Learner control over full and lean computer-based instruction under differing ability levels

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 19-35

  Schnackenberg, Heidi L ^a   Sullivan, Howard J ^b  

^a Gina Cody School of Engineering and Computer Science   (Canada)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034355353     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF02313399     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Brennan, R.L. & Kolen, M.J. (1989). Scaling the ACT assessment and P-ACT+: Rationale and goals. Iowa City: ACT Publications.
2. Carrier, C.A., Davidson, G.V., Higson, V., & Williams, M. (1984). Selection of options by field independent and dependent children in a computer-based concept lesson. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 11(2), 49-54.
3. Carrier, C.A., Davidson, G.V., & Williams, M. (1985). The selection of instructional options in a computer-based coordinate concept lesson. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 33, 199-212.
4. Carrier, C.A., Davidson, G.V., Williams, M.D., & Kaiweit, C.M. (1986). Instructional options and encouragement effects in a microcomputer-delivered concept lesson. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 222-229.
5. Carrier, C.A., & Williams, M.D. (1988). A test of one learner-control strategy with students of differing levels of task persistence. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 285-306.
6. Comras, J. (1984). The SAT - What does it measure and does it still work? New York: The College Board.
7. Freitag, E.T., & Sullivan, H.J. (1995). Matching learner preference for amount of instruction: An alternative form of learner control. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 5-14.
8. Goetzfried, L., & Hannafin, M.J. (1985). The effect of the 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, R.D., & Sullivan, H.J. (1995). Learner control in full and lean CAI programs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 19-30.
11. Hannafin, R.D., & Sullivan, H.J. (1996). Preferences and learner control over amount of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 162-173.
12. Hativa, N. (1988). Differential characteristics and methods of operation underlying CAI/CMI drill and practice systems. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 20, 258-270.
13. Hicken, S., Sullivan, H., & Klein, J.D. (1992). Learner control modes and incentive variations in computer-delivered instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(4), 15-26.
14. Igoe, A.R. (1993). Learner control over instruction and achievement goals in computer-assisted instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.
15. Kinzie, M.B., & Sullivan, H.J. (1989). Continuing motivation, learner control, and CAI. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 5-14.
16. Kinzie, M.B., Sullivan, H.J., & Berdel, R.L. (1988). Learner control and achievement in science computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 299-303.
17. Lopez, C.L., & Harper, M. (1989). The relationship between learner control of CAI and locus of control among Hispanic students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(4), 19-28.
18. Mager, R.F. (1964). Learner-controlled instruction -1958-1964. Programmed Instruction, 4(2), 1,8, 10-12.
19. Merrill, M.D. (1975). Learner control: Beyond aptitude-treatment interactions. AV Communications Review, 23, 217-226.
20. Merrill, M.D. (1980). Learner control in computer based learning. Computers and Education, 4, 77-95.
21. Morrison, G.R., Ross, S.M., & Baldwin, W. (1992). Learner control of context and instructional support in learning elementary school mathematics. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 5-13.
22. Pascal, C.E. (1971). Instructional options, option preference, and course outcomes. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 37(1), 1-11.
23. Peterson, T.C., & Janicki, P .L. (1979). Individual characteristics and children's learning in large-group and small-group approaches. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(5), 677-687.
24. Pollock, J.C., & Sullivan, H.J. (1990). Practice mode and learner control in computer-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 251-260.
25. Ross, S.M., Morrison, G.R., & O'Dell, J.K. (1989). Uses and effects of learner control of context and instructional support in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(4), 29-39.
26. Ross, S.M., & Rakow, E.A. (1981). Learner control versus program control as adaptive strategies for selection of instructional support on math rules. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(5).
27. Schnackenberg, H.L., Sullivan, H.J., Leader, L.F., & Jones, E.E.K. (1998). Learner Preferences and Learner Achievement Under Differing Amounts of Instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(2), 5-15.
28. Steinberg, E.R. (1977). Review of student control in computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 3, 84-90.
29. Sullivan, H., & Higgins, N. (1983). Teaching for competence. New York: Teachers College Press.
30. Tennyson, R.D. (1980). Instructional control strategies and content structures as design variables in concept acquisition using computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(4), 525-532.
31. Tennyson, R.D., & Buttrey, T. (1980). Advisement and management strategies as design variables in computer-assisted instruction. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 28, 169-176.
32. Tennyson, R.D., & Rothen, W. (1977). Pretask and on-task adaptive design strategies for selecting number of instances in conceptual acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 586-592.