This study investigated the effects of practice opportunities and learner control on short- and long-term learning from a computer-based introductory statistics curriculum. In all, 380 participants were assigned to one of five conditions. The first four conditions differed in terms of the number of problems to solve per problem set. The fifth condition allowed learners to choose the amount of practice. A subset (n = 120) of the original participants returned for testing following a six-month interval. Overall, the fixed-practice conditions showed learning gains that varied in relation to the amount of practice (i.e., more was better). The data from the learner-control condition was unexpected, showing learning gains comparable with the most extended practice condition yet the fastest tutor-completion times. We discuss implications of these findings in relation to the design of efficacious instruction. Actual or potential applications of this research include the modification of computer-based instruction that can enhance individuals′ learning efficiency and outcome scores.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
Belland, J. C., Taylor, W. D., Canelos, J., Dwyer, F., & Baker, P. (1985). Is the self-paced instructional program, via micro-computer-based instruction, the most effective method of addressing individual differences?Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 33(3), 185–198.
3.
Bryan, W. L., & Harter, N. (1899). Studies on the telegraphic language: The acquisition of a hierarchy of habits. Psychological Review, 6, 345–375.
4.
Carrier, C. A. (1984). Do learners make good choices?Instructional Innovator, 29(2), 15–17.
5.
Dalton, D. W. (1990). The effects of cooperative learning strategies on achievement and attitudes during interactive video. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 17(1), 8–16.
6.
Gay, G. (1986). Interaction of learner control and prior understanding in computer-assisted video instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 225–227.
7.
Gluck, K. A. (1997). The adaptive nature of learning from Stat Lady. Unpublished master's thesis, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
8.
Goetzfried, L., & Hannafin, M. J. (1985). The effect of locus of CAI control strategies on the learning of mathematics rules. American Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 273–278.
9.
Gray, S. H. (1987). The effect of sequence control on computer assisted learning. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14(2), 54–56.
10.
Hannafin, M. J. (1984). Guidelines for using locus of instructional control in the design of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Instructional Development, 7(3), 6–10.
11.
Higginbotham-Wheat, N. (1988, November). Perspectives on implementation of learner control in CBI. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Lexington, KY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 305 898)
12.
Hurlock, R. E., Lahey, G. F., & McCann, P. H. (1974). Student-controlled versus program controlled CAI. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
13.
Johansen, K. J., & Tennyson, R. D. (1983). Effect of adaptive advisement on perception in learner controlled, computer-based instruction using a rule-learning task. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 31(4), 226–236.
14.
Kinzie, M. B. (1990). Requirements and benefits of effective interactive instruction: Learner control, self-regulation, and continuing motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 5–21.
15.
Kinzie, M. B., & Sullivan, H. J. (1989). Continuing motivation, learner control, and CAI. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 5–14.
16.
Lahey, G. F., Hurlock, R. E., & McCann, P. H. (1973). Post lesson remediation and student control of branching in computer-based training (Report SRR-73-19). San Diego, CA: Naval Personnel Research and Development Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 083 797)
17.
Lee, S. S., & Lee, Y. H. K. (1991). Effects of learner-control versus program-control strategies on computer-aided learning of chemistry problems: For acquisition or review?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 491–498.
18.
Lee, S. S., & Wong, S. C.-H. (1989). Adaptive program vs. learner control strategy on computer aided learning of gravimetric stoichiometry problems. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 21, 367–379.
19.
Lepper, M. R. (1985). Microcomputers in education: Motivational and social issues. American Psychologist, 40(1), 1–18.
20.
MacGregor, S. K. (1988). Instructional design for computermediated text systems: Effects of motivation, learner control, and collaboration on reading performance. Journal of Experimental Education, 56(3), 142–147.
21.
Merrill, M. D. (1975). Learner control: Beyond aptitude-treatment interactions. AV Communications Review, 23, 217–226.
22.
Merrill, M. D. (1980). Learner control in computer based learning. Computers & Education, 4, 77–95.
23.
Murphy, M. A., & Davidson, G. V. (1991). Computer-based adaptive instruction: Effects of learner control on concept learning. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18(2), 51–56.
24.
Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 1–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
Relan, A. (1991). Effects of two levels of strategy training and learner control on performance and choice behavior in a computer-based concept-classification task (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 3895-A.
26.
Rivers, L. C. (1972). Development and assessment of an adaptive strategy utilizing regression analysis for the presentation of instruction via computer (Tech. Report 27). Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, Computer-Assisted Instruction Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 077 228)
27.
Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. 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.
28.
Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3(4), 207–217.
29.
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.
30.
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.
31.
Shute, V. J. (1995). SMART: Student modeling approach for responsive tutoring. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 5, 1–44.
32.
Shute, V. J., & Gawlick, L. A. (1995). Practice effects on skill acquisition, learning outcome, and retention. Human Factors, 37, 781–803.
33.
Shute, V. J., & Gluck, K. A. (1994). Stat Lady: Descriptive Statistics Module 1 [Unpublished computer program]. Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Armstrong Laboratory.
34.
Shyu, H.-Y., & Brown, S. W. (1992). Learner control versus program control in interactive videodisc instruction: What are the effects in procedural learning?International Journal of Instructional Media, 19(2), 85–96.
35.
Steinberg, E. R. (1989). Cognition and learner control: A literature review, 1977-1988. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16(4), 117–121.
36.
Tennyson, R. D. (1980). Instructional control strategies and content structure as design variables in concept acquisition using computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 525–532.
37.
Tennyson, R. D., & Buttrey, T. (1980). Advisement and management strategies as design variables in computer-assisted instruction. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 28(3), 169–176.
38.
Tennyson, R. D., Park, O.-C., & Christensen, D. L. (1985). Adaptive control of learning time and content sequence in concept learning using computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 481–491.
39.
Tennyson, C. L., Tennyson, R. D., & Rothen, W. (1980). Content structure and instructional control strategies as design variables in concept acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 499–505.
40.
Tennyson, R. D., Welsh, J. C., Christensen, D. L., & Hajovy, H. (1985). Interactive effect of information structure, sequence of information, and process learning time on rule learning using computer-based instruction. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 33(3), 213–233.
41.
Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychological Monographs, 2(Whole No. 8).
42.
Williams, M. D. (1996). Learner-control and instructional technologies. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 957–983). New York: MacMillan.
