Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Objective Learner Control in Web-based Instruction

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Research examining learner control of adult web-based instruction has been inconsistent, showing both positive and negative effects on learning outcomes. In addition, the specific implementation decisions made across studies that are labeled “learner control” often differ dramatically. The purpose of the present study was to provide a theoretical framework by which to understand objective learner control and to empirically test it.

Design/Methodology

In this study, a nine-dimensional hierarchical framework of objective learner control was developed from an extensive literature review. This framework includes instructional control (skip, supplement, sequence, pace, practice, and guidance control), style control (i.e., control of aesthetic training characteristics), and scheduling control (time and location control). Hypothesized effects were tested meta-analytically.

Findings

Findings suggested that (1) types of learner control are almost always confounded in experimental learner control research; (2) objective learner control is not a multidimensional construct but instead of a set of related design choices; (3) across types, learner control is generally effective in skill training but varies greatly in knowledge training and in terms of reactions; and (4) sequence control is the only type that generally does not harm either learning or reactions across contexts.

Implications

Given the significant confounding present in most of the literature, learner control researchers are recommended to isolate specific control features. Practitioners should identify specific targeted outcomes and choose features according to those goals.

Originality/Value

This is the first study to propose and test a theoretically derived framework of objective learner control, providing a roadmap for research and state-of-the-art practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although previous meta-analyses in the domain of technology and learning typically adopt the Kraiger, Ford and Salas (1993) model of cognitive training outcomes to define “declarative knowledge” and “procedural knowledge”, we note that such outcomes are typically meta-analytically coded based upon whether or not the assessment was a multiple-choice test versus demonstration of a skill (see, e.g., Sitzmann et al. 2006). We believe this to be a misapplication of Kraiger and colleagues’ work, in that skill demonstration involves the recall of both declarative and procedural knowledge (in the language of Kraiger and colleagues, a trainee cannot know “how” without first knowing “what”). In meta-analytic coding, both Kraiger and colleagues’ broader distinction between cognitive outcomes and skill-based outcomes and the Campbell and Kuncel (2001) taxonomy better fit the realities of organizational training, namely that when observing the demonstration of a skill, it is impossible to remove the declarative aspects from the procedural.

References

Meta-analytic references are denoted with an asterisk (*)

  • Aguinis, H., Pierce, C. A., Bosco, F. A., Dalton, D. R., & Dalton, C. M. (2010). Debunking myths and urban legends about meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 306–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Allen, G. W. (1990, February). Learner control of review in computer assisted instruction within a military training environment. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA.

  • Ally, M. (2009). Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Alonso, D. L., & Norman, K. L. (1996). Forms of control and interaction as determinants of lecture effectiveness in the electronic classroom. Computers & Education, 27, 205–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Society for Training and Development. (2012). ASTD State of the Industry Report 2012. Retrieved from http://www.astd.org/Publications/Research-Reports/2012/2012-State-of-the-Industry.

  • *Arts, J. A. R., Gijselaers, W. H., & Segers, M. S. R. (2002). Cognitive effects of an authentic computer-supported, problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 30, 465–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., & Bernard, R. M. (1995). A meta-analysis of feedback in computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13, 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., & Jacobson, M. J. (2008). Advancing in scaffolding learning with hypertext and hypermedia: A summary and critical analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 93–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Tal, D. (1978). Attributional analysis of achievement-related behavior. Review of Educational Research, 48, 259–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behrend, T. S., & Thompson, L. F. (2012). Using animated agents in learner-controlled training: The effects of design control. International Journal of Training and Development, 16, 263–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). Adaptive guidance: Enhancing self-regulation, knowledge, and performance in technology-based training. Personnel Psychology, 55, 267–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Belland, J. C. (1985). Is the self-paced instructional program, via microcomputer-based instruction, the most effective method of addressing individual learning differences? Educational Communication & Technology Journal, 33, 185–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijmolt, T. H., & Pieters, R. G. (2001). Meta-analysis in marketing when studies contain multiple measurements. Marketing Letters, 12, 157–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Bill, R. L. (1990). The role of advance organizers, learner control, and student’s locus-of-control on acquisition of pharmacokinetic concepts and attitudes towards computer-assisted instruction (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1990).

  • *Boling, N. C., & Robinson, D. H. (1999). Individual study, interactive multimedia, or cooperative learning: Which activity best supplements lecture-based distance education? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 169–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, M. K. (1999). The role of coaching in student teams: A “just-in-time” approach to learning. Journal of Management Education, 23, 233–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosco, F. A., Aguinis, H., Singh, K., Field, J. G., & Pierce, C. A. (2015). Correlational effect size benchmarks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 431–449.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Bowdish, B. E., Chauvin, S. W., Kreisman, N., & Britt, M. (2003). Travels towards problem based learning in medical education (VPBL). Instructional Science, 31, 231–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K. G. (2001). Using computers to deliver training: Which employees learn and why? Personnel Psychology, 54, 271–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K. G., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Using computer technology in training: Building an infrastructure for active learning. In K. Kragier (Ed.), Creating, implementing, and managing effective training and development (pp. 192–233). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Burwell, L. B. (1989). The interaction of learning styles with learner control treatments in an interactive videodisk lesson on astronomy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

  • Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. P., & Kuncel, N. R. (2001). Individual and team training. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial, Work, & Organizational Psychology (Vol 1: Personnel Psychology). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, T. F., Hutchins, S. D., Wickens, C. D., & Cumming, J. M. (2014). Costs and benefits of more learner freedom: Meta-analyses of exploratory and learner control training methods. Human Factors, 56, 999–1014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, C. (1984). Do learners make good choices? Instructional Innovator, 29, 15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavanaugh, K. J., & Landers, R. N. (2014, May). Individual differences and the usage of learner control. Poster presented at the 29th annual conference of the society for industrial and organizational psychology, Honolulu, HI.

  • *Chang, M.-M., & Ho, C.-M. (2009). Effects of locus of control and learner-control on web-based language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22, 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Cho, Y. (1995, June). Learner control, cognitive processes, and hypertext learning environments. Paper presented at the annual national educational computing conference and technology, Baltimore.

  • *Chu, S. T. L. (2010). Investigating learning with a navigable concept map. Information & Learning.

  • *Coorough, R. P. (1990). The effects of program control, learner control and learner control with advisement lesson control strategies on anxiety and learning from computer-assisted instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida.

  • *Corbalan, G., Kester, L., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2006). Towards a personalized task selection model with shared instructional control. Instructional Science: An International Journal of Learning and Cognition, 34, 399–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Corbalan, G., Kester, L., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2009). Dynamic task selection: Effects of feedback and learner control on efficiency and motivation. Learning and Instruction, 19, 455–465. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L., & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeRouin, R. E., Fritzsche, B. A., & Salas, E. (2004). Optimizing e-learning: Research-based guidelines for learner-controlled training. Human Resource Management, 43, 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeRouin, R. E., Fritzsche, B. A., & Salas, E. (2005). Learner control and workplace e-learning: Design, person, and organizational issues. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 24, pp. 181–214). Boston: JAI/Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • *Diaz, V. M. (1994). The effects of cognitive style and locus of instructional control strategies on learner achievement and anxiety in an interactive videodisk lesson on the structure and function of the human brain (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1994).

  • *Doolittle, P. (2010). The effects of segmentation and personalization on superficial and comprehensive strategy instruction in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 19, 159–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dynan, L., Cate, T., & Rhee, K. (2008). The impact of learning structure on students’ readiness for self-directed learning. The Journal of Education for Business, 84, 96–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. W., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Evans, K. L. (2007). Learning stoichiometry: A comparison of text and multimedia instructional formats. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 2007).

  • *Eveland, W. P., Cortese, J., Park, H., & Dunwoody, S. (2004). How Web site organization influences free recall, factual knowledge, and knowledge structure density. Human Communication Research, 30, 208–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Fisher, J. B., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1999). The effects of an interactive multimedia program on teachers’ understanding and implementation of an inclusive practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 127–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Fisher, S. L., Wasserman, M. E., & Orvis, K. A. (2010). Trainee reactions to learner control: An important link in the e-learning equation. International Journal of Training and Development, 14, 198–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friend, C. L., & Cole, C. L. (1990). Learner control in computer-based instruction: A current literature review. Educational Technology, 30, 47–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Gay, G. (1986). Interaction of learner control and prior understanding in computer assisted video instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 225–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goetzfried, L., & Hannafin, M. J. (1985). The effect of the locus of CAI control strategies on the learning of mathematics rules. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 273–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Gray, S. H. (1987). The effect of sequence control on computer assisted learning. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14, 54–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J. (1984). Guidelines for using locus of instructional control in the design of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Instructional Development, 7(3), 6–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinsman, D. T., & Shadish, W. R. (1996). Assignment methods in experimentation: When do nonrandomized experiments approximate answers from randomized experiments? Psychological Methods, 1, 154–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hoffler, T. N., & Schwartz, R. N. (2011). Effects of pacing and cognitive style across dynamic and non-dynamic representations. Computers & Education, 57, 1716–1726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Huang, T. (2009). The role of task-specific adapted knowledge of response feedback in algebra problem solving online homework in a college remedial course. Information & Learning.

  • *Hummel, H. G. K., Paas, F., & Koper, E. J. R. (2006). Timing of cueing in complex problem-solving tasks: Learner versus system control. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 191–205. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.08.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Jeffries, P. R. (2001). Computer versus lecture: A comparison of two methods of teaching oral medication administration in a nursing skills laboratory. Journal of Nursing Education, 40, 323–329.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Karim, M. N., & Behrend, T. S. (2014). Reexamining the nature of learner control: Dimensionality and effects on learning and training reactions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Keegan-Ferretti, C. (1991). Effects of pacing and practice on learning a psychomotor skill using computer-interactive video as the instructional method (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database.

  • Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 383–434). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, B. H. (1997). Web-based instruction (WBI): What is it and why is it? In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 5–18). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1996). Evaluation. In R. L. Craig (Ed.), The ASTD training and development handbook (4th ed., pp. 295–312). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraiger, K. (2008). Transforming our models of learner and development: Web-based instruction as enabler of third-generation instruction. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 454–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 311–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraiger, K., & Jerden, E. (2007). A new look at learner control: Meta-analytic results and directions for future research. In S. M. Fiore and E. Salas (Eds.), Where is the learning in distance learning? Towards a science of distributed learning and training (pp. 65-90).

  • Landers, R. N., & Callan, R. C. (2014). An experiment on anonymity and multi-user virtual environments: Manipulating identity to increase learning from online collaborative discussion. International Journal of Games and Computer-Mediated Simulation, 6, 53–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Pine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel Psychology, 53, 563–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Lee, J. (1999). The effects of students’ choice of instructional control in computer-based instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wyoming.

  • *Levinson, A. J., Weaver, B., Garside, S., McGinn, H., & Norman, G. R. (2007). Virtual reality and brain anatomy: A randomised trial of e-learning instructional designs. Medical Education, 41, 495–501. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02694.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Liff, J. P. (2007). Investigating the boundary conditions of learner control: An integration of cognitive load, information processing, and resource allocation frameworks. Unpublished thesis.

  • Lin, B., & Hsieh, C. (2001). Web-based teaching and learner control: A research review. Computers & Education, 37, 377–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Maier, D. J. (2002). The impact of learner control over sequencing on retention and transfer in time-controlled Web-based instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University.

  • *Maki, R. H., Maki, W. S., Patterson, M., & Whittaker, P. D. (2000). Evaluation of a web-based introductory psychology course: Learning and satisfaction in on-line versus lecture courses. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 32, 230–239. doi:10.3758/BF03207788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquardt, M. J. (1996). Building the learning organization. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Martin, F. (2008). Effects of Practice in a Linear and Non-Linear Web-Based Learning Environment. Educational Technology & Society, 11, 81–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Mattoon, I. S. (1991, January). Learner control versus computer control in instructional simulation. Paper presented at the convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Orlando, FL.

  • *Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 390–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *McGrath, D. (1992). Hypertext, CAI, paper, or program control: Do learners benefit from choices? Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24, 513–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merill, M. D. (1975). Learner control: Beyond aptitude-treatment interactions. AV Communication Review, 23, 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Milheim, W. D. (1989). The effects of two learner control variables “pacing and sequence” on learning from an interactive video lesson (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database.

  • Milheim, W. D., & Martin, B. L. (1991). Theoretical bases for the use of learner control: Three different perspectives. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18, 99–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Miller, L. C. H. (1997). Understanding the effects of a multimedia presentation’s sequencing strategy on learning: An experimental investigation (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Pro-Quest Dissertations & Theses Database.

  • Morrison, G. R., & Anglin, G. J. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory: Application to e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 94–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education, 49, 581–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Murphy, M. A., & Davidson, G. V. (1991). Computer-based adaptive instruction: Effects of learner control on concept learning. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18, 51–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemiec, R. P., Sikorski, C., & Walberg, H. J. (1996). Learner-control effects: A review of reviews and a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15, 157–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Orvis, K. A., Brusso, R. C., Wasserman, M. E., & Fisher, S. L. (2011). E-nabled for e-learning? The moderating role of personality in determining the optimal degree of learner control in an e-learning environment. Human Performance, 24, 60–78. doi:10.1080/08959285.2010.530633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orvis, K. A., Fisher, S. L., & Wasserman, M. E. (2009). Power to the people: Using learner control to improve trainee reactions and learning in web-based instructional environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 960–971.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: A research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training. MIS Quarterly, 25, 401–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Pridemore, D. R., & Klein, J. D. (1991). Control of feedback in computer-assisted instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39, 27–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Pridemore, D. R., & Klein, J. D. (1993). Learner control of feedback in a computer lesson. In Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 803–808). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED362194.pdf.

  • Reeves, T. C. (1993). Pseudoscience in computer-based instruction: The case of learner control research. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20, 39–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 and Development, 37, 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Ross, S. M., & Rakow, E. A. (1981). Learner control versus program control as adaptive strategies for selection of instruction support on math rules. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 745–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Salden, R. J. C. M., Paas, F., van der Pal, J., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2006a). Dynamic task selection in flight management system training. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 16, 157–174. doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap1602_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Salden, R. J. C. M., Paas, Fred, & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2006b). Personalised adaptive task selection in air traffic control: Effects on training efficiency and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 16, 350–362. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.07.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Schloss, P. J., Sindelar, P. T., Cartwright, G. P., & Smith, M. A. (1988a). Learner control over feedback as a variable in computer assisted instruction. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 20, 310–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Schloss, P. J., Wisniewski, L. A., & Cartwright, G. P. (1988b). The differential effect of learner control and feedback in college students’ performance on CAI modules. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 141–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, A. M., & Ford, J. K. (2003). Learning within a learner control training environment: The interactive effects of goal orientation and metacognitive instruction on learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 56, 405–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Shyu, H.-Y., & Brown, S. W. (1992a). Learner control versus program in interactive videodisc instruction: What are the effects in procedural learning? International Journal of Instructional Media, 19, 85–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Silverstein, N. E. (1989). Computer-based training: The effects of graphics and learner control on retention. Doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University.

  • Simon, H. A., & Chase, W. G. (1973). Skill in chess. American Psychologist, 61, 394–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Simon, S. J., & Werner, J. M. (1996). Computer training through behavior modeling, self-paced, and instructional approaches: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 648–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59, 623–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shyu, H.-Y., & Brown, S. W. (1992b). Learner control versus program control in interactive videodisc instruction: What are the effects in procedural learning? International Journal of Instructional Media, 19, 85–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Smith, A. E. (2010). Designing computer-based training for creativity: An examination of learner control, feedback, and creative personal identity. Dissertation Abstracts International Section B: Sciences and Engineering, 70(8-B).

  • *Southwell, B. G., & Lee, M. (2004). A pitfall of new media? User controls exacerbate editing effects on memory. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 643–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steel, P. D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2002). Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation techniques under realistic conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 96–111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Stiller, K. D., Freitag, A., Zinnbauer, P., & Freitag, C. (2009). How pacing of multimedia instructions can influence modality effects: A case of superiority of visual texts. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25, 184–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Tabbers, H. K., & de Koeijer, B. (2010). Learner control in animated multimedia instructions. Instructional Science, 38(5), 441–453. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9119-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Taylor, R. S. (2005). Informal science learning: Influences of explanatory elaboration and learner control on knowledge acquisition (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database.

  • Tennyson, R. D., & Buttrey, T. (1980). Advertisement and management strategies as design variables in computer-assisted instruction. Educational Communication & Technology, 28, 169–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennyson, R. D., Park, O. C., & Christensen, D. L. (1985). Adaptive control of learning time and content sequence in concept learning using computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 481–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Tovar, M., & Coldevin, G. (1992). Effects of orienting activities and instructional control on learning facts and procedures from interactive video. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8, 507–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracz, S. M., Elmore, P. B., & Pohlmann, J. T. (1992). Correlational meta-analysis: Independent and nonindependent cases. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 879–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valjataga, T., & Laanpere, M. (2010). Learner control and personal learning environment: A challenge for instructional design. Interactive Learning Environments, 18, 277–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Vandewaetere, M., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Can instruction as such affect learning: The case of learner control? Computers & Education, 57, 2322–2332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2012). Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus. West Sussex: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology, 17, 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Kurt Kraiger, Paul Sackett, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. The authors also thank Thivia Mogan for her work coding articles.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Old Dominion University, 250 Mills Godwin Building, Norfolk, VA, 23529, USA

    Richard N. Landers & Craig M. Reddock

  2. CEB, 555 Northpoint Center East, Suite 600, Alpharetta, GA, 30022, USA

    Craig M. Reddock

Authors
  1. Richard N. Landers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Craig M. Reddock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard N. Landers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Landers, R.N., Reddock, C.M. A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Objective Learner Control in Web-based Instruction. J Bus Psychol 32, 455–478 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9452-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9452-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation