In this study an attempt was made to clarify conflicting results in the learner control literature. The learner control concept was redefined in order to include both choice and self investment variables. The combined effects of choice and self investment variables were considered in this study to be motivational variables which affect the learner's attitudes and performance on a computer assisted instructional task.
The results of this investigation indicated overall differences in performance among treatment groups. An interaction effect between choice and self investment was found for the performance measure. The expected interaction and perceived control measures were not found.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CampbellV. N. and BivensL. W., Self-Direction in Programmed Geography Instruction, American Institute for Research, Palo Alto, California, AIR-D10-11/63-Tr(a), 1963.
2.
GrubbR. E., A Study of Differential Treatments in the Study of Elementary Statistics, paper presented at the DAVI conference, Portland, Oregon, 1969.
3.
PerlmutterL. C. and MontyR. A., The Importance of Perceived Control: Fact of Fantasy?, American Scientist, 65, pp. 759–765, 1977.
4.
MagerR. F., On the Sequencing of Instructional Content, Psychological Reports, 9, pp. 405–413, 1961.
5.
MagerR. F. and McCannJ., Learner Controlled Instruction, Varian Associates, Palo Alto, California, 1961.
6.
NewmanS. E., Student vs. Instructor Design of Study Method, Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, pp. 328–333, 1957.
7.
JuddW. A.O'NeilH. F. and SpeltP. F., Individual Differences and Learner Control I: Program Development and Investigation of Control Over Mnemonics in Computer-Assisted Instruction (Interim Report, U.S. Air Force, Human Resources Laboratory, Contract AFHRL-TR-74-3), CAI Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, July 1974.
8.
McCannP. H.LaheyG. F. and HurlockR. E., A Comparison of Student Option Versus Program Controlled CAI Training, Research Report SRR 73–17, Naval Personnel and Training Research Laboratory, San Diego, California, 1973.
9.
DiVestaF. J., Trait-Treatment Interactions, Cognitive Processes, and Research on Communication Media, A V Communication Review, 23, pp. 185–196, 1975.
10.
TennysonR. D., Instructional Control Strategies and Content Structure as Design Variables in Concept Acquisition Using Computer-Based Instruction, Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, pp. 525–532, 1980.
11.
TennysonR. D. and RothenW., Management of Computer-Based Instruction: Design of an Adaptive Control Strategy, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 5, pp. 126–134, 1979.
12.
MerrillM. D., Learner Control in Computer Based Learning, Computers and Education, 4, pp. 77–95, 1980.
13.
RushinekS. F. and RushinekA., Computer Assisted Instruction Program to Aid Examiners-in-Training to Score the Wechsler Intelligence Scale, Copyright, 1978.
14.
CondryJ., Enemies of Exploration, Self Initiated Learning Versus Other Initiated Learning, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, pp. 459–477, 1977.
15.
DeanP. M., Learner Versus Teacher Controlled Arithmetic Practice, paper presented at the DAVI conference, Portland, Oregon, April 1969.
16.
BrownB. R., An Instrument for the Measurement of Expressed Attitude Toward Computer-Assisted Instruction, MitzelH. E. and BrandonG. L. (eds.), Experimentation with Computer-Assisted Instruction in Technical Education, Semi-Annual Progress Report, Project No. OEC-5-85-074, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, December 31, 1966.
17.
deCharmsR., Personal Causation, Academic Press, New York1968.
