Matching learner preference to amount of instruction: An alternative form of learner control

  • Eric T. Freitag
  • Howard J. Sullivan


This study was conducted with 75 United States and Far East employees of a major corporation to investigate the effects of assigning learners to either the amount of instruction they preferred or to the contrasting amount. Subjects completed a 10-item Likert-type prequestionnaire to indicate whether they preferred a basic instructional program or a more comprehensive one, then were randomly assigned either to the type of program they preferred or to the opposite type. Subjects who received the amount of instruction that matched their preference scored significantly higher on the posttest, spent significantly less time in the program, and had significantly more positive attitudes on four of the six attitude items. Further research is recommended to determine the generalizability of the present findings to other subject populations.


United States Present Finding Positive Attitude Educational Technology Alternative Form 
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. Bower G.H., Thompson-Schill S., Tulving E. (1994). Reducing retroactive interference: an interference analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 20(1), 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell, C.C. (1993). Accessing related events increases retroactive interference in a matching recognition test.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 19(4), 967–974.Google Scholar
  3. Carrier, C. (1984). Do learners make good choices?Instructional Innovator, 29(2), 15–17, 48.Google Scholar
  4. Carrier C.A., Davidson G., and Williams, M. (1985). The selection of instructional options in the computer-based coordinate concept lesson.Educational Communication & Technology Journal, 33, 199–212.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, R. (1984). Research on student thought processes during computer-based instruction.Journal of Instructional Development, 7(3), 2–5.Google Scholar
  6. Crouse, J.M. (1971). Retroactive interference in reading prose materials.Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 39–44.Google Scholar
  7. Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1990).The systematic design of instruction. Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.Google Scholar
  8. Driscoll, M.P. (1994).Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, pg. 98.Google Scholar
  9. Gray, S.H. (1987). The effect of sequence control on computer assisted learning.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14(2), 54–56.Google Scholar
  10. Hannafin, R.D. & Sullivan, H. (1995). Learner control in full and lean CAI programs.Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hicken, S. (1991)Learner control and incentives in computer-assisted instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.Google Scholar
  12. Hicken, S. Sullivan H. & Klein, J. (1992). Learner control modes and incentive variations in computer-assisted instruction.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(4), 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Igoe, A.R. (1993). Learner control over instruction and achievement goals in computer-assisted instruction. Dissertation Abstracts International.Google Scholar
  14. Kalin, M.F. & McAvoy, R. (1973).The influence of choice on the acquisition and retention of learning materials in different modes of instruction. New Orleans, LA: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, February.Google Scholar
  15. Kinzie, M.B., Sullivan, H.J. (1989).Continuing motivation, learner control, and CAI. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 5–14.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mager, R.F. (1964). Learner-controlled instruction — 1958–1964.Programmed Instruction, 4(2), 1, 8, 10–12.Google Scholar
  18. Merrill, M.D. (1975). Learner control: Beyond aptitude-treatment interactions.AV Communications Review, 23, 217–226.Google Scholar
  19. Merrill, M.D. (1980). Learner control in computer based learning.Computers and Education, 4, 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nathenson, M.B. & Henderson, E.S. (1980)Using student feedback to improve learning materials. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  21. Pollock J.C. & Sullivan, H.J. (1990). Practice mode and learner control in computer-based instruction.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ross, S.M., Morrison, G.R., & O'Dell, J.K. (1989). Uses and effects of learner control on the context and instructional support in computer-based instruction.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(4), 29–39.Google Scholar
  23. 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).Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Tennyson, R.D., & Rothen, W. (1979). Management of computer-based instruction: Design of adaptive control strategy.Journal of Computer-based Instruction, 5, 63–71.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© the Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric T. Freitag
    • 1
  • Howard J. Sullivan
    • 2
  1. 1.the Psychology in Education Department at Arizona State UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Learning and Instructional TechnologyUSA

Personalised recommendations