This experiment was designed to assess the effects of instructional control mechanisms that altered the degree of challenge in an instructional simulation. Subjects were taught to place an icon at a position and orientation that corresponded to digital and analogue information displayed on a simulated aviation instrument. Three treatments were compared: a) learner control enabled subjects to control challenge; b) learner control with advisement provided the same control accompanied by ongoing advice on control decisions; and c) computer control automatically adjusted challenge. Treatments differentially affected subjects' response time on immediate and delayed tests and their control decisions during practice. Interference of control decisions with acquisition of the criterion skill and subjects' perceptions of their performance are discussed as potential contributors to the effects of the treatments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
RossS. M. and RakowE. A., Learner Control Versus Program Control as Adaptive Strategies for Selection of Instructional Support on Math Rules, Journal of Educational Psychology, 73: 5, pp. 745–753, 1981.
2.
BriggsG. E. and NaylorJ. C., The Relative Efficiency of Several Training Methods as a Function of Transfer Task Complexity, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64: 5, pp. 505, 512, 1962.
3.
KinzieM. B. and SullivanH. J., Continuing Motivation, Learner Control, and CAI, Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 37: 2, pp. 5–14, 1989.
4.
SteinbergE. R., Cognition and Learner Control: A Literature Review, 1977–1988, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16: 4, pp. 117–121, 1989.
5.
LoganG. D., Skill and Automaticity: Relations, Implications, and Future Directions, Canadian Journal of Psychology, 39: 2, pp. 367–386, 1985.
6.
SchneiderW., Training High-performance Skills: Fallacies and Guidelines, Human Factors, 27: 3, pp. 285–300, 1985.
7.
MunroA.FehlingM. R., and TowneD. M., Instructional Intrusiveness in Simulation Training, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 12: 2, pp. 50–53, 1985.
8.
ManeA. M.AdamsJ. A., and DonchinE., Adaptive and Part-whole Training in the Acquisition of a Complex Perceptual-motor Skill, Acta Psychologica, 71, pp. 179–196, 1989.
9.
TennysonR. D., Instructional Control Strategies and Content Structure as Design Variables in Concept Acquisition Using Computer-based Instruction, Journal of Educational Psychology, 72: 4, pp. 525–532, 1980.
10.
SteinbergE. R.BaskinA. B., and HoferE., Organizational/Memory Tools: A Technique for Improving Problem Solving Skills, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2: 2, pp. 169–187, 1986.
11.
AllesiS. M., Fidelity in the Design of Instructional Simulations, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15: 2, pp. 40–47, 1988.
12.
AndrewsD. H., Relationships among Simulators, Training Devices, and Learning: A Behavioral View, Educational Technology, 28: 1, pp. 48–54, 1988.
13.
BurtonR. R. and BrownJ. S., An Investigation of Computer Coaching for Informal Learning Activities, Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 11, pp. 5–24, 1979.
14.
LaheyG. F. and BoyerD. L., The Acquisition and Retention Characteristics of a Critical Piloting Subskill, paper presented at the meeting of the Fifth Annual Mid-Central Ergonomics Conference, Dayton, Ohio, May 1990.
15.
ReigeluthC. M. and SchwartzE., An Instructional Theory for the Design of Computer-based Simulations, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16: 1, pp. 1–10, 1989.
16.
MattoonJ. S. and ThurmanR. A., Microcomputer-based Instructional Simulation for Training Research, in Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual Conference of the Association for the Development of Computer-Based Instructional Systems, DaltonD. W. (ed.), pp. 366–367, 1990.
17.
GrayT. H. and EdwardsB. J., Aircrew Part-task Training Research and Development in the 1980s: Lessons Learned (Report No. AL-TR-1991-0005). Armstrong Laboratory, Aircrew Training Research Division, Williams Air Force Base, Arizona, 1991.
18.
KozmaR. B., Learning with Media, Review of Educational Research, 61: 2, pp. 179–211, 1991.
19.
ClarkR. E., Current Progress and Future Directions for Research in Instructional Technology, Educational Technology Research & Development, 37: 1, pp. 57–66, 1990.
20.
ClarkR. E., Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media, Review of Educational Research, 53: 4, pp. 445–459, 1983.
21.
ShalleyC. E.OldhamG. R., and PoracJ. F., Effects of Goal Difficulty, Goal-setting Method, and Expected External Evaluation on Intrinsic Motivation, Academy of Management Journal, 30: 3, pp. 553–563, 1987.
22.
ShalleyC. E. and OldhamG. R., Effects of Goal Difficulty and Expected External Evaluation on Intrinsic Motivation: A Laboratory Study, Academy of Management Journal, 28: 3, pp. 628–640, 1985.
23.
MaloneT. W., Toward a Theory of Intrinsically Motivating Instruction, Cognitive Science, 4, pp. 333–369, 1981.
24.
KleinJ. D., The Effects of Student Ability, Locus of Control, and Type of Instructional Control on Motivation and Performance, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1988.
25.
JohansenK. J. and TennysonR. D., Effect of Adaptive Advisement on Perception in Learner-controlled, Computer-based Instruction Using a Rule-learning Task, Educational Communications & Technology Journal, 31: 4, pp. 226–236, 1983.
