33.4 Rationale For Learner Control In CBI

There seems to be several philosophical, practical, and theoretical reasons for allowing learners some control over events occurring during CBI lessons. In fact, the use of traditional, rather rigidly controlled computer-assisted instruction may actually run counter to the educational philosophies promoted by many teachers in the arts and humanities, and which encourage student exploration and expression. D. W. Hansen (1982/1983) argues that allowing students more user control will increase the chance these teachers would want to include computer-based activities in their classes.

Additionally, to many educators and instructional designers, the expression "learner-controlled instruction" suggests a class of instructional events or tactics intended to increase learner involvement, mental investment ("mind-fulness," as Salomon, 1983, phrased it), and achievement. The approach is to emphasize the learner's freedom to choose those learning activities that suit his or her own individual preferences and needs.

On a more pragmatic level, Steinberg (1984) says that, if learning is found to be equivalent in both learner- and com-puter-controlled settings, design costs should shrink, time spent learning should be reduced, and attitudes and motiva-tion should become more positive if a learner-controlled framework for instruction is adopted.

Instructional design theorists, too, have found ample reasons for including provisions for learner control in computer-based designs. In his design theory, Merrill (1983) prescribes learner control of content (encompassing curriculum, lesson, and module selection) and of strategy (spanning various forms of presentation). Bunderson (1974), Faust (1974), and Fine (1972) each present an assortment of learner-controlled activities derived from Merrill's early design theory (Merrill, 1973; Reigeluth, 1979). The TICCIT (Time-Shared Interactive, Computer Controlled Information Television) system, derived from Merrill's early theory, provides the learner with many types of options, some of which are dependent on the current course (such as reviews, menus, quizzes, faster/slower type of feedback, level of question difficulty, and topic surveys), while others are constant across any course delivered by the system (such as backward or forward movement, access to a calculator, access to a glossary, and opportunity to leave an on-fine comment; there is even a feature that gives the student the option to "CUSS" at the computer when things go wrong!).

Reigeluth and Stein (1983) in their instructional design theory also hypothesize that "... instruction generally increases in effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal to the extent that it permits informed learner control by motivated learners" (p. 362). Federico (1980), too, suggests that learner control might be a useful alternative to the classic aptitude-by-treatment interaction approach (see 22.3.3), in that "learners can become system independent by enabling them to manipulate and accommodate treatments to their own momentary cognitive requirements" (p. 17).

A rationale from a different perspective comes from a survey of adult learning preferences. Penland (1979) found that the top four reasons why adults prefer learning on their own were expressed as desires to "set my own learning pace," "use my own style of learning," "keep the learning strategy flexible," and "put my own structure on the learning project." Discussing the differences between adults and children, Hannafin (1984) argues that under CBI condi-tions, older students should realize the benefits from learner control more than younger students because they have acquired more (and presumably better) learning strategies.

Some of the research from the psychology of basic learning processes also implies possible advantages of learner control. For example, one might expect a learner-controlled instructional treatment to induce more elaborate mental processing by students as a result of their having to ponder the choices they face. Salomon (1983, 1985) refers to the degree of such mental activity as "invested mental effort." The more such effort expended, he implies, the more mental elaborations the student performs, result-ing in deeper, more meaningful learning. In contrast, one might not expect as much cognitive elaboration from students proceeding through a more "passive" instructional treatment. In plain language, learners given control over their instruction might be more likely to think about what they are doing as a result of having to make choices along the way.

Hartley (1985), too, argues for the need for more atten-tion to basic psychological processes when studying the impact of computers on learning, and he supports the use of learner control of instruction as a means for students to develop their own cognitive structures. That is, consistent with a constructivist view of knowledge development (see 7.3), he proposes that the learning of complex knowledge structures is facilitated when the learner himself or herself can participate in the construction of those mental structures. This constructivist approach is also promoted by Salomon and Gardner (1986) who suggest that "... individuals mold their own experiences by the traits and goals they bring to the encounter, the way they apprehend the technol-ogy and the situation, and the particular volitional choices they make. In so doing, learners, particularly when given interactive opportunities with computers, are likely to affect the way these opportunities are going to affect them" (p. 16, emphasis added).

Indeed, the emerging constructivist paradigm of learning as an inventive learning process rather than an acquisitive one almost requires some type of attention to the degree and types of control the learners will exert during the learning process. Lebow (1993), for example, suggests that, to constructivists, the strategic availability of learner con-trol options can provide structural support for the values of personal autonomy, personal relevance, active engagement, and reflectivity, all important characteristics undergirding the constructivist philosophy of education. (See 7.4.5 for further discussion of constructivism and learner control.)