Based on evidence from the learner control literature, a study was designed that aimed to identify the conditions and individual characteristics that would best support learners' acceptance of control within hypermedia. The effects of prior domain knowledge, learning activity structure, ability, and attitudes on acceptance of control opportunity, knowledge acquisition, and attitudes were investigated. The study was conducted in two single-gender schools to remove the effects of gender interaction while using computers. Confirmatory analysis of a covariance structure model did not provide support for the hypothesized effects, with the exception of a weak effect for the variable ability on acceptance of control opportunity. Analysis of a substantively-based alternative model identified an effect of the school students attended on students' choices within the software. The effect of the “school” variable was stronger than the hypothesized variables. Qualitative analysis of interview and audit-trail data further supported the quantitative results showing a difference in preferences and navigational strategies for students at the two schools. Qualitative results and existing literature suggest factors that may contribute to the effect of the “school” variable are the epistemological beliefs of students, school culture, and gender. Further research attention to these variables is recommended.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BollenK. A. (1994). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2.
ByrneB. M. (1989). A Primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for confirmatory factor analytic models. New York: Springer-Verlag.
3.
CarrierC. A., & WilliamsM. D. (1988). A test of one learner-control strategy with students of differing levels of task persistence. American Educational Research Journal, 25(2), 285–306.
4.
CulleyL. (1990). Girls, boys and computers (1st ed.). Boyd-BarrettO. & ScanlonE. (Eds.), Wokingham, England: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
5.
DillonA., & GabbardR. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature in learner comprehension, control and style. Review of Educational Research, 68, 322–349.
6.
EganP., & ArcherP. (1985). The accuracy of teachers' ratings of ability: A regression model. American Educational Research Journal, 22(1), 25–34.
7.
FatourosC.DownesT., & BlackwellS. (1994). In control: Young children learning with computers (1st ed.). Westworth Falls, Australia: Social Science Press.
8.
FergusonH. L. (1988). The effect of locus-of-control on achievement and preference in CAI tutorial systems which vary in terms of system control, learner control with coaching and learner control with no coaching. Dissertation Abstracts International (pp. DAI-A 50–01, p120), CD-ROM.
9.
FischlerH. W. (1981–1987). Locus-of-control and two types of instructional television: An aptitude-treatment interaction. Dissertation Abstracts International (pp. DAI-A 48–03, p635, CD-ROM.
10.
FreitagE. T., & SullivanH. J. (1995). Matching learner preference to amount of instruction: An alternative form of learner control. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 5–14.
11.
GayG. (1986). Interaction of learner control and prior understanding in computer-assisted video instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), 225–227.
12.
GayG.TrumbullD., & MazurJ. (1991). Designing and testing navigational strategies and guidance tools for a hypermedia program. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(2), 189–202.
13.
GrayS. H. (1987). The effect of sequence control on computer assisted learning. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14(2), 54–56.
14.
GrayS. H. (1988). Sequence control menus and CAI: A follow-up study. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15(2), 57–60.
15.
HannafinR. D., & SullivanH. J. (1995). Learner control in full and lean CAI programs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 19–30.
16.
HannafinR. D., & SullivanH. J. (1996). Preference and learner control over amount of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 162–173.
17.
HattieJ., & FitzgeraldD. (1987). Sex differences in attitudes, achievement and use of computers. Australian Journal of Education, 31, 3–26.
18.
HickenS.SullivanH., & KleinJ. (1992). Learner control modes and incentive variations in computer-delivered instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(4), 15–26.
19.
HoferB. K., & PintrichP. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140.
20.
HooperS.TemiyakarnC., & WilliamsM. D. (1993). The effects of cooperative learning and learner control of high- and average-ability students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(2), 5–18.
21.
JacobsonM. J., & SpiroR. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(5), 301–333.
22.
JooY.-J.BongM., & ChoiH.-J. (2000). Self-efficacy for self regulated learning, academic self-efficacy, and Internet self-efficacy in Web-based instruction. Educational Technology and Development, 48(2), 5–17.
23.
JoreskogK. G., & SorbomD. (1993). LISREL8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software Inc.
24.
KayJ. (2001). Learner control. User Modeling and User-Adapted Instruction, 11(1–2), 111–127.
25.
KinzieM. B., & SullivanH. J. (1989). Continuing motivation, learner control, and CAI. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 5–14.
26.
KinzieM. B.SullivanH. J., & BerdelR. L. (1988). Learner control and achievement in science computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 299–303.
27.
KleinJ. D., & KellerJ. M. (1990). Influence of student ability, locus of control, and type of instructional control on performance and confidence. Journal of Educational Research, 83(3) 140–146.
28.
LaurillardD. (1987). Computers and the emancipation of students: Giving control to the learner. Instructional Science, 16, 3–18.
29.
LeeB.BaruaA., & WhinstonA. B. (1997). Discovery and representation of causal relationships in MIS research: A methodological framework. MIS Quarterly, 21(1), 109–136.
30.
LeeS., & LeeY. 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(4), 491–498.
31.
MuellerR. O. (1996). Basic principles of structural equation modeling. New York: Springer-Verlag.
32.
NienmiecR. P.SikorskiC., & WalbergH. J. (1996). Learner-control effects: A review of reviews and a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15(2), 157–174.
33.
PascarellaE. T., & PflaumS. W. (1981). The interaction of children's attribution and level of control over error correction in reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(4), 533–540.
34.
ReevesT. C. (1993). Pseudoscience in computer-based instruction: The case of learner control research. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(2), 39–46.
35.
RossS. M.MorrisonG. R., & O'DellJ. K. (1989). Uses and effects of learner control of context and instruction support in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(4), 29–39.
36.
SantiagoR. S., & OkeyJ. R. (1992). The effects of advisement and locus of control on achievement in learner-controlled instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(2), 47–53.
37.
SchnackenbergH. L., & SullivanH. J. (2000). Learner control over full and lean computer-based instruction under differing ability students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 19–35.
38.
SchommerM. (1994). An emerging conceptualization of epistemological beliefs and their role in learning. GarnerR. & AlexanderP. A. (Eds.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39.
SchommerM.CalvertC.GariglietteG., & BajajA. (1997). The development of epistemological beliefs among secondary students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 37–40.
40.
SchommerM., & DunnellP. A. (1994). A comparison of epistemological beliefs between gifted and non-gifted high school students. Roeper Review, 16, 207–210.
41.
SchommerM., & WalkerK. (1997). Epistemological beliefs and valuing school: Considerations for college admissions and retention. Research in Higher Education, 38(2), 173–186.
42.
Schulz-ZanderR. (1990). Concepts and strategies concerning information technology education for girls and young women. In McDougallA. & DowlingC. (Eds.), World Conference for Computers in Education. Sydney, Australia: Elsevier Science Publishers.
43.
ShinE. C.SchallertD. L., & SavenyeW. C. (1994). Effects of learner control, advisement, and prior knowledge on young students' learning in a hypertext environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(1), 33–46.
44.
SinghanayokC., & HooperS. (1998). The effects of cooperative learning and learner control on students' achievement, option selections, and attitudes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(2), 17–33.
45.
SnowR. E. (1980). Aptitude, learner control and adaptive instruction. Educational Psychologist, 15(3), 151–158.
46.
SteinbergE. R. (1977). Review of student control in computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 3(3), 84–90.
47.
StephensonS. D. (1992). The effects of student-instructor interaction and paired/individual study on achievement in computer based training (CBT). Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(1), 22–26.
48.
TabachnickB. G., & FidellL. S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.
49.
TolhurstD. (1993, July). Hypertext and learner acceptance of control: Learning outcomes of hypertext use. Australian Educational Computing, 8, 245–253.
50.
WesleyB. E.KrockoverG. H., & HicksC. R. (1985). Locus of control and acquisition of computer literacy. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 12(1), 12–16.
51.
WilliamsM. D. (1994). A comprehensive review of learner-control: The role of learner characteristics. Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC ED362211), 1–33.
52.
WoloshynV. E.PressleyM., & SchneiderW. (1992). Elaborative-interrogation and prior-knowledge effects on learning facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 115–124.
53.
YoungM. F., & BarabS. A. (1999). Perception of the raison d'etre in anchored instruction: An ecological psychology perspective. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20(2), 119–141.
