Updated Meta-Analysis of Learner Control Within Educational Technology

Giving a student control over their learning has theoretical and intuitive appeal, but its effects are neither powerful nor consistent in the empirical literature base. This meta-analysis updated previous meta-analytic research by Niemiec, Sikorski, and Walberg by studying the overall effectiveness of providing learner control within educational technology, the characteristics of instruction along the continuum of learner control, and elements of the instructional environments that may play a role in the effectiveness of educational technology. The search terms identified 85 distinct articles, 18 of which met the inclusion criteria (29 effects were computed). The overall effect of including learner control within educational technology was almost zero (g = 0.05), and were also near zero when examining most characteristics of control and classroom contextual factors. Moderate effects were reported for providing learner control within social studies/history courses and for comprehensive technology instructional programs. The effects were larger for behavioral outcomes than academic outcomes, but both were small.

[1]  Richard K Wagner,et al.  Computer-assisted instruction to prevent early reading difficulties in students at risk for dyslexia: Outcomes from two instructional approaches , 2010, Annals of dyslexia.

[2]  Scott W. Brown,et al.  Learner Control versus Program Control in Interactive Videodisc Instruction: What Are the Effects in Procedural Learning?. , 1992 .

[3]  Liesbeth Kester,et al.  Dynamic task selection: Effects of feedback and learner control on efficiency and motivation , 2009 .

[4]  Scott McLeod,et al.  Using Technology Tools to Monitor Response to Intervention , 2007 .

[5]  Haya Shamir,et al.  Variability in reading ability gains as a function of computer-assisted instruction method of presentation , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[6]  S. Machin,et al.  New Technology in Schools: Is There a Payoff? , 2006, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[7]  Linnea C. Ehri,et al.  Reading Rescue: An Effective Tutoring Intervention Model for Language-Minority Students Who Are Struggling Readers in First Grade , 2007 .

[8]  Robert G. Orwin,et al.  A Fail-SafeN for Effect Size in Meta-Analysis , 1983 .

[9]  Rosemary E. Sutton,et al.  Effects of Learner Control with Advisement on English-as-a-Second-Language Students in a Web-Based Learning Environment. , 2002 .

[10]  Robert E. Slavin,et al.  IBM's Writing to Read: Is It Right for Reading?. , 1990 .

[11]  Soon Fook Fong,et al.  Effects of Multimedia Redundancy in History Learning among 'Deep and Surface' Students , 2010 .

[12]  Larry V. Hedges,et al.  A random effects model for effect sizes , 1983 .

[13]  J. Torgesen,et al.  Computers as Aids in the Prevention and Remediation of Reading Disabilities , 1995 .

[14]  Andrew Elby,et al.  Resources , framing , and transfer , 2004 .

[15]  Florence Martin,et al.  Effects of Practice in a Linear and Non-linear Web-based Learning Environment , 2008, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[16]  Mei-Mei Chang,et al.  Effects of locus of control and learner-control on web-based language learning , 2009 .

[17]  John Hattie,et al.  Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement , 2008 .

[18]  R. Orwin.  A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. , 1983 .

[19]  M. Lepper.  Microcomputers in education: Motivational and social issues. , 1985 .

[20]  Asha K. Jitendra,et al.  Cognitive Strategy Instruction for Improving Expository Text Comprehension of Students with Learning Disabilities: The Quality of Evidence , 2011 .

[21]  Michael D. Coyne,et al.  Quality Indicators for Group Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research in Special Education , 2005 .

[22]  Aaron S Benjamin,et al.  On the effectiveness of self-paced learning. , 2011, Journal of memory and language.

[23]  G. Norman,et al.  Virtual reality and brain anatomy: a randomised trial of e‐learning instructional designs , 2007, Medical education.

[24]  R. Rosenthal.  The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results , 1979 .

[25]  Stephen P. Kilgus,et al.  Meta-Analysis of Interventions for Basic Mathematics Computation in Single-case Research , 2012 .

[26]  Theodore J. Kopcha,et al.  Learner preferences and prior knowledge in learner-controlled computer-based instruction , 2008 .

[27]  Geraldine Clarebout,et al.  Can instruction as such affect learning? The case of learner control , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[28]  Chien-Hung Liu,et al.  Learning effectiveness in a Web-based virtual learning environment: a learner control perspective , 2005, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[29]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[30]  K. Scheiter,et al.  Learner Control in Hypermedia Environments , 2007 .

[31]  Fred Paas,et al.  Dynamic Task Selection in Flight Management System Training , 2006 .

[32]  William R. Penuel,et al.  Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from the First Student Cohort , 2007 .

[33]  Blake Ives,et al.  Web-based Virtual Learning Environments: a Research Framework and a Preliminary Assessment of Effectiveness in Basic It Skills Training Author(s): Piccoli Et Al./web-based Virtual Learning Environments Web-based Virtual Learning Environments: a Research Framework and a Preliminary Assessment of Effe , 2022 .

[34]  Michael Stuart,et al.  Understanding Robust and Exploratory Data Analysis , 1984 .

[35]  James E. Ysseldyke,et al.  Using a Curriculum-Based Instructional Management System to Enhance Math Achievement in Urban Schools , 2003 .

[36]  David G. O'Brien,et al.  Teaching Old Dogs New Tricks: The Luxury of Digital Abundance , 2010 .

[37]  R. Rosenthal.  Meta-analytic procedures for social research , 1984 .

[38]  Robert A. Reiser,et al.  The Effects of Self-Regulation and Instructional Control on Performance and Motivation in Computer-based Instruction , 2000 .

[39]  Ingram Olkin,et al.  Estimation of a Single Effect Size: Parametric and Nonparametric Methods , 1985 .

[40]  Philip C. Abrami,et al.  What Forty Years of Research Says About the Impact of Technology on Learning , 2011 .

[41]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[42]  E. Zielinski,et al.  PAPER PRESENTED AT THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING , 2007 .

[43]  G Willems,et al.  Learner-control vs. program-control instructional multimedia: a comparison of two interactions when teaching principles of orthodontic appliances. , 2005, European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe.

[44]  S.-S. Lee,et al.  Adaptive program vs. learner control strategy on computer aided learning of gravimetric stoichiometry problems , 1989 .

[45]  Michael J. Hannafin,et al.  Guidelines for using locus of instructional control in the design of computer-assisted instruction , 1984 .

[46]  Gary R. Morrison,et al.  Past and Present : Balancing Rigor and Relevance to Impact School Learning , 2010 .

[47]  M. Merrill.  Learner control: Beyond aptitude-treatment interactions , 1975 .

[48]  Matthew K. Burns,et al.  Meta-Analysis of Single-Case Design Research: Introduction to the Special Issue , 2012 .

[49]  M. Peters,et al.  Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology , 2011 .

[50]  Fred Paas,et al.  Effectiveness of cognitive-load based adaptive instruction in genetics education , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[51]  Xiao-Hua Zhou,et al.  Statistical Methods for Meta‐Analysis , 2008 .

[52]  Chen-Lin C. Kulik,et al.  Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. , 1991 .

[53]  LeeAnn M. Sutherland,et al.  Effects of game technology on elementary student learning in mathematics , 2012, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[54]  C. Canino,et al.  Cognitive Styles, Computerized Treatments on Mathematics Achievement and Reaction to Treatments , 1988 .

[55]  Fenfang Hwu.  Learners’ Behaviors in Computer-Based Input Activities Elicited Through Tracking Technologies , 2003 .

[56]  R. A. Engle.  Framing Interactions to Foster Generative Learning: A Situative Explanation of Transfer in a Community of Learners Classroom , 2006 .

[57]  Dale E. Berger,et al.  Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Instruction in Statistics , 2011 .

[58]  Herbert J. Walberg,et al.  Learner-Control Effects: A Review of Reviews and a Meta-Analysis , 1996 .

[59]  Phi D. Nguyen,et al.  The influence of framing on transfer: initial evidence from a tutoring experiment , 2011 .

[60]  R. Schreuder,et al.  Training of poor readers' phonological decoding skills: Evidence for syllable-bound processing , 1997 .

[61]  Robert E. Slavin,et al.  How features of educational technology applications affect student reading outcomes: A meta-analysis , 2012 .

[62]  Jo Morrison,et al.  Harnessing Technology Schools Survey 2009: data report – part 1, descriptive analysis , 2009 .

[63]  G. Leinhardt,et al.  Going the Distance With Online Education , 2006 .

[64]  M. David Merrill.  Learner control in computer based learning , 1980 .