What does the Literature Say about the Effectiveness of Learner Control in Computer-Assisted Instruction?
the quality of American education, researchers and educators have evaluated
existing educational practices and are interested in exploring new instructional
methods. Technological advances and the relatively low cost of computers
and software make computers a reality for many American classrooms (U.S.
Department of Education, 2000). This technology "invasion"
raises the issue of how to effectively apply the technological advances
in teaching and instruction. Computer-assisted instruction (CAI), the
focus of this article, is one of the most common forms of integrating
computers into the instructional process. CAI is a learning environment
that supports a one-on-one interaction between a learner (or several
learners) and a computer program (Hoska, 1993). CAI is frequently used
to remediate or advance student knowledge and skills (e.g., "self-learning"
and encyclopedic programs; "drill-and-practice" and simulation
software) or to entertain them (e.g., computer games) (Schwier &
Different types of educational software used in CAI vary, however, in the amount of learner control (LC), the characteristic of a computer program that allows learners to make instructional choices (Filipczak, 1996; Schnackenberg & Hilliard, 1998). For instance, "drill-and-practice" software usually does not facilitate learners' initiative and creativity because learners have to do the same types of assignments repeatedly until a targeted skill is mastered. In contrast, some types of simulation software and other types of interactive programs provide a "rich" LC environment. Freedom to modify screen design and test density, to choose or omit specific topics (including control over the amount of instruction), to sequence material, to apply learner advisement strategy (taking a test immediately and omitting a topic review or reviewing first and then taking the test) are all instructional choices or LC options (Chung & Reigeluth, 1992; Large, 1996; Niemiec, Sikorski & Walberg, 1996). Thus, non-linearity and flexibility are distinctive characteristics of LC (Burke, Etnier & Sullivan, 1998; Lawless & Brown, 1997).
While much research has been done to investigate the impact of LC on learning, very little is known about its nature (Chung & Reigeluth, 1992; Milheim & Martin, 1991). According to Zazelenchuk (1997), LC is one of the six ingredients or components of interactive multimedia , programmed web-based features that adequately respond to students' inquiries. Two other researchers, Lawless and Brown (1997), emphasize that LC is only one of the types of control in CAI. In particular, they distinguish two types of control--external (program control or PC) and internal (learner control or LC)--and refer to the former as the specific limits set by a multimedia computer program with which all users have to deal.
It is commonly accepted in the field that there are no completely intelligent computer programs (El-Tigi & Branch, 1997; Gilbert & Moore, 1998; James, 1998; Kirsh, 1997) or, in other words, none of the existing computer programs gives full LC to its users. All computer programs that are currently available on the market integrate elements of both LC and PC. Thus, computer programs differ only in the types and amount of LC they utilize (Hannafin, 1989; Reeves, 1993).
In this regard,
it appears important to examine whether LC is beneficial for students,
especially for their academic performance and motivation, and in what
amount. To answer these questions, the researcher consulted an extensive
number of resources devoted to LC. Because technological advances opened
new horizons in LC and because "LC hardly seems a fixed or static
idea" (Niemiec, Sikorski & Walberg, 1996, p. 157), this article
relies on the most recent LC literature to examine the major attributes
of the LC concept and LC research findings.
Analysis of Research Findings: Do Students Benefit from LC?
Formal research of LC started at the end of the 1950's and has generated a large body of work. Developmental and cognitive psychologists, instructional technologists, and educators have studied LC in a variety of learning environments such as presentation, collaborative and navigation settings (Chung & Reigeluth, 1992), and with different populations: secondary school students (Burke, Etnier & Sullivan, 1998; Rubincam & Olivier, 1985), college students (Becker & Dwyer, 1994; Crooks, Klein, Jones & Dwyer, 1996; Murphy & Davidson, 1991; Schnackenberg & Sullivan, 2000) and adults (Shute, Gawlick & Gluck, 1998). However, only some of these studies (e.g., Chung & Reigeluth, 1992; Crooks et al., 1996; Friend & Cole, 1990; Milheim & Martin, 1991; Schnackenberg & Sullivan, 2000) controlled for specific LC components/variables (content, sequence, pacing, internal processing, advisory). In addition, a few other studies, including one by Cho (1995), merely focused on comparing LC instructional approaches with traditional teaching approaches.
Generally, research indicates that LC may be an excellent tool for adapting a learning environment to students' needs (e.g., Friend & Cole, 1990), that LC can empower learners (Schweier, 1993), and that students whose learning style preferences were matched by a computer or a teacher achieved higher test scores, had better understanding, retained their knowledge and skills longer and were highly motivated to succeed (Friend & Cole, 1990; Schnackenberg & Hilliard, 1998; Spoon & Shell, 1998). These optimistic findings should, however, be interpreted with caution. LC is not uniform; its three major components--content, sequence and advisory control--vary in their effects on student performance and motivation.
Content control may benefit students in multiple ways. For example, Chung and Reigeluth (1992) discern that content control enables students to set their own learning objectives. They emphasize that students with advanced knowledge or greater ability may be bored with repeating what they have already mastered, and that these students benefit more if they are allowed to choose content that is relatively new and appealing to them. Students who need some extra time to work on a topic or need to review previous topics can also find content control useful because it allows learners to establish better connections between relevant topics (Chung & Reigeluth, 1992). Thus, one of the major advantages of content control is that it supports on-demand, self-paced learning.
LC literature identifies two primary approaches to integrating content control in multimedia instruction: full-minus and lean-plus types of control. In the former approach, a computer program allows students to bypass some topics, while in the latter, a program initially offers few topics but learners have the opportunity to add some or all "optional" topics (Crooks et al., 1996). In Crooks et al.'s (1996) and Schnackenberg and Sullivan's (2000) studies, full-minus and lean-plus types of control were compared with regard to their effect on student test scores and task engagement (motivation).
In Crooks et al.'s
study (1996), 128 undergraduate education major students were randomly
assigned to one of the four groups based on a 2 x 2 cross-factorial design.
The groups varied in instructional methods (cooperative and individual)
and two approaches to LC (full-minus and lean-plus). The two major findings
of that study were that lean-plus students utilized more LC than their
full-minus counterparts (while lean-plus students selected 56% of the
optional elements, full-minus participants bypassed only 17% of optional
elements) and that full-minus learners performed significantly better
on a practice test than lean-plus learners. However, students' post-test
scores were not found to be statistically significantly different for
either LC mode or instructional method. Also, the study did not discern
which of the two LC approaches benefited students more in the long run.
Schnackenberg and Sullivan (2000) also used a randomized 2 x 2 factorial design with two conditions (LC, PC) and two instructional models (full, lean). In their study, 202 college students who used a full-minus program performed significantly better on the post-test than those who used a lean-plus program. Like Crooks et al. (1996), they found that LC promotes the exploration of more optional screens. In Schnackenberg and Sullivan's (2000) study, lean-plus learners explored 68% of the optional screens and full-minus learners viewed only 35% of them. Their study also revealed that students valued more LC than PC.
Sequencing is a very
common type of LC, especially for multimedia programs. Sequence control
allows learners to navigate/choose in what order they prefer to study
subtopics, and therefore it may be perceived as promoting flexible and
inventive thinking and supportive of students' intrinsic interest for
a subject they study (Cho, 1995). Empirical research provides, however,
mixed findings with regard of sequence control affecting student learning.
In Gray's (1988) study, for example, while learners who used multimedia
with a high level of the sequence LC performed better than those who used
more PC multimedia with a low level of sequencing, their knowledge retention
was virtually the same. Furthermore, students from the LC group showed
a more negative attitude toward CAI than those from a control group. In
Burke, Etnier and Sullivan's (1998) research, study participants--89 5th
grade students who were randomly assigned to one of the following conditions:
navigation aids with LC, navigation aids without LC, LC without navigation
aids and PC without navigation aids--also preferred moderate amounts of
sequential control. More particularly, their study demonstrated that students
favored more the program that enabled them with LC and provided navigation
aid. The researchers did not find any statistically significant difference
in post-test scores and the time spent for instruction for these four
Two distinct approaches
exist for defining advisory control. According to Niemic, Sikorski and
Walberg (1996), advisory control means that a program advises students
of their progress and suggests a course of action, which may be adopted
or ignored by learners. Murphy and Davidson (1991) used this definition
for their study in which 44 nursing students were randomly assigned to
one of the following conditions: LC, adaptive LC strategy (in their paper,
adaptive LC was defined as PC) and learner advisement strategy. The study
indicated that students who used LC strategy spent less time to complete
their instruction. However, no significant difference was found in the
immediate recall, intermediate and long-term retention of the concepts
that were studied by the students.
Rubincam and Olivier
(1985) offered a different interpretation of the advisory control concept.
They perceived advisory control as an option for learners to select learning
objectives and to start from instruction or a test. For their study, Rubincam
and Olivier chose six classes of high school students who were taking
a mathematics course on coordinates and transformation. The results of
the post-test did not provide evidence for LC improving student performance
in CAI. However, students who were consistent in selecting the strategy
scored significantly higher than other students.
Although both studies
demonstrated that students who use advisory control needed less time to
complete instruction, they did not confirm that students under advisory
control performed better or have better retention. The personal characteristics
of students may perhaps predict higher test scores better than LC conditions.
The dispute on the effectiveness of LC to improve academic performance (mainly test scores) has not been settled. Indeed, there is some evidence that CAI has a positive impact on students' academic performance. For example, Schacter (1999) disclosed the findings of Kulik's (1994) meta-analysis of 500 studies on CAI. Kulik found that the test scores of students who used CAI were at the 64th percentile compared to the 50th percentile for students who did not use computers in the classroom and that CAI allowed students to learn more in less time.
Since LC is only one
of the many attributes associated with CAI, it is unjustified to conclude
that LC has a positive impact on students' academic achievement. This
conclusion can be warranted only if shown that LC consistently improves
students' scores. The studies reviewed in this article do not show this
consistency. While the studies conducted by Crooks et al. (1996), Burke,
Etnier and Sullivan (1998), and Rubincam and Olivier (1985) did not find
any influence on the post-test performance of students, Schnackenberg
and Sullivan (2000) and Gray (1988) indicated students' post-test scores
significantly improved. Thus, the impact of LC on students' academic performance
is not as clear.
Motivation and Attitude toward Learning
In 1998, Silivan-Kachala
used 219 research studies on CAI for a meta-analysis. The meta-analysis
revealed that CAI improved students' attitudes toward learning and their
self-conceptions (cited in Schacter, 1999). Again, this fact does not
allow us to generalize that LC itself motivates students. Perhaps, the
increase in motivation and the improvement of self-conception are caused
by other factors associated with CAI, not with LC. Therefore, it is important
to examine whether other studies were able to detect shifts in motivation
and attitude toward learning in LC environments.
Becker and Dwyer's
(1994) study investigated the impact of increased LC on students' intrinsic
motivation for a learning task. The participants of the study, 44 students
majoring in accounting, management, or in both completed two self-paced
sessions in which they used two multimedia programs. The multimedia programs
allowed learners to choose their own paths. The study found that students
who used hypertext programs were more self-determined and their intrinsic
motivation was higher than those students who used paper-based resources
In contrast, Cho's
(1995) study, in which 20 undergraduate students used a HyperCard environment,
found no overall difference in cognitive processes between students in
LC and PC groups. Moreover, it also confirmed the hypothesis that multimedia
materials embedded with a high degree of LC could be inappropriate for
low ability students.
One may argue that
for this literature review, the author purposely chose controversial studies
but, in reality, the studies that showed a positive effect of LC on all
sorts of learning outcomes outnumber other studies. Indeed, many researchers
who report their studies tend to review only those studies that show a
positive effect of LC, but many of them then fail to replicate the results
(e.g., Shute, Gawlick & Gluck, 1998). In fact, in a meta-analysis
Niemiec, Sikorski & Walberg (1996) summarized 24 studies of LC which
had all of the necessary parameters reported. The studies were grouped
according to subjects' gender, grade level, ability, type of LC (e.g.,
sequencing, pacing, reviewing, feedback, additional instruction and practice),
and type of outcome (e.g., post-test, retention). However, neither of
these categories had an overall positive significance at the .05 level.
Thus, the research studies on LC fail to confirm or disconfirm anything.
Consequently, there are no right answers on whether LC is beneficial for
students and whether a higher degree of LC implied in a computer program
improves instructional effectiveness.
Inconsistency of LC Research Findings
Analysis of the literature
has revealed that the theory of LC is unfinished (Large, 1996), and that
research findings are controversial. Becker & Dwyer (1994, p. 169)
discerned three possible explanations of why so many studies failed to
find positive effects of LC. They stressed that LC is often presented
to students improperly, and therefore is not helpful to them; that some
students do not realize that they have LC available to them; and that
students may not know how to take advantage of LC options. For instance,
Chung & Reigeluth (1992) recognized that LC of content is unsuitable
when all topics of instructional presentation are required in order to
successfully pass the final test, or when the sequence in which material
is learned is important to understanding the entire topic. They also did
not recommend the use of sequence control for topics in which learners
have no prior knowledge. As Large (1996, p. 104) stated, "while some
students may gain educational benefit from this freedom, others may suffer
as a consequence of being handed such control over their learning".
Lawless and Brown (1997) also found student prior knowledge influencing
the effectiveness of LC. They argued that "all students appear to
benefit from LC opportunities, but those with higher content domain experience
and/or ability may benefit the greater" (p. 120).
An excessive targeting
of younger and inexperienced learners is one of the drawbacks of empirical
studies on LC. Research suggests that the age of participants may relate
with how LC affects instructional outcomes. In fact, slightly more research
shows a negative effect of LC when it is utilized in teaching elementary
students as opposed to older students and adults (Large, 1996). Perhaps
younger learners cannot adequately respond to LC because their developmental
level is not ready to comprehend LC features. Large (1996) referred to
the study by Hannafin (1984) who reported that younger and inexperienced
learners often lack focus and are distracted from learning objectives
and that LC impedes rather than improves their learning outcomes.
Many studies on LC
were done under the assumption that the positive effect of LC is so obvious
and powerful that even a brief experience with LC in CAI will benefit
learners. Reeves (1993) condemned researchers for designing studies in
which students worked under LC conditions for less than an hour, and for
choosing classrooms in which LC and CAI were not common attributes of
Another reason why
LC research is so severely criticized in the literature (e.g., Reeves,
1993) is that LC theory has problems defining and measuring LC. Currently,
no valid and reliable instruments exist to assess the quantity and quality
of LC (Goforth, 1994). If researchers had such instruments, they would
be able to create a scale of the effects associated with various levels
and types of LC. Indeed, all existing studies on LC have failed to control
for quantity of LC. As argued by Reeves (1993), learners are not ready
to absorb any level of LC. In fact, he and others found anecdotal evidence
indicating that the need for LC varied for novices and experts in the
subject matter, for inexperienced and advanced computer users and for
students with different learning potentials. It was also found that students'
personalities also affect the amount of LC they are able to absorb and
benefit from (Barnard, 1992-93; Chung & Reigeluth, 1992; Friend &
Cole, 1990; Goforth, 1994; Schwier, 1993).
As noted by Large
(1996), learners are not homogeneous; their personal characteristics,
prior knowledge, abilities, needs and goals are unique. Since the "effectiveness
of LC in any study is particularly dependent on the profile of the learner
." (Goforth, 1994, p. 1), "failure to match
the learners' preferences with the type of LC which [students] were given"
(Burke, Etnier & Sullivan, 1998, p. 193) may explain the inability
of LC research to validate the effectiveness of LC.
future research and practice
The analysis of the
existing literature about LC does not confirm that LC is beneficial for
students and that a higher degree of LC implied in a computer program
improves instructional effectiveness. The research findings range from
the strong positive effect of LC to no effect or even a negative effect
on learning outcomes, students' academic achievement and motivation. Contradictory
findings were found for all of the three components of LC that were examined:
content, sequence, and advisory controls.
The large variability
of conditions in which studies were conducted makes the research findings
difficult to compare (Goforth, 1994; Schacter, 1999). Study design (e.g.,
the length of intervention, control of independent variables), personal
characteristics of students (e.g., age, ability, computer expertise),
the subject area and other specifics of CAI, and the most important, researchers'
theoretical standpoints with respect to how they define LC and its components,
are all factors that have to be considered when analyzing studies on LC
and its effectiveness on student learning.
LC should certainly
be investigated further, but a stronger theoretical framework is needed
in order for LC research to yield more meaningful conclusions about the
effectiveness of LC. Perhaps, LC is not as effective as we would like.
Moreover, it is more costly to design and implement LC than PC (Schnackenberg
& Sullivan, 2000). However, if we determine the ideal conditions for
implementing LC, we can discover that LC is cost effective. Until then,
implementing LC in CAI should be done with some caution, but not at the
cost of limiting the use of LC to those unimportant components of instruction
that have little effect on instructional outcomes (Schwier, 1993). As
indicated by Chung and Reigeluth (1992), "all instruction involves
some LC, [and] our challenge is NOT whether or not learner control should
be used, BUT rather how to maximize the learner's ability to use the LC
available and to decide what kinds of LC to make available" (p. 19,
While developing stronger
theoretical grounds for LC and conducting other studies in this area may
take some time, it is also understood that those who use CAI in their
teaching need immediate advice on how to use LC more effectively. The
literature on LC does not provide a magic formula for that, but gives
several recommendations. Perhaps one of the major conditions for the successful
integration of LC in CAI is to have instruction carefully pre-planned
(Burke, Etnier & Sullivan, 1998). According to Hannafin (1984), several
conditions should be present in order for LC to have a greater chance
for success: "the learners are older; the learners are more able;
the educational objective is to impart a higher order of skills rather
than factual information; the content is familiar, advisement is provided
to assist learners in making decisions; learner control is used consistently
within a lesson; it is possible to switch unsuccessful learners from LC
to PC; and LC is combined with evaluation to facilitate the re-design
of the program based on the paths chosen by effective learners" (cited
in Large, 1996, p. 103). Finally, educators should recognize that students
need to be taught to take advantage of LC that is implemented systematically
in conditions that are natural and friendly for learners, in order for
LC to promote better instructional outcomes.
Ellen Lunts is a Ph. D. candidate in Teaching and Curriculum at the University of Rochester. Her research focuses on telecommunication technology, secondary mathematics education and parental involvement. The dissertation she is completing is entitled "Math teachers' perceptions and practices of using their class web sites to support parental involvement and instruction." Ellen has also studied and taught mathematics and educational technology in Russia
Barnard, J. (1992-93). Video-based instruction: Issues of effectiveness, interaction, and learner control. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 21 (1), 45-50.
Becker, D. A., &
Dwyer, M. M. (1994). Using hypermedia to provide learner control. Journal
of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3 (2), 155-172.
Burke, P. A., Etnier,
J. L., & Sullivan H. J. (1998). Navigational aids and learner control
in hypermedia instructional programs. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 18 (2), 183-196.
Cho, Y. (1995). Learner
control, cognitive processes, and hypertext learning environments. In
Emerging Technologies, Lifelong learning, NECC 95. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 392 439).
Chung, J., & Reigeluth,
C. M. (1992). Instructional prescriptions for learner control. Educational
Technology, 32 (10), 14-20.
Crooks, S. M., Klein,
J. D., Jones, E. E. K., & Dwyer, H. (1996). Effects of cooperative
learning and learner-control modes in computer-based instruction. Journal
of Research on Computing in Education, 29 (2), 109-123.
El-Tigi, M., &
Branch, R. M. (1997). Designing for interaction, learner control, and
feedback during web-based learning. Educational Technology, 37 (3), 23-29.
Filipczak, B. (1996).
Engaged! The nature of computer interactivity. Training, 33 (11), 52-58.
Friend, C. L., &
Cole, C. L. (1990). Learner control in computer-based instruction: A current
literature review. Educational Technology, 20 (11), 47-49.
Gilbert, L., &
Moore, D. R. (1998). Building interactivity into web courses: Tools for
social and instructional interaction. Educational Technology, 38 (3),
Goforth, D. (1994).
Learner control = Decision making + Information: A model and meta-analysis.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11 (1), 1-26.
Gray, S. H. (1988).
Sequence control menus and CAI: A follow-up study. Journal of Computer-Based
Instruction, 15 (2), 13-22.
Hannafin, M. J. (1989).
Interaction strategies and emerging instructional technologies: Psychological
perspectives. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication (CJEC), 18
Hoska, D. M. (1993).
Motivating learners through CBI feedback: Developing a positive learner
perspective. In V. Dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.) Interactive instruction
and feedback, (pp. 105-132). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology
James, J. (1998, June).
Practical issues in interactive multimedia design. In ED-MEDIA/ED-TELECOM
98 World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia & World
Conference on Educational Telecommunications: Proceedings. Freiburg, Germany.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 428 677).
Kirsh, D. (1997).
Interactivity and multimedia interfaces. Instructional Science, 25, 79-96.
Large, A. (1996).
Hypertext instructional programs and learner control: A research review.
Education for Information, 14 (2), 95-106.
Lawless, K. A., &
Brown, S. W. (1997). Multimedia learning environments: Issues of learner
control and navigation. Instructional Science, 25 (2), 117-131.
Milheim, W. D., &
Martin, B. (1991). Theoretical bases for the use of learner control: Three
different perspectives. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18 (3),
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.
Niemiec, R. P., Sikorski,
C., & Walberg, H. (1996). Learner-control effects: A review of reviews
and a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15 (2),
Reeves, T. C. (1993).
Pseudoscience in computer-based instruction: The case of learner control
research. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20 (2), 39-46.
Rubincam, I., &
Olivier, W. P. (1985, Summer). An investigation of limited learner-control
options in a CAI mathematics course. AEDS Journal, 18, 211-226.
Schacter, J. (1999).
The impact of educational technology on student achievement: What the
most current research has to say. Milken Exchange on Educational Technology,
Santa Monica, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 430 537).
& Hilliard, A. W. (1998, February). Learner ability and learner control:
A 10 year literature review 1987-1997. In Proceedings of Selected Research
and Development Presentations at the National Convention of the Association
for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). St. Louis, MO. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. 423 858).
& Sullivan, H. J. (2000). Learner control over full and lean computer-based
instruction under differing ability levels. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 48 (2), 19-35.
Schwier, R. A. (1993).
Learning environments and interaction for emerging technologies: Implications
for learner control and practice. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication,
22 (3), 163-176.
Schwier, R. A., &
Misanchuk, E. R. (1993). Interactive multimedia instruction. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Shute, V. J., Gawlick,
L. A., & Gluck, K. A. (1998). Effects of practice and learner control
on short- and long-term gain and efficiency. Human Factors, 40 (2), 296-310.
Spoon, J., & Schell,
J. W. (1998). Aligning student learning styles with instructor teaching
styles. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 35 (2), 41-56.
U.S. Department of
Education (2000). "Stats in brief." Internet access in U.S.
public schools and classrooms: 1994-99. Retrieved July 26, 2002 from the
World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000086.pdf
Zazelenchuk, T.W. (1997). Interactivity in multimedia: Reconsidering our perspective. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 26 (2), 75-86.
 The other five
components of interactivity are active learning environment, feedback,
[ Copyright © 2002 College of Education, Idaho State University | ISBN 0-9718446-0-7 ]
Please report any problems you may have with the site to our webmaster via email.