Learner control over full and lean computer-based instruction under differing ability levels

Selecting learning tasks: Effects of adaptation and shared control on learning efficiency and task involvement

“…Program control over task selection leaves learners with no freedom of choice, which may negatively affect their motivation, specifically their task involvement and interest. One way to overcome this problem is to give learners some control over the selection of learning tasks, which has positive effects on motivation (Kinzie & Sullivan, 1989;Ross, Morrisin, & O'Dell, 1989;Schnackenberg & Sullivan, 2000).…”

Training self-assessment and task-selection skills: A cognitive approach to improving self-regulated learning

“…Rather than having all learners follow the same instruction or practice schedule, which is often targeted at the average learner, personalized instruction allows learners who have difficulty with a task or topic to start at a lower level of complexity or obtain more support, while learners who find the new material easy can quickly move on to more complex materials. Such personalized instruction is expected to enhance students' motivation and learning outcomes more than non-personalized instruction that is the same for all students (Niemiec et al, 1996;Pintrich, 2004;Schnackenberg & Sullivan, 2000). However, there is little evidence for both assumptions.…”

“…Support for this assumption comes from studies that have shown that providing novice learners with control over their learning process may have beneficial effects on their motivation or involvement (e.g., Corbalan et al, 2008;Schnackenberg & Sullivan, 2000), but has detrimental effects on learning outcomes when compared to teacher or computer controlled fixed or personalized instruction (see e.g., Azevedo et al, 2008;Lawless & Brown, 1997;Niemiec et al, 1996;Williams, 1996). Beneficial effects on learning outcomes attained through selfregulated learning have been found mainly for learners with higher levels of prior knowledge (Lawless & Brown, 1997;Moos & Azevedo, 2008b, 2008cNiemiec et al, 1996;Scheiter & Gerjets, 2007;Schnackenberg & Sullivan, 2000;Steinberg, 1989), who, as mentioned above, are better able to monitor and assess their own performance than novices. In addition, Kostons et al (2010) investigated whether secondary education students who differed in the amount of knowledge gained from studying in a selfregulated learning environment, also differed in self-assessment and task-selection skills.…”

Combining shared control with variability over surface features: Effects on transfer test performance and task involvement

“…Recent instructional theories advocate on-demand methods of instruction in which learners are given freedom to choose their own learning path (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002;Schnackenberg & Sullivan, 2000;Williams, 1996). In contrast to system-controlled instruction, learner-controlled instruction allows learners to make their own decisions on specific elements of instruction.…”

“…Instructional locus of control can be thought of as a continuum ranging from full system control to full learner control, involving several forms of shared control (Hannafin, 1984). Learner control is believed to positively influence learning and motivation (Kinzie & Sullivan, 1989;Ross, Morrison, & O'Dell, 1989;Schnackenberg & Sullivan, 2000;Williams, 1996). It permits learners to adapt particular characteristics of the learning material to their individual preferences and needs (Kinzie, 1990; Merrill, 1994), and has been theorized to be a useful alternative to the classical aptitude-treatment interaction approach in that learners can become system independent (Federico, 1980).…”