Learner control modes and incentive variations in computer-delivered instruction

  • Samuel Hicken
  • Howard Sullivan
  • James Klein


This study investigated the effects of two general approaches to the provision of learner control and of two types of incentive on achievement, use of options, time, and attitude using computer-delivered instruction. Posttest scores for the “FullMinus” treatment for learner control, where learners could selectively bypass elements of a full instructional program, were marginally higher than those for the “LeanPlus” treatment, where learners could opt to add elements to a core program (p=.052). The FullMinus treatment resulted in more positive attitudes while requiring no more time. Performance-contingent incentive groups had higher post-test scores than task-contingent groups (p<.05), with no greater investment of learner time and no negative effect on attitude. The findings relate directly to the design of instructional computer programs as well as to the design of future studies on learner control.


Future Study Computer Program Positive Attitude Control Mode Educational Technology 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Campanizzi, J. (1978). The effects of locus-of-control and provision of overviews upon response latency and achievement in a computer-assisted instructional sequence.Dissertation Abstracts International, 39(2-A) 830A. (University Microfilms No. 78-12, 325).Google Scholar
  2. Carrier, C. A. (1984). Do learners make good choices?Instructional Innovator, 29(2), 15–17, 48.Google Scholar
  3. Carrier, C. A., Davidson, G., 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.Google Scholar
  4. Carrier, C.A., Davidson, G., & Williams, M. (1985). The selection of instructional options in a computer-based coordinate concept lesson.Educational Communication & Technology Journal, 33, 199–212.Google Scholar
  5. Carrier, C. A., Davidson, G. V., Williams, M. D., & Kalweit, C. M. (1986). Instructional options and encouragement effects in a microcomputer-delivered concept lesson.Journal of Educational Research, 79, 222–229.Google Scholar
  6. Carrier, C. A., & Williams, M. D. (1988). A test of one learner control strategy with students of differing levels of task persistence.American Education Research Journal, 25, 285–306.Google Scholar
  7. Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1984).Statistical methods in education and psychology (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Gray, S. H. (1987). The effect of sequence control on computer assisted learning.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14, 54–56.Google Scholar
  9. Kinzie, M. B., & Sullivan, H. J. (1989). Continuing motivation, learner control, and CAI.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 5–14.Google Scholar
  10. Kinzie, M. B., Sullivan, H. J., & Berdel, R. L. (1988). Learner control and achievement in science computer-assisted instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 299–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kinzie-Berdel, M. B. (1988).Motivational and achievement effects of learner control of computer-assisted instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Merrill, M. D. (1980). Learner control in computer based learning.Computers & Education, 4, 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pollock, J. C., & Sullivan, H. J. (1990). Practice mode and learner control in computer-based instruction.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. Schloss, P. J., Sindelar, P. T., Cartwright, G. P., & Smith, M. A. (1988, Summer). Learner control over feedback as a variable in computer assisted instruction.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 310–320.Google Scholar
  17. Stevens, J. (1986).Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Sullivan, H. J., Baker, R. L., & Schutz, R. E. (1967). Effect of intrinsic and extrinsic reinforcement contingencies on learner performance.Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(3), 165–169.Google Scholar
  19. Sullivan, H.J., Schutz, R. E., & Baker, R. L. (1971). Effects of systematic variations in reinforcement contingencies on learner performance.American Educational Research Journal, 8(1), 135–142.Google Scholar
  20. Tennyson, R. D. (1980). Instructional control strategies and content structure as design variables in concept acquisition using computer-based instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 525–532.Google Scholar
  21. Tennyson, R. D., & Buttrey, T. (1980). Advisement and management strategies as design variables in computer-assisted instruction.Educational Communication & Technology Journal, 28, 169–176.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel Hicken
    • 2
  • Howard Sullivan
    • 1
  • James Klein
    • 1
  1. 1.the Division of Psychology in Education at Arizona State UniversityTempe
  2. 2.Training and Learning TechnologiesUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerque

Personalised recommendations