Requirements and benefits of effective interactive instruction: Learner control, self-regulation, and continuing motivation

  • Mable B. Kinzie


While educational technologies provide increasing opportunities for interactive exploration in a learning environment, crucial questions remain: Will learners be able to exercise control and effectively regulate their own learning in flexible learning systems? Will they be motivated enough really to explore? Theory and research suggest that learners can and will, if the instructional systems are well-designed and if the learners are adequately prepared. In this paper, the components of learner control, self-regulated learning, and continuing motivation are examined as possible requirements and benefits of effective interactive instruction. A theoretical framework is advanced which illustrates the interdependence and mutual importance of these three components. Educational research in each of these three areas is analyzed, inconsistencies are discussed, and further support is developed for consideration of these components within an instructional situation. Finally, recommendations are offered for future research, to develop further what we know about what makes instruction effective and learners successful.


Learning Environment Educational Research Educational Technology Learning System Crucial Question 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ames, C. (1987). The enhancement of student motivation. In M. L. Maehr and D. A. Kleiber (Eds.),Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol. 5. Enhancing motivation. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arlin, M., & Whitley, T. W. (1978). Perceptions of self-managed learning opportunities and academic locus of control: A causal interpretation.Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 988–992.Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong, A. M. (1989). The development of self-regulation skills through the modeling and structuring of computer programming.Educational Technology Research & Development, 37(2), 69–76.Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson, R. C. (1972). Optimizing the learning of a second-language vocabulary.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96, 124–129.Google Scholar
  5. Baird, J. R., & White, R. T. (1982). Promoting self-control of learning.Instructional Science, 11, 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (1982). The self and mechanisms of agency. In J. Suls (Ed.),Psychological perspectives on the self. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Bobrow, S. A., & Bower, G. H. (1969). Comprehension and recall of sentences.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80, 455–461.Google Scholar
  8. Brophy, J. (1983). Conceptualizing student motivation.Educational Psychologist, 18, 200–215.Google Scholar
  9. Bruner, J. S. (1966).Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Campbell, V. N. (1964). Self-direction and programmed instruction for five different types of learning objectives.Psychology in the Schools, 1, 348–359.Google Scholar
  12. Campbell, V. N., & Chapman, M. A. (1967). Learner control vs. program control of instruction.Psychology in the Schools, 4, 121–130.Google Scholar
  13. Carrier, C. A. (1984). Do learners make good choices?Instructional Innovator, 29(2), 15–17, 48.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Clark, R. (1984). Research on student thought processes during computer-based instruction.Journal of Instructional Development, 7(3), 2–5.Google Scholar
  17. Condry, J., & Chambers, J. (1978). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning. In M. R. Lepper and D. Greene (Eds.),The hidden costs of reward: New perspectives on the psychology of human motivation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation.Educational Psychologist, 18, 88–108.Google Scholar
  19. Crandall, V. J., Katkovsky, W., & Preston, A. (1962). Motivational and ability determinants of young children's intellectual achievement behaviors.Child Development, 33, 643–661.Google Scholar
  20. deCharms, R. (1968).Personal causation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Deci, E. L. (1975).Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  22. Fiderio, J. (1988). A grand vision.BYTE, 13(10), 237–244.Google Scholar
  23. Findley, M. J., & Cooper, H. M. (1983). Locus of control and academic achievement: A literature review.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 419–427.Google Scholar
  24. Fisher, M. D., Blackwell, L. R., Garcia, A. B., & Greene, J. C. (1975). Effects of student control and choice on engagement in aCai arithmetic task in a low-income school.Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 776–783.Google Scholar
  25. Gay, G. (1986). Interaction of learner control and prior understanding in computer-assisted video instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 225–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gray, S. H. (1987). The effect of sequence control on computer assisted learning.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14, 54–56.Google Scholar
  27. Greiner, J. M., & Karoly, P. (1976). Effects of self-control training on study activity and academic performance: An analysis of self-monitoring, self-reward, and systematic-planning components.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 23, 495–502.Google Scholar
  28. Hansen, J. B. (1974). Effects of feedback, learner control, and cognitive abilities on state anxiety and performance in a computer-assisted instruction task.Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 247–254.Google Scholar
  29. Harter, S., & Connell, J. P. (1984). A model of children's achievement and related self-perceptions of competence, control, and motivational orientation. In J. Nicholls and M. Maehr (Eds.),Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol. 3. The development of achievement motivation. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  30. Herndon, J. N. (1987). Learner interests, achievement, and continuing motivation in instruction.Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 11–14.Google Scholar
  31. Hurlock, R. E., Lahey, G. F., & McCann, P. H. (1974, April).Student controlled versus program controlled Cai. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 089 681).Google Scholar
  32. Jacobsen, E., & Thompson, M. (1975, April).Self-managed learning using Cai. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 104 362).Google Scholar
  33. Kehoe, J. F. (1979). Choice time and aspects of choice alternatives. In L. C. Perlmuter and R. A. Monty (Eds.),Choice and perceived control (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design and instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 383–434). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Kinzie, M. B., & Sullivan, H. J. (1989b). ContinuingMotivational and achievement effects of learner control of computer-assisted instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  36. Kinzie, M. B., & Sullivan, H. J. (1989b) Continuing motivation, learner control, and CAI.Educational Technology Research & Development, 37(2), 5–14.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Langer, E. J., & Rodin, J. (1976). The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 191–198.Google Scholar
  39. Lepper, M. R. (1985). Microcomputers in education: Motivational and social issues.American Psychologist, 40(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lepper, M. R., & Chabay, R. W. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and instruction: Conflicting views on the role of the motivational processes in computer-based education.Educational Psychologist, 20, 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maehr, M. L. (1976). Continuing motivation: An analysis of a seldom considered educational outcome.Review of Educational Research, 46, 443–462.Google Scholar
  42. Mager, R. F. (1964). Learner-controlled instruction—1958–1964.Programmed Instruction, 4(2), 1, 8, 10–12.Google Scholar
  43. Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction.Cognitive Science, 4, 333–369.Google Scholar
  44. McCombs, B. L. (1982–3). Learner satisfaction, motivation, and performance: Capitalizing on strategies for positive self-control.Performance and Instruction, 21(4), 3–6.Google Scholar
  45. McCombs, B. L. (1984). Processes and skills underlying continuing intrinsic motivation to learn: Toward a definition of motivational skills training interventions.Educational Psychologist, 19, 199–218.Google Scholar
  46. Merrill, M. D. (1975). Learner control: Beyond aptitude-treatment interactions.AV Communications Review, 23, 217–226.Google Scholar
  47. Merrill, M. D. (1980). Learner control in computer based learning.Computers & Education, 4, 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Milheim, W. D., & Azbell, J. W. (1988, January).How past research on learner control can aid in the design of interactive video materials. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  49. Newman, S. E. (1957). Student vs. instructor design of study method.Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, 328–333.Google Scholar
  50. Pascal, C. E. (1971). Instructional options, option preference, and course outcomes.The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 17(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  51. Perlmuter, L. C., & Monty, R. A. (1977). The importance of perceived control: Fact or fantasy?American Scientist, 65, 759–765.Google Scholar
  52. Piaget, J. (1952).The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  53. Resnick, L. B. (1972). Open education: Some tasks for technology.Educational Technology, 12(1), 70–76.Google Scholar
  54. Rodin, J., & Langer, E. (1977). Long-term effects of a control-relevant intervention with the institutionalized aged.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 897–902.Google Scholar
  55. Rodin, J., Solomon, S. K., & Metcalf, J. (1978). Role of control in mediating perceptions of density.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 988–999.Google Scholar
  56. Ross, S. M., & Rakow, E. A. (1980). Adaptive design strategies for the teacher-managed course.Journal of Instructional Psychology, 7(1), 13–19.Google Scholar
  57. Ross, S. M., McCormick, D., & Krisak, N. (1986). Adapting the thematic context of mathematical problems to student interests: Individual versus group-based strategies.Journal of Educational Research, 79, 245–252.Google Scholar
  58. Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (1989). In search of a happy medium in instructional technology research: Issues concerning external validity, media replications, and learner control.Educational Technology Research & Development, 37, 19–33.Google Scholar
  59. Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & O'Dell, J. K. (1988). Obtaining more out of less text inCbi: Effects of varied text density levels as a function of learner characteristics and control strategy.Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 36, 131–142.Google Scholar
  60. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.Psychological Monographs, 80 (Whole No. 69), 1–28.Google Scholar
  61. Salomon, G., & Garner, H. (1986). The computer as educator: Lessons from television research.Educational Researcher, 15(1), 13–19.Google Scholar
  62. Schulz, R. (1976). Effects of control and predictability on the physical and psychological well-being of the institutionalized aged.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 563–573.Google Scholar
  63. Schulz, R., & Hanusa, B. H. (1978). Long-term effects of control and predictability-enhancing interventions: Findings and ethical issues.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1,194–1,201.Google Scholar
  64. Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1987). Enhancing comprehension skill and self-efficacy with strategy value information.Journal of Reading Behavior, 19, 285–302.Google Scholar
  65. Sherrod, D. R., Hage, J. N., Halpern, P. L., & Moore, B. S. (1977). Effects of personal causation and perceived control on responses to an aversive environment: The more control, the better.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 14–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Snow, R. E. (1980). Aptitude, learner control, and adaptive instruction.Educational Psychologist, 15, 151–158.Google Scholar
  67. Steinberg, E. R., Baskin, A. B., & Hofer, E. (1986). Organizational/memory tools: A technique for improving problem solving skills.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2, 169–187.Google Scholar
  68. Stipek, D. J., & Weisz, J. R. (1981). Perceived control and academic achievement.Review of Educational Research, 51, 101–137.Google Scholar
  69. Stotland, E., & Blumenthal, A. L. (1964). The reduction of anxiety as a result of the expectation of making a choice.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 18, 139–145.Google Scholar
  70. 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
  71. Tennyson, R. D. (1981). Use of adaptive information for advisement in learning concepts and rules using computer-assisted instruction.American Educational Research Journal, 18, 425–428.Google Scholar
  72. 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
  73. Tennyson, R. D., & Rothen, W. (1979). Management of computer-based instruction: Design of an adaptive control strategy.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 5, 63–71.Google Scholar
  74. Wang, M. C. (1983). Development and consequences of students' sense of personal control. In J. M. Levine and M. C. Wang (Eds.),Teacher and student perceptions: Implications for learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  75. Wang, M. C., & Stiles, B. (1976). An investigation of children's concept of self-responsibility for their school learning.American Educational Research Journal, 13, 159–179.Google Scholar
  76. White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence.Psychological Review, 66, 297–333.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mable B. Kinzie
    • 1
  1. 1.the Department of Educational Studies, Curry School of EducationThe University of VirginiaCharlottesville

Personalised recommendations