What does the Literature Say about the Effectiveness of Learner Control in Computer-Assisted Instruction ?

Each year, a substantial portion of educational institutions’ budgets are allocated to supporting the integration of computers into instruction under the assumption that computers benefit teaching and learning, and can improve student academic performance. Educational research and practice, however, demonstrate that different ways of integrating computer technology and the context in which computers are used have varied effects on student learning. This article explores computer-assisted instruction (CAI), a learning environment that supports a one-on-one interaction between a learner (or several learners) and a computer program. It also demonstrates how the two polar characteristics of CAI, which indicate whether the learner or the program has primary control over the content and direction of instruction--learner control (LC) and program control (PC)--affect instructional delivery and outcomes. While trying to explain the inconsistency of research findings, the article argues that LC theory needs a stronger theoretical framework in order for LC studies to yield more definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of LC and CAI in general. The Nature of Learner Control Concerned about 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 Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, Vo. 1, No. 2 59knowledge and skills (e.g., “self-learning” and encyclopedic programs; “drill-and-practice” and simulation software) or to entertain them (e.g., computer games) (Schwier & Misanchuk, 1993). 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, “drilland-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 text 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 [1], 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 Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, Vo. 1, No. 2 60other 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. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, Vo. 1, No. 2 61Generally, 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 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, fullElectronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, Vo. 1, No. 2 62minus 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 (fullminus 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 fullminus 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