 26, 62–74.
Stratman, J., & Youssef-Morgan, C. M. (2019). Can positivity promote safety? Psychological capital
development combats cynicism and unsafe behavior. Safety Science, 116, 13–25.
Stromso, H. I., & Braten, I. (2010). The role of personal epistemology in the self-regulation of internet-
based learning. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 91–111.
Summers, J. J., Waigandt, A., & Whittaker, T. A. (2005). A comparison of student achievement and sat-
isfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics class. Innovative Higher Education,
29(3), 233–250.
Tiger, L. (1979). Optimism: The biology of hope. Simon & Schuster.
Tugade, M. M., Fredrickson, B. L., & Feldman-Barrett, L. (2004). Psychological resilience and positive
emotional granularity: Examining the benefits of positive emotions on coping and health. Journal
of Personality, 72, 1161–1190.
Turner, A. (2020). December 2020 mobile user statistics. Retrieved from https://​www.​bankm​ycell.​com/​
blog/​how-​many-​phones-​are-​in-​the-​world
Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12, 82–83.
Wakil, K., Abdulfaraj, A., Sadula, A., Tofiq, D., & Nawzad, L. (2019). Performance of distance learning
compared with face to face learning. Journal of Educational Science and Technology (EST), 5(1),
1–8.
Walumbwa, F. O., Peterson, S. J., Avolio, B. J., & Hartnell, C. A. (2010). An investigation of the rela-
tionships among leader and follower psychological capital, service climate, and job performance.
Personnel Psychology, 63, 937–963.
Werkle, M., Schmidt, M., Dikke, D., & Schwantzer, S. (2015). Case study 4: Technology enhanced work-
place learning. In responsive open learning environments (pp. 159-184).
Wong, L. H. (2012). A learner-centric view of mobile seamless learning. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 43, 19–23.
Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: The impact of
hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of Management, 33, 774–800.
Youssef-Morgan, C. M. (2014). Advancing OB research: An illustration using psychological capital.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21, 130–140.
Youtz, A. C. (1941). An experimental evaluation of Jost’s laws. Psychological Monographs, 53, i–54.
Zetterqvist, K., Maanmies, J., Ström, L., & Andersson, G. (2003). Randomized controlled trial of inter-
net-based stress management. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 32(3), 151–160.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

13