Louisiana State University

LSU Digital Commons

LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School

2004

A theory of effective computer-based instruction for adults

Janis Sue Lowe
Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations

Part of the Human Resources Management Commons

Recommended Citation
Lowe, Janis Sue, "A theory of effective computer-based instruction for adults" (2004). LSU Doctoral
Dissertations. 1143.
https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/1143

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It
has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU
Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected].
A THEORY OF EFFECTIVE COMPUTER-BASED INSTRUCTION
FOR ADULTS

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the

Louisiana State University and
Agricultural and Mechanical College
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

in

The School of Human Resource Education and Workforce Development

by
Janis Sue Lowe
B.S., Northwestern State University, 1970
M.B.A., University of Louisiana – Monroe, 1972
May 2004
© Copyright 2004

Janis S. Lowe

All rights reserved

ii
 DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my mother, Johnnye Ann Lowe, who

always believed in me. Mother had a strong work ethic and went back to school at age 45 to

obtain her LPN degree. The values I gained from her and her encouragement and faith in me

throughout my life has enabled me to obtain this goal.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This has been a long process that I could not have completed without the

encouragement and support of many friends and family members as well as my major

professor and dissertation chair, Dr. Elwood F. Holton, III. Dr. Holton provided the coaching

and guidance that kept me on track. Words cannot express the gratitude, appreciation, and

respect that I have for Dr. Holton.

My dissertation committee provided support and suggestions that challenged me. I

would like to recognize them and thank them for the time and energy that they put into my

dissertation process: Dr. Reid Bates, Dr. Michael Burnett, Dr. Sharon Naquin, Dr. Suzanne

Pawlowski, and Dr. Donna Redmann.

Special thanks go to the six evaluators that took the time to evaluate the theory and

shared their knowledge with me. They were Dr. David Ayersman, West Virginia University;

Dr. Sharon Confessore, The George Washington University; Dr. Steven Crooks, Texas Tech

University; Dr. Susan Gray, New York Institute of Technology; Dr. Kearsley, Consultant;

and Dr. George Marcoulides, University of Southern California, Fullerton.

I would especially like to express my appreciation to my children Trey, Jonathan, and

Alison Burbank. They were understanding of my need to study and provided encouragement

on a daily basis. I would also like to thank my family members and friends for their

encouragement and for believing that I could do it. Special thanks go to Dr. Doris Collins for

her support and suggestions during this process.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ..............................................................................................................................iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................viii

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... x

CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
Rationale for Study ......................................................................................... 2
Problem Statement .......................................................................................... 8
Purpose of Study ............................................................................................. 8
Objectives ........................................................................................................ 9
Limitations of Research .................................................................................. 9
Significance of the Study .............................................................................. 10

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................................... 11

Multiparadigm of Perspectives of Theory Building ...................................... 11
Interpretivist Paradigm ........................................................................... 13
Radical Humanist Paradigm .................................................................. 14
Radical Structuralist Paradigm ............................................................... 14
Functionalist Paradigm ........................................................................... 15
Paradigm Used in This Study ........................................................................ 15
Theory and Theory Building ......................................................................... 16
Evaluating Theory ......................................................................................... 24
The Role of Theory Building in Human Resource Development ................. 27
General Learning Theories ............................................................................ 31
Behavioral Learning Theory ................................................................... 31
Cognitive Learning Theory .................................................................... 32
Social Learning Theory........................................................................... 37
Humanist Learning Theory .................................................................... 39
Constructivism Learning Theory ........................................................... 40
Andragogy ..................................................................................................... 41
Computer-Based Instruction Theory Building .............................................. 46
Johnson and Aragon................................................................................ 47
Kember and Murphy .............................................................................. 48
Steinberg ................................................................................................. 49
Williams ................................................................................................. 51
Research on Computer-Based Instruction ..................................................... 52

v
 Meta-Analyses of CBI............................................................................. 54
Individual Differences............................................................................. 56
Attitudes Toward Computers.................................................................. 59
Support for Learners ............................................................................... 60
Learner Control ....................................................................................... 63
Motivation and CBI ................................................................................ 65
Context for Learning.............................................................................. 66
Cooperative Learning and CBI ............................................................... 67
Learning Environment ........................................................................... 68
Hypermedia Learning Environment ....................................................... 70

3 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................ 72
Theory Building Research Process ............................................................... 72
Concept Development ............................................................................ 75
Identification and Retrieval of Studies .................................................. 75
Construct Analysis .................................................................................. 77
Develop an Initial Theory ....................................................................... 78
Theory Evaluation................................................................................... 80
Analyze and Synthesize Feedback ......................................................... 88
Theory Modification ............................................................................... 90

4 FINDINGS AND RESULTS ............................................................................... 91

Identification and Retrieval of Studies .......................................................... 91
Construct Analysis ........................................................................................ 92
Development of Initial Theory ...................................................................... 95
A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults .................... 97
Units of Theory ...................................................................................... 97
Laws of Interaction .............................................................................. 118
Boundaries ........................................................................................... 134
System States ....................................................................................... 137
Evaluating Theory....................................................................................... 141
Analyze and Synthesize Feedback .............................................................. 143
Theory Modification ................................................................................... 150
Propositions................................................................................................. 155

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................. 159

Research Questions ..................................................................................... 159
Research Question 1: What Are The Units Or Variables
Of A Theory Of Effective Computer-Based Instruction
For Adults? .......................................................................................... 159
Research Question 2: What Are The Laws Of Interaction
Of A Theory Of Effective Computer-Based Instruction
For Adults? ........................................................................................... 162

vi
 Research Question 3: What Are The Boundaries
Of A Theory Effective Computer-Based Instruction
For Adults? .......................................................................................... 163
Research Question 4: What Are The System States
Of A Theory Of Effective Computer-Based Instruction
For Adults? ........................................................................................... 164
Research Question 5: What Are The Propositions
Of A Theory Of Effective Computer-Based Instruction
For Adults? ........................................................................................... 166
Limitations of Study.................................................................................... 167
Conclusions.................................................................................................. 168
Implications for Future Research ................................................................ 172
Implications for Practice ............................................................................. 177

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 180

APPENDIX
A CONSTRUCT ANALYSIS TABLE ......................................................................... 225

B SCHOLARLY EVALUATION FORMS ................................................................. 232

C LIST OF ARTICLES USED FOR CONSTRUCT ANALYSIS

BY AUTHOR AND TITLE ..................................................................................... 267

D EVALUATION PACKAGE ................................................................................... 276

VITA ........................................................................................................................................... 283

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

1. Paradigm Differences Affecting Theory Building ................................................................... 12

2. Authors Based on Number of Articles in Construct Analysis .................................................. 85

3. Scholars Agreeing to Evaluate a Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction

for Adults .................................................................................................................................. 86

4. Summary of Construct Analysis ............................................................................................... 93

5. Summary of Scholarly Rating of Criteria for Evaluating Theory ........................................... 144

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

1. Dubin’s Theory Building Inquiry Method................................................................................. 73

2. A Conceptual Model of Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults ............................. 96

3. The Boundaries of A theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults ................ 136

4. A Conceptual Model of Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults............................ 161

ix
 ABSTRACT

Computer-based instruction (CBI) was considered the technological phenomenon to

revolutionize education and training. Today, the Internet and computer technology are

reported to have significantly altered the education landscape (Johnson & Aragon, 2002).

The rapid advances in technology, the need for lifelong learning, and the growth of non-

traditional students have encouraged the use of the computer as a method of instructional

delivery. Evaluating the effectiveness of CBI as a whole technology is very difficult. The

inability to measure effectiveness is attributable in part to the fact that CBI is not just one

component, but a complex range of services and activities carried out for instructional and

learning purposes (Gibbons & Fairweather, 2000).

This study presents a theory of critical components that impact the effectiveness of

computer-based instruction for adults. The theory was developed to provide a framework for

research to explain or predict effective learning by adults using a desktop computer. The five

conclusions drawn from this research are: (1) the characteristics of self-directedness and

computer self-efficacy of adult learners play an important role in designing CBI for adults;

(2) learning goal level impacts instructional design strategy and instructional control

component of CBI design; (3) external support and instructional support are needed to

provide a positive CBI experience; (4) CBI design is interwoven with the units of self-

directedness, computer self-efficacy, learning goal level, instructional design, and external

support; and (5) the theory draws together the isolated variables researchers consider

important in the adult learning process and aligns them to provide effective CBI.

x
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

In a knowledge-based economy, educating the workforce tops the agenda of many

business and government leaders. Training is considered by many to be one key to American

competitiveness and worker success in the global economy. Much of corporate America’s

interest in learning stems from a lack of skilled workers. The skills gap is one result of the

unprecedented rate of change in technologies and business processes that affect all workers.

As early as the 1980’s, computer-based instruction (CBI) was considered the

technological phenomenon to revolutionize education and training. Kemske reported in “The

Computer-Based Training Report” (Filipczak, 1997) that computer-based training jumped to

15 percent of all training conducted by respondents in his study, up from ten percent the

previous two years (1995 & 1996). Thirty-nine (39) percent of the respondents reported that

the corporation’s intranet was going to be a means of delivering training in 1997. Training

magazine’s “Industry Report 1999" reported that an estimate of 19 percent of all formal

training was delivered via computer in 1998 and declined to 14 percent in 1999. Industry

estimates predict that by 2003, no less than 30 percent of all training will be delivered over

corporate intranets (Ryan, 2001).

Today, the Internet and computer technology are reported to have significantly altered

the education landscape (Johnson & Aragon, 2002). With the advances of the technology and

software surrounding the Internet, the conversion of courses from traditional face-to-face

instruction into Web-based courses has become easier and is occurring more systematically in

education (Jiang & Ting, 1998). However, Phipps & Merisotis (1999) concluded that there is

1
a lack of evidence that technology influences the learning process and that course design and

pedagogy are important factors. There are those who believe that the theories and principles

that guide practice in traditional face-to-face instruction can not be directly converted to

computer-based instruction (Williams, 2000). There are also those who concluded that a

single learning theory is not enough, but that a quality learning environment should be based

on instructional principles that are derived from multiple learning theories (Johnson and

Aragon, 2002). However, there must be attempts at theoretical explanations for learning

professionals to make teaching and learning decisions with confidence using this technology.

Rationale for Study

The rapid advances in technology, the need for lifelong learning, and the

growth of non-traditional students have encouraged the use of the computer as a means of

instructional delivery. Some of the advantages for using the computer as a method of

instructional delivery are that it: provides consistency of content delivery; provides training to

remote locations; eliminates cost associated with employees’ travel; provides means of

tracking learner’s progress; provides standardized testing; offers learner flexibility in

controlling and pacing learning; provides for diverse learning needs; provides opportunities

for practice through simulation; provides greater retention; and reduces the instructional time

by approximately 30 percent. Two conclusions drawn from meta-studies on CBI are: (1)

learners generally learn more using CBI than they do with conventional ways of teaching as

measured by higher post-treatment test scores (Fletcher, 1999; Kulik, 1994), and (2) learners

using CBI generally do so in less time than those using traditional approaches (Kulik &

Kulik, 1991; Orlansky & String, l979). When you look at all the advantages of computer-

2
based instruction, the question is why aren’t more companies using this as their major

delivery method?

In their “Industry Report 2000", Training magazine reported 13 percent of all

courses are delivered via computer-based training with no instructor. That is a decrease from

statistics reported in 1999 and less than half of what was predicted by others in the training

field. The predictions for computer-based training have not been met. Are the advantages of

computer-based training understood by the learning professionals? If so, why aren’t they

adopting more of this type of instructional delivery?

Technology has quickly outpaced the theory that supports its effectiveness, and the

application of technology has surpassed the evaluation of that technology. There is no body

of research that meaningfully unites training objectives, training content, instructional style,

and distance learning media (Wisher & Champagne, 2000). Crawford and Suchan (1996)

drew a similar conclusion in their call for systematic selection of “instructional media for

specific learning applications that place priority on the desired learning outcome and the

media required to support the instructional techniques to attain that outcome”(p. 36).

In addition, evaluating the effectiveness of CBI as a whole technology is very

difficult. The inability to measure effectiveness is attributable, in part, to the fact that CBI is

not just one component, but a complex range of services and activities carried out for

instructional and learning purposes (Gibbons & Fairweather, 2000).

In the initial review of literature on computer-based learning and adults, there were a

number of constructs that were found to be included in research studies:

3
• adult learner (Barrett, 1991; Bates, Holton, & Seyler, 1996; Brown, 2000; Brown,

2001; Courtney, Vasa, & Luo, 1999)

• attitudes toward computers (Brock & Sulsky, 1994; Chau, 2001; Jawahar &

Elango, 2001; Suriya & Wentling, 1999)

• computer anxiety (Ayersman & Reed, 1995-96; Elder, Gardner, & Ruth, 1987;

Harrington, McElroy, & Morrow, 1990; Howard, Murphy, & Thomas, 1987;

Marcoulides, 1988)

• computer efficacy (Hill, Smith, & Mann, 1987; Massoud, 1991)

• learning environment (Choi & Hannafin, 1995)

• gender (Busch, 1995; Lewis, 1988)

• learning theories (Chalmers, 2000; Johnson & Aragon, 2002; Tennyson, 1990;

Williams, 2000)

• learning characteristics or individual differences (Armstrong, 1996; Buehner-

Brent, 1990; Harp, Taylor, & Satzinger, 1998; Igbaria & Parasuraman, 1989)

• learning styles (Bostrom, Olfman, & Sein, 1990; Brudenell & Carpenter, 1990)

• learner needs (Wiswell & Ward, 1997)

• locus of control (Avner, Moore, & Smith, 1980; Hannafin, 1984; Shaw, 1992)

• performance, measurement or evaluation (Bowman, Grupe, & Simkin, 1995;

Bratton-Jeffery, 1997; McInerney, Marsh, & McInerney, 1998)

• self-directed learning (Barrett, 1991; Confessore & Kops, 1998; Mills & Dejoy,

1988)

4
 • self-efficacy (Christoph, Schoenfeld, & Tansky, 1998; Gist, Schwoerer, & Rosen,

1989).

This is not to say that these research articles only included one specific construct. In

most cases, each article contained a minimum of two constructs and one article contained as

many as eight constructs. For example, the research article by Brown (2001) included adult

learner, goal orientation, learning self-efficacy, individual differences, behavioral and

cognitive learning, locus of control, computer-based learning environments, and computer

experience. Brown (2001) concluded that there exists considerable variability in learners and

learner choices and this will be increasingly important as a determinant of overall training

effectiveness. The researcher-theorist initially tried to determine a quantitative study that

would further the knowledge of learning using computer-based instruction, recognizing the

various constructs that had been included in research on computer-based instruction. A

recent empirical study performed by Jones and Paolucci (1999) estimates that since 1993, less

than five percent of published research was sufficiently empirical, quantitative, and valid to

support conclusions with respect to the effectiveness of technology in education learning

outcomes. Thus, there was a lack of evidence on what really impacts learning using the

computer as a medium for delivery of instruction.

Despite the abundance of research studies exploring a limited number of constructs in

CBI, there have been only modest attempts at building a theoretical base for CBI. Williams

(2000) found in her research on a framework for online environments for learning that there

are several different views of what learning theory best fits learning by means of the

computer. Because of these differences, it reiterated the need for theoretical approaches to

5
learning. The behaviorist wants the learner to produce desired behaviors by controlling the

environment while the constructivist wants to see how learning occurs. Williams (2000)

found that an integration of behaviorist principles and constructivist principles may be best

suited for computer-based instruction.

Johnson and Aragon (2002) have begun developing a framework for instructional

strategies for use in the computer learning environment. They also found a lack of evidence

that technology significantly influences the learning process. Johnson and Aragon (2002)

hypothesized that quality learning environments should be based on instructional principles

that are derived from multiple learning theories. The challenge is to devise ways to create

pedagogically sound content for delivery by the computer. The information to be learned

needs to address variability in learning styles, provide motivation, and promote interactivity.

Johnson and Aragon (2002) suggest that the learning environment should be comprised of the

elements in behavioral, cognitive, and social learning theory.

Steinberg (1991) also concludes that behavioral and cognitive learning theories

should be integrated. CBI draws on learning theories, instructional models, practical

experience, and technology. She synthesized theories of Bransford (1979) and Gagné (1977)

and developed a framework for CBI that includes four components from learning theories

and instructional models: target population, goals, task, and instruction; and two components

from research and experience: computer application and environmental implementation.

Kember and Murphy (1990) report that instructional design based on behavioral

learning theory has been limiting and that new theories should be consistent with

constructivist theories of cognitive psychology and allow for flexible, pragmatic development

6
approaches. Kember and Murphy believe that “technologies should teach learner to learn

rather than act as passive purveyors of information or techniques for reducing learner

involvement in the learning process. If teaching is the facilitation of learning, then efforts

need to be concentrated on the learner rather than the instruction” (p. 45).

These studies by Williams (2000), Johnson and Aragon (2002), Steinberg (1991), and

Kember and Murphy (1990) report that adopting a synthesized theory of learning can have a

synergistic result in developing individual learning theories into the learning environment of

computer-based instruction. Based on these studies, it is becoming apparent that others

besides the researcher-theorist believe that there is a need for an integration of theories and

the development of a framework which can be empirically tested to provide the appropriate

learning environment for computer-based instruction.

Computer-based instruction can provide an effective and efficient device for

implementing training to improve workplace performance. Educators of the adult

populations in business and industry and learning professionals need to develop expertise as

facilitators of computer-based learning and critical evaluators of technology. A theory of

effective computer-based instruction for adults would aid them in this endeavor. A

computer-based instruction solution must match the level of workplace performance desired,

provide gains over instructor-led training, and suit a corporate training culture (Passmore &

McClernon, 1996). Adult professionals who are evaluated on the basis of job performance

and who need to learn while they work must have different instructional programs from the

typical school instruction for which the objective is subject matter mastery and the evaluation

is based on a test score. Burge and Roberts (1993) reported that technology in and of itself,

7
does not promote learning. Part of using technology effectively is understanding what adults

want in the learning environment when technology is employed.

The advent of the Internet has changed how people will communicate and train in the

twenty-first century. Technology will continue to create new and more powerful learning

environments. Will the learning professional be able to take advantage of the technology?

With a theory of effective computer-based instruction for adults, there will be a theory to

drive research that will provide guidelines for practice. Research without theory is not as

effective.

Problem Statement

Technology has quickly outpaced the theory that supports its effectiveness, and the

application of technology has surpassed the evaluation of that technology. There is no body

of research that meaningfully unites training objectives, training content, instructional style,

and distance learning media (Wisher & Champagne, 2000). Based on research conducted for

the study, there are many constructs that need to be considered in using a desktop computer

as a means of delivering instruction or training. However, there is no theory that integrates

the critical components of computer-based instruction that would provide a model for more

effective training.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study is to provide a theory of critical components that impact the

effectiveness of computer-based instruction for adults. This study will develop a theory that

integrates existing research to explain or predict effective learning by adults using a desktop

computer as the medium. The continued growth of Human Resource Development (HRD) as

8
a profession will be facilitated by the development of a theory of effective computer-based

instruction for adults based on research.

Objectives

The objectives of this study will be to answer the following questions:

1. What are the units or variables of a theory of effective computer-based instruction

for adults?

2. What are the laws of interaction of a theory of effective computer-based instruction

for adults?

3. What are the boundaries of a theory of effective computer-based instruction for

adults?

4. What are the system states of a theory of effective computer-based instruction for

adults?

5. What are the propositions of a theory of effective computer-based instruction for

adults?

Limitations of the Research

Potential limitation of the research is in the availability and knowledge of all the

relevant studies on computer-based instruction for adults. Although an attempt will be made

to locate all relevant studies, it is likely that some pertinent studies will not be included.

Several articles in foreign publications are not available to the researcher. As research

articles are identified, every effort will be made to obtain the research article for inclusion in

this study. Another limitation will be the biases of the researcher-theorist. The researcher-

theorist’s own logic and objectivity cannot help but influence the outcome of this study. A

9
 third limitation is that in modeling reality some aspects may be excluded. The researcher-

theorist will strive for a comprehensive theory that is also parsimonious.

Significance of the Study

A theory of effective computer-based instruction for adults has the potential for making

significant contributions to influence and guide scholars and learning professional in Human

Resource Development (HRD). Theory is dynamic. It is constantly evolving, and as

organizations change in response to external environments, theories on which we build the HRD

disciplines need to keep pace. As the field of HRD continues to grow and mature, as technology

changes, and as knowledge-based organizations become of greater importance in the global

economy, a theory of effective computer-based instruction for adults will have major impact on

the delivery of training in organizations.

10
 CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The literature necessary for developing a theory of effective computer-based

instruction for adults is diverse. This chapter is subdivided into eight parts: multiparadigms,

theory building, evaluating theory, the role of theory building in human resource development

(HRD), general learning theories, andragogy, computer-based instruction theory building, and

research of computer-based instruction (CBI). The first four sections will provide information

on theory: multiparadigm perspectives of theory building, Dubin’s theory building inquiry

method, Patterson’s criteria for evaluating theory, and the role of theory in the human

resource development. The fifth and sixth sections will provide a review of the literature

concerning learning theories and andragogy. The seventh and eighth sections will review

some of the literature on CBI theory building and research of CBI. This summary of theory

literature provides a conceptual foundation for the development of a theoretical framework

for a theory of effective computer-based instruction for adults.

Multiparadigm Perspectives of Theory Building

Theory building discussions seem to proceed as if the principles of theory building are

somehow universal and transcendent across disparate paradigms of thought and research (Gioia

& Pitre, 1990). Because different paradigms are grounded in fundamentally different

assumptions, they produce markedly different ways of approaching the building of theory. A

paradigm is a general perspective or way of thinking that reflects fundamental beliefs and

assumptions about the nature of phenomena (Kuhn, 1970; Lincoln, 1985). Differing

11
fundamental assumptions about the nature of the phenomena (ontology), the nature of the

knowledge about those phenomena (epistemology),

Table 1: Paradigm Differences Affecting Theory Building

Interpretivist Radical Humanist Radical Structuralist Functionalist

Paradigm Paradigm Paradigm Paradigm
Goals Goals Goals Goals

To DESCRIBE and To DESCRIBE and To IDENTIFY sources of To SEARCH for

EXPLAIN in order to CRITIQUE in order to domination and regularities and TEST in
DIAGNOSE and CHANGE (achieve PERSUADE in order to order to PREDICT and
UNDERSTAND freedom through revision GUIDE revolutionary CONTROL
of consciousness) practices (achieve freedom
through revision of
structures)
Theoretical Concerns Theoretical Concerns Theoretical Concerns Theoretical Concerns
• SOCIAL • SOCIAL • DOMINATION • RELATIONSHIPS
CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION • ALIENATION • CAUSATION
OF REALITY OF REALITY • MACRO FORCES • GENERALIZATION
• REIFICATION • DISTORTION • EMANCIPATION
PROCESS • INTERESTS
• INTERPRETATION SERVED
Theory Building Theory Building Theory Building Theory Building
Approaches Approaches Approaches Approaches
DISCOVERY through DISCLOSURE through LIBERATION through REFINEMENT through
CODE ANALYSIS CRITICAL ANALYSIS STRUCTURAL CAUSAL ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS

Source: Gioia, D. A. & Pitre, E. (1990)

and the nature of ways of studying those phenomena (methodology) fuel the debate over different

philosophical views and conceptual paradigms (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Lincoln, 1985).

Burrell and Morgan (1979) have organized these differences along objective-subjective and

regulation-radical change dimensions, yielding four different research paradigms for analysis of

social theory: (1) interpretivist, (2) radical humanist, (3) radical structuralist, and (4)

functionalist. In their pure form, these paradigms cannot be synthesized because they are

contradictory. The four paradigms are mutually exclusive and one can not operate in more than

12
one paradigm at any given point in time, since accepting the assumptions of one, is defying the

assumptions of all the others (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). Table 1 summarizes these paradigm

differences affecting theory building.

Interpretivist Paradigm

The interpretive paradigm is characterized by a more subjectivist view with an apparent

concern with regulation or a lack of concern with changing the status quo. The interpretive

paradigm is based on the views that people socially and symbolically construct and sustain their

own organizational realities (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Morgan & Smircich, 1980). The goal

of theory building in the interpretive paradigm is to generate descriptions, insights, and

explanations of events so that the system of interpretations and meaning and the structuring and

organizing processes are revealed (Gioia & Pitre, 1990). Interpretive theory building tends to

be more inductive in nature. Researchers attempt to account for phenomena with as few a priori

ideas as possible and strong precautions are taken to prevent emerging theories from being biased

toward or contaminated by existing theories. The interpretive researcher collects data that are

relevant to the informants and attempts to preserve their unique representations. Analysis begins

during data collection and typically uses coding procedures to discern patterns in the qualitative

data so that descriptive codes, categories, taxonomies, or interpretive schemes that are adequate

at the level of meaning of the informants can be established. The theory generation process is

typically iterative, cyclical, and nonlinear. Revisions and modifications are likely to occur before

a grounded, substantive, mid-range theory is proposed (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1984).

13
 Radical Humanist Paradigm

The radical humanist paradigm is also typified by a subjectivist view but with an

ideological orientation toward radically changing constructed realities (Gioia & Pitre, 1990).

The goal of theory in this paradigm is to free organization members from sources of domination,

alienation, exploitation, and repression by critiquing the existing social structure with the intent

of changing it. Theory building is best viewed as having a political agenda (Rosen, 1985) to

examine the legitimacy of the social consensus on meaning, to uncover communicative

distortions, and to educate individuals about the ways in which distortions occur (Forester, 1983;

Sartre, 1943 cited in Gioia & Pitre, 1990). Radical humanists focus on why a particular social

reality is so constructed and ask whose interests are served by the construction and sublimation

to the deep-structure level. Hypothesis testing is rare and literature reviews are not a central

characteristic of theory building efforts. The theory building process is limited to

reinterpretations of existing deep-structure accounts. Theories in this paradigm are intended to

serve as motivating impetus for change toward an ideologically laden viewpoint.

Radical Structuralist Paradigm

The radical structuralist paradigm is typified by an objectivist stance with an ideological

concern for the radical change or transformation. Societal and organizational functioning is seen

as constrained by social forces stemming from existing dysfunctional structural relationships,

which can only be changed through some form of conflict (Gioia & Pitre, 1990). The goal of

radical structuralist theory is to understand, explain, criticize, and act on the structural

mechanisms that exist in the organizational world, with the ultimate goal of transforming them

14
through collective resistance and radical change (Heydebrand, 1983). Theory building involves

the rethinking of data in light of refinements of viewpoints; it also involves attempting to recast

contextually bound situations into some broader context (Benson, 1977). Theory building efforts

are mainly persuasive constructions about structural features and their implications for the

purpose of fomenting transformative change (Gioia & Pitre, 1990).

Functionalist Paradigm

The functionalist paradigm is characterized by an objectivist view with an orientation

toward stability or maintenance of the status quo. The functionalist seeks to examine regularities

and relationships that lead to generalizations and universal principles. Theory building typically

takes place in a deductive manner, starting with the review of the literature and operating out of

prior theories. Selecting specific variables as likely causes of some designated effect derives

hypotheses. These hypotheses are tentative statements of relationships that extend prior theory

in a new direction, propose an explanation for a perceived gap in existing knowledge, or set up

a test of competing possible explanations for structural relationships. Variables, categories, and

hypotheses all tend to remain constant over the course of the theory elaboration processes. The

result of these processes is either the verification or falsification of the hypotheses, with theory

building occurring through the incremental revision or extension of the original theory.

Paradigm Used in This Study

Theory building and contributions to theory have been driven mainly by social science

variations of natural science models, which have been confined within the bounds of the

functionalist paradigm (Gioia & Pitre, 1990). The assumption that the nature of phenomena is

15
a basically objective one, awaiting impartial exploration and discovery, have lead to a deductive

approach to theory building specifying hypotheses deemed appropriate for the organizational

world and testing them against hypothesis-driven data via statistical analyses.

The functionalist paradigm was used by Dubin to develop his applied theory building

research method. Dubin (1976) tries to make sense out of the observable world by ordering the

relationships among elements that constitute the theorist’s focus of attention in the real world.

The variables or units identified by the theorist, along with their interaction of these variables,

the development of hypotheses to test, and the refinement of the theory are all part of the

functionalist paradigm.

The functionalist paradigm was used as the basis for this study. The goal of this theory

building research is to develop a theory that will predict an effective outcome for CBI. Using

the steps of theory building from the functionalist paradigm, a theoretical framework will be

developed from the critical components or variables identified in the literature review.

Relationships of the critical components will be identified through the laws of interaction, which

relate to the theoretical concerns of the functionalist paradigm. The propositions will be

formulated from which hypotheses can be developed to test the theory, which is in the analysis

step of the functionalist paradigm for theory building. The refinement and continued analysis

of the theory are the last steps of Dubin’s applied theory building methodology and will not be

a part of this study.

Theory and Theory Building

The need for theories lies in human behavior or the need to impose order on

16
unordered experiences (Dubin, 1978). A theory is a system for explaining a set of

phenomena that specifies the key concepts that are operative in the phenomena and the laws

that relate the concepts to each other (Torraco, 1994). Dubin (1976) defines theory as an

attempt of man to model some aspect of the empirical world. The underlying motive for this

modeling is (1) that the real world is so complex it needs to be conceptually simplified in

order to understand it, or (2) that observation by itself does not reveal ordered relationships

among empirically detected entities. A theory, therefore, tries to make sense out of the

observable world by ordering the relationships among elements that constitute the theorist’s

focus of attention in the real world (Dubin, 1976).

Dubin (1976, 1978), a distinguished scholar of theory and its origins, developed a

widely used methodology for theory building, which describes the components of the theory

building process. Dubin begins the theory building model with “units” whose interactions

constitute the subject matter of attention to be addressed by the theory. The units of the

theory and the laws by which the units interact constitute the major contribution to

knowledge generated by a theory. Dubin’s methodology for theory building consist of eight

elements: (1) units whose interactions constitute the subject matter of attention, (2) the laws

of interaction among the units, (3) the boundaries within which the theory is expected to

hold, (4) the system states in each of which the units interact differently with each other, (5)

the propositions of the theory, (6) empirical indicators, (7) the hypotheses derived from the

theory, and (8) empirical research to test the theory. Dubin divides the theory building

17
research model into two parts: theory development (steps 1-4) and research operation (steps

5-8).

The first step of the applied theory building method requires identification of the units

of the theory. The units represent the properties of things rather than the things themselves

(Dubin, 1978). The units also represent those things whose interactions constitute the subject

matter or the phenomenon that the theory is all about. The units of a theory are sometimes

described as the concepts of the theory, or the basic ideas that make up the theory (Cohen,

1991; Dubin, 1978; Reynolds, 197l; Lynham, 2002). The units represent the things about

which the researcher is trying to make sense and are informed by literature and experience.

By translating these concepts to units, the researcher is able to identify the things or variables

whose interactions make up the subject matter of attention (Dubin, 1978; Lynham, 2002).

The kinds of units used in the theory are determined by the choices made by the

researcher regarding the unit types and the dichotomous characteristics. Dubin (1978, p. 58)

identifies five types of units:

1. Enumerative unit is a property characteristic of a thing in all conditions. It must

not have a zero value or an absent condition.

2. Associative unit is a property characteristic of a thing in only some of its

conditions. It has a real zero or absent value.

3. Relational unit is a property characteristic of a thing that can be determined only

by the relations among properties. The relationships may be interaction among

properties or combination of properties.

18
 4. Statistical unit is a property of a thing that summarizes the distribution of that

property in the thing. Generally, statistical units summarize a central tendency in

the distribution of a property, summarize the dispersion of a property, and locate

things by their relative position in a distribution of a property.

5. Summative unit is a global unit that stands for an entire complex thing.

Summative units should not be used in theory development.

Dubin (1978) also identified five dichotomies of characteristics: unit versus event,

attribute versus variable, real versus nominal, primitive versus sophisticated, and collective

versus member. In distinguishing between a unit versus an event, an event happens only

once while a unit must ultimately be able to count two or more entries. The reason for

distinguishing between a unit and event is to distinguish certain types of historical

explanation from theory and to dispose of the nagging problem of the uniqueness of all things

at each point in time.

Distinguishing between attributes or variables is exceedingly important for the

structure of tests used when a theory is confronted with empirical data. An attribute is a

property that is always present while a variable is a property of a thing that may be present in

degrees.

The distinction between a real and a nominal unit rests solely upon the probability of

finding an empirical indicator for the unit. This means that every nominal unit has the

potentiality of being converted into a real unit with progress in the technologies of developing

empirical indicators. The issue is not to insist that theories contain only real units but that the

19
structure of the theory is clearly understood so that the functions of nominal units in them

will be readily recognized.

Dubin considers primitive units as those that are undefined while sophisticated units

are those that are defined. Primitive units are used when an unknown x is put into a theory

and the theorist spends time trying to discover this x. This x will be turned into a

sophisticated unit when discovered. The employment of primitive units in building a new

theory occurs in one of the generalizing stages.

The last dichotomy that Dubin suggests one considers is collective versus member.

This is the difference between a class considered as a unit and the individual member of that

class being treated as a unit. The purpose of making this distinction is to designate many

things sharing at least one common characteristic and to be able to treat them as a unit in a

theory. In other circumstances one may want to treat one or more of the individual things as

an independent unit because it shares membership in some collective unity by virtue of

having at least one characteristic in common with all other members.

The kinds of units used in a theory are important as they can affect the theory’s

structure, the kinds of explanations and predictions the theory can generate, and the

extensiveness of the tests that can be made of the theory (Dubin, 1978; Lynham, 2002).

A further and important requirement for identifying units of theory is to consider the

outcome of developing the units of the theory against five criteria: rigor and exactness,

parsimony, completeness, logical consistency, and the degree of conformity to the limitations

on employment and combination of units (Lynham, 2002).

20
 There are three limiting rules regarding the combination of types of units in a theory:

1. “A relational unit is not combined in the same theory with enumerative or associate

units that are themselves properties of the relational unit” (Dubin, 1978, p. 73).

2. “Where a statistical unit is employed, it is by definition a property of a collective.

In the same theory do not combine such a statistical unit with any kind of unit

(enumerative, associative, or relational) describing a property of members of the same

collective” (p. 73-74).

3. “Summative units have utility in education and communication with those who are

naive in a field. Summative units are not employed in scientific models” (p. 78).

The units enable the researcher-theorist to answer the first objective of the study: What are

the units of a theory of effective computer-based instruction for adults?

The second step in the theory building method is to make explicit and specific the

manner in which the units of the theory interact and relate to one another (Dubin, 1978;

Torraco, 1994, 2000; Lynham, 2002). A law of interaction is a statement by the researcher-

theorist of the relationship between units and shows how the units of the theory are linked to

each other. The laws of interaction relate to the relationship between units of the theory and

not to the conceptual dimension of each unit of the theory (Lynham, 2002). The laws of

interaction do not necessarily indicate casuality (Dubin, 1978; Lynham, 2002). Dubin (1978)

informed us that laws of interaction are never themselves measured; rather, the values of the

units in a relationship are measured. There are three general categories or types of laws of

interaction as highlighted by Dubin (1978): categoric, sequential, and determinant.

21
 Categoric laws of interaction indicate the values of a unit of the theory are associated

with values of another unit. Categoric laws of interaction are symmetrical in nature and

typically use “is associated with” in the law of interaction.

Sequential laws of interaction make use of a time dimension to describe the

relationships between two or more units. A sequential law of interaction identifies a

temporal interval between the values of two or more units and indicates that the relationship

between the units concerned is unidirectional (Lynham, 2002). Sequential laws are

asymmetrical with a time lapse between the units. Sequential laws of interaction employ

“succeeded by or preceded by” with a time interval (Dubin, 1978).

A determinant law of interaction is one that relates determinate values of one unit of

the theory with determinate values of another unit. Determinant laws of interaction describe

specific relationships between units with determinate values and are typically used in the

physical sciences (Dubin, 1978; Torraco, 2000; Lynham, 2002).

The laws of interaction show how changes in one or more of the units of the theory

influence the remaining units and enable the research-theorist to answer the second objective

of the study: What are the laws of interaction of a theory of effective computer-based

instruction for adults? These first two steps provide the major contribution to knowledge

that is generated by theory (Dubin, 1978; Lynham, 2002; Torraco, 1994, 1997, 2000).

The third step is to determine the limited domain of the world in which the theory is

expected to hold true. Determining the boundaries of the theory enables the research to set

and clarify the aspects of the real world that the theory is attempting to model. In setting the

22
boundaries, it distinguishes the theoretical domain of the theory from those aspects of the real

world not addressed or explained by the theory (Lynham, 2002). In determining the

boundaries of the theory, the researcher-theorist will answer the third objective of the study:

What are the boundaries of a theory of effective computer-based instruction for adults?

The fourth step and final step in the theory development part is the specification of the

system states of the theory. System states indicate the complexity of the real world that the

theory is presumed to represent and the different conditions under which the theory operates.

A system state is a state of the system as a whole and represents a condition under which the

theory is operative. All units of the system states are determinant and measurable and are

distinctive for each state of the theoretical system (Dubin, 1978; Torraco, 1994; Lynham,

2002). In determining the system states of the theory, the researcher-theorist will answer the

fourth objective of the study: What are the system states of a theory of effective computer-

based instruction for adults? These first four steps constitute the conceptual development of

the theory and provide the theoretical framework of the theory.

The first step in the research operation and the fifth step of the applied theory building

method involve specifying the propositions of the theory. A proposition of a theoretical

model is a truth statement about the model in operation (Dubin, 1978). These propositions

are grounded in the explanatory and predictive power embedded in the theoretical framework

constructed during theory development process (Lynham, 2002). The researcher-theorist will

provide the answer to the last objective in this step: What are the propositions of a theory of

23
computer-based instruction for adults? Once these five steps are completed, the researcher-

theorist has developed the theory and can begin testing the theory.

The sixth step is the identification of the empirical indicators of the theory.

Identifying empirical indicators is necessary to make the proposition statements testable and

is needed for each unit in each proposition for which a test is sought (Dubin, 1978; Lynham,

2002).

The seventh step in the applied theory building method is constructing hypotheses.

A hypothesis may be defined as the prediction about values of units of a theory in which

empirical indicators are employed for the named units in each proposition. The linkage

between the empirical world and the theory is found in the hypotheses that mirror the

propositions of the model (Dubin, 1978).

The eighth and final step in Dubin’s theory building process is to engage in the actual

testing of the theory through a thoughtful specified research plan of ongoing data gathering to

enable adequate verification and/or continuous refinement of the theory (Lynham, 2002).

Theory building in an applied field such as Human Resource Development is dynamic with

testing and refining of the theory being a challenge and the responsibility of researchers in the

field. Dubin’s methodology for theory building is used to develop a theory of computer-

based instruction for adults.

Evaluating Theory

Without the empirical testing of a theory in step eight of Dubin’s methodology,

theories cannot be evaluated as to their correctness or validity. A theory may be good

24
without being totally correct. However, a good theory is more likely to be true than a poor

one. Patterson (1986, p. xx) provides eight criteria for evaluating a theory.

1. Importance. A theory should not be trivial but should be significant. It should be

applicable to more than a limited restricted situation. It should have some

relevance to life. Importance is very difficult to evaluate since the criteria are

vague or subjective. Acceptance by competent professionals or recognition and

persistence in the professional literature may be indicative of importance. If

theory meets other formal criteria, it is probably important.

2. Preciseness and Clarity. A theory should be understandable, internally consistent,

and free from ambiguities. Clarity may be tested by the ease of relating the

theory to data or practice. The ease of developing the hypotheses, which is the

last step of this study, is another way of testing clarity.

3. Parsimony or Simplicity. Parsimony has long been accepted as a characteristic of

a good theory. A good theory contains a minimum of complexity and few

assumptions. The phenomena of the world and of nature are relatively simple in

terms of basic principles. The law of parsimony appears to be the most widely

violated in theory construction because of the stage of knowledge the theorist has

reached, where diversity and complexity are more apparent than are the

underlying unity and consistency. Hall and Lindzey (1970) propose that

parsimony is important only after the criteria of comprehensiveness and

verifiability have been met.

25
4. Comprehensiveness. A theory should be complete, covering the area of interest

and including all known data in the field. The area of interest can be restricted.

5. Operationality. A theory should be capable of being reduced to procedures for

testing its propositions or predictions. Its concepts must be precise enough to be

measurable. A lack of measurement to operationalize a concept should not rule

out the use of a concept that is essential for a theory. The concept first should be

defined and then a method of measurement chosen or developed. Not all concepts

of a theory need to be operational; concepts may be used to indicate relationships

and organization among concepts.

6. Empirical Validity or Verifiability. A theory must be supported by experience and

experiments that confirm the theory. In addition to its consistency with or ability

to account for what is already known, it must generate new knowledge. A theory

that is disconfirmed by experiment may lead indirectly to new knowledge by

stimulating the development of a better theory.

7. Fruitfulness. The capacity of a theory to lead to predictions that can be tested,

when in turn leads to the development of new knowledge, has often been referred

to as its fruitfulness. A theory can be fruitful even if it is not capable of leading to

specific predictions. It may provoke thinking and the development of new ideas

or theories because it leads to disbelief or resistance in others.

8. Practicality. The final criterion of a good theory is its usefulness to practitioners

in organizing their thinking and practice by providing a conceptual framework for

26
 practice. A theory allows the practitioner to move beyond the empirical level of

trial-and-error application of techniques to the rational application of principles.

Practitioners too often think of theory as something that is irrelevant to what they

do, unrelated to practice or to real life. There is nothing as practical as a good

theory (Lewin, 1951).

The Role of Theory Building in Human Resource Development

The potential value of theory for guiding scientific understanding, explanation, and

prediction cuts across all professional disciplines. The roles that theory serves in HRD are

essentially the same as those served by theory in other disciplines. Theory provides members

of a professional discipline with a common language and a frame of reference for defining

boundaries of their profession. Torraco (1994, 1997, p. 117) identified seven prominent

roles served by theory in the context of human resource development.

1. Interpreting new research data. Theory provides a means by which new research

data can be interpreted and coded for future use. For example, research is

currently generating a great deal of data on the effects of transformed

organizational structures (e.g., flatter designs, and “downsized” organization).

Organizational behavior theory maintains that as the organizational structure

changes, new relationships emerge among the individuals who function within the

organization. Theory is warning us that we must pay more attention to changing

employee roles as organizations take on new forms.

2. Responding to new problems. Theory provides a means for responding to new

27
 problems that have no previously identified solutions strategy. Consider the case

of technologically advanced work environments that remove workers further from

concrete cues to performance, this increasingly contributes to the worker’s anxiety

and operational errors. Theories of work design and human motivation tell us that

frequent feedback that is procedure-specific increases worker satisfaction and

accuracy of performance. Knowledge from these theories can be applied to new

work environments.

3. Defining applied problems. Theory provides a means for identifying and defining

applied problems. For instance, work performance problems are often defined in

terms of training solutions. Yet, theories of performance maintain that work

performance has multiple determinants; knowledge and skill interact with ability,

motivation, and environmental factors to produce the outcomes of performance.

4. Evaluating solutions. Theory provides a means for prescribing or evaluating

solutions to applied problems. Organizational leaders often look to outside agents

as the means for effecting change in their organizations. Yet organizational

change theory suggests that the direction and commitment for change and criteria

for its success must come primarily from within the organization itself.

5. Discerning priorities. Theory tells us that certain facts among the accumulated

knowledge are important and others are not. For example, theories of learning

and instruction suggest that the learning goal to be achieved is more important

than the speed of achieving it. Theories of learning and instruction also suggest

28
 that the match between the instructional method and the capability to be learned is

more important than the choice of media. Finally, theories of learning and

instruction suggest that the type of evaluation is often less important than assuring

that some form of evaluation is used to demonstrate effectiveness.

6. Interpreting old data in new ways. Theory gives old data new interpretations and

new meaning. For example, theories of motivation have recast the importance of

extrinsic motivators for work, such as pay and perquisites. The use of money has

had unintended consequences in cases where it has undermined the intrinsic

rewards of work and in cases where increasing the pay of one person has

demotivated everyone else.

7. Identifying new research directions. Theory identifies important new issues and

prescribes the most critical research questions that need to be answered to

maximize understanding of the issue. For example, an environment of

increasingly scarce economic resources portends diminishing investments in

human resource development. Yet human capital theory challenges the HRD

profession to reframe this issue into one in which greater depth of human capital

contributes to the renewal and expansion of human and economic resources.

Authors in HRD agree that theory and theory building are very important in guiding

the practice and advancing the profession as a whole (Bacharach, 1989; Chalofsky, 1998;

Dubin, 1976; Gioia & Pitre, 1990; Hardy, 1999; Hatcher, 1999; Holton, 2002; Marsick, 1990;

Mott, 1998; Passmore, 1997; Ruona & Lynham, 1999; Swanson & Holton, 1997; Torraco,

29
1997; Van de Ven, 1989). Lynham (2000, p. 162) provided three reasons theory building is

important to the HRD profession:

1. To advance professionalism and maturity in HRD. Many scholars in the field

believe that the development of good theory in HRD is essential for the

maturation and professionalization of HRD (Chalofsky, 1998; Hatcher, 1999;

Marsick, 1990; 1998; Mott, 1998; Swanson & Holton, 1997; Torraco, 1997)

2. To dissolve the tension between HRD research and practice. Research-

practitioner partnering is perceived as a way to step up to the challenges of

professionalizing and maturing the HRD field.

3. To develop multiple, inclusive methods of research for theory building and

practice in HRD. When theory is perceived and built from multiple research

perspectives, the results are more comprehensive, inclusive and complete view of

human/social and organizational phenomena.

A profession’s theory base prescribes both the knowledge domains and scope of

practice over which a profession claims to have expertise. The depth of the theory base

should be directly related to the scope of practice. A key role of theory is to guide and inform

research so that it can, in turn, guide development efforts and improve professional practice.

As a conceptual foundation for research and practice, theory serves a critical role in the

advancement of the HRD profession (Torraco, 1997).

30
 General Learning Theories

Learning as a process focuses on what happens when learning takes place. The

explanation of what happens is called learning theories. Hill (1971) reported two chief

values of learning theories: to provide a vocabulary and conceptual framework for

interpreting examples of learning that is observed and to suggest where to look for solutions

to practical problems. Learning theories are chiefly descriptive. There is little consensus on

how many learning theories there are or how they should be grouped. Merriam and

Caffarella (1999) identified behaviorism, cognitivism, social learning, humanist, and

constructivism theories as key theories of adult learning. This study will use these five

theories of adult learning as a conceptual framework.

Behavioral Learning Theory

Behavioral learning theory was developed by Watson in the early decades of the

twentieth century and loosely encompasses the work of Thorndike, Tolman, Guthrie, Hull,

and Skinner (Ormrod, 1995). Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning had a tremendous

influence on the development of the early CBI systems (Shlechter, 1991). The basic learning

principles of Skinner’s theory are personalized instruction, controlled operant, immediate

feedback, linear sequence of learning, and instructional prompts (Shlechter, 1991). Another

approach to instruction, devised by Crowder (1962) and involving the use of a branching

sequence in CBI for training Navy personnel was the basis for adaptive sequencing.

There are three basic assumptions about the behavioral learning process: (1) behavior

rather than internal thought processes is the focus, (2) environment shapes behavior, and (3)

31
the principle of contiguity and reinforcement are central to explain the learning process

(Grippin & Peters, 1983). Several educational practices can be traced to the behavioral type

of learning. The systematic design of instruction, behavioral objectives, notions of the

instructor’s accountability, programmed instruction, computer-assisted instruction, and

competency-based education are all solidly grounded in behavioral learning theory. Adult

technical and skills training also draws from behaviorism.

Training researchers continue to endorse, explicitly or implicitly, a methodological

behaviorism that stresses the importance of objective, observable performance as the primary

indicator of training output (Bosco & Morrison, 2000). The concept of behavioral objectives

continues to serve as a method for defining the content of instruction. Wells and Hagman

(1989) have demonstrated that objectives have a positive effect on learning at the individual

level. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, as behavioristic learning theory was peaking in its influence

on training research and practice, learning theorists were becoming less satisfied with

behavioral conceptions of learning and memory and increasingly interested in the study of

internal knowledge structures and cognitive processes that underlie task performance (Bosco

& Morrison, 2000). The positive effects of behavioral objectives and the learning process are

now discussed in cognitive rather than behavioral terms.

Cognitive Learning Theory

A break from behaviorism occurred with the importation of the notion of insight

learning in the gestalt theories of Wertheimer, Kiffka, and Kohler (Moore & Fitz, 1993).

These theorists took issue with the proposition that all learning consisted of the simple

32
connection of responses to stimuli. They insisted that experience is always structured and

that we react to a complex pattern of stimuli. The learner perceives stimuli in organized

wholes, not in disconnected parts. The learner organizes his/her perceptual field according to

four laws: (1) the law of proximity, (2) the law of similarity and familiarity, (3) the law of

closure, and (4) the law of continuation. Gestalt psychology is classified within the family of

field theories where the total pattern or field, stimuli, or events determine learning.

Perception, insight and meaning are key contributions to cognitivism from Gestalt learning

theorists (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). A major difference between Gestaltists and

behaviorists is the locus of control over the learning activity. For Gestaltists it lies with the

individual learner and for behaviorists it lies with the environment. The shift to the

individual and the learner’s mental processes is characteristic of cognitivist-oriented learning

theories.

Most contemporary cognitive psychologists hold that learning consists of individual

constructions of knowledge. Learning is a personal event that results from sustained and

meaningful engagement with one’s environment (Bruner, 1961, 1985, 1986). This view also

holds that learning cannot be viewed apart from the social and cultural contexts in which it

occurs (Prawat & Floden, 1994).

Lewin developed what he referred to as a field theory. According to his theory, each

individual exists in a life space in which many forces are operating in the environment.

Behavior is the product of the interplay of those forces; the direction and relative strength of

which can be portrayed by the geometry of vectors. Learning occurs as a result of a change in

33
cognitive structures produced by changes in two types of forces: change in the structure of the

cognitive field itself, or change in the internal needs or motivation of the individual. Lewin

saw success as more potent motivating force than reward and gave attention to the concepts

of ego-involvement and level of aspiration as forces affecting success. He felt that the urge

for self-actualization is the driving force motivating all human behavior (Knowles, Holton, &

Swanson, 1998).

Piaget and Bruner focused on the cognition and theory of instruction, which had an

impact on learning theories. Piaget (1972) conceptualized behavior of the human organism

as starting with the organization of sensory-motor reactions and becoming more intelligent as

coordination between reactions to objects becomes progressively more interrelated and

complex. A basic assumption of Piaget’s theory is that a different type of assimilation and

accommodation occurs at each stage of development (Flavell, 1968). A person must wait

until the final stage of development, the formal operational stage, to develop the cognitive

structures necessary for dealing with abstract environmental relationships (Shlechter, 1991).

Thinking becomes possible after language develops and a new mental organization is created.

Piaget’s theory of cognitive development influenced many CBI designers. Papert

(1980), who helped design the LOGO system (a programming language for children), was

greatly influenced by Piaget’s theory. While basically agreeing with Piaget about the

assimilation and accommodation process, Papert (1980) argues that cognitive development

can be expedited by providing the student more formal operational experiences. A student

can acquire these needed experiences by programming a computer with the LOGO authoring

34
language (Papert, 1980). Using and combining different commands to form a coherent

computer graphic and debugging a program are examples of formal operational experiences.

The cognitive influence became more prevalent as computer technology became more

sophisticated (Shlechter, 1991).

Bruner’s (Knowles, 1984) interest was in the structuring and sequencing of

knowledge and translating this into a theory of instruction. He did, however, have a basic

theory about the act of learning which he viewed as involving three almost simultaneous

processes: acquisition of new information, transformation or manipulating knowledge to

make it fit new tasks, and evaluation to see if information is adequate to the task.

Gardner (1985, p. 6) defines cognitive science as “a contemporary, empirically based

effort to answer long-standing epistemological questions, particularly those concerned with

the nature of knowledge, its components, its sources, its development and its deployment.”

Three features cited by Gardner generally associated with cognitive science that apply to

computer-based instruction are: (1) cognitive science is explicitly multi-disciplinary, drawing

especially upon the disciplines of psychology, linguistics, anthropology, philosophy,

neuroscience, and artificial intelligence; (2) a central issue for this discipline is cognitive

representation, its form, structure, and embodiment at various levels; and (3) the faith that the

computer will prove central to the solution of problems of cognitive science, both in the

conduct of research to investigate various cognitive representations and in providing viable

models of the thought process itself (Bednar et al., 1995).

35
 Bednar and his colleagues (1995) refer to knowledge as some entity existing

independent of the mind of individuals and which is transferred “inside.” Consistent with

this view of knowledge, the goal of instruction, from both the behavioral and cognitive

information processing perspectives, is to communicate or transfer knowledge to learners in

the most efficient, effective manner possible. Knowledge can be completely characterized

using the techniques of semantic analysis. One key to efficiency and effectiveness is

simplification and regularization: thought is atomistic in that it can be completely broken

down into simple building blocks, which form the basis for instruction. Thus, the transfer of

knowledge is most efficient if the excess baggage of irrelevant content and context can be

eliminated. While behaviorist applications focus on the design of learning environments that

optimize knowledge transfer, cognitive information processing stresses efficient processing

strategies (Bednar et al., 1995).

Bosco & Morrison (2000) reported that cognitive theory is now the dominant

theoretical viewpoint in research on learning and memory resulting in two notable trends: (1)

the greater use of mental constructs to define task requirements, through the cognitive task

analysis method, and (2) the greater willingness to devise training interventions for mentally

demanding tasks. Glaser (1990) reviewed cognitive research and reported that learning

processes and instructional implications showed very few commonalties across the task

domains. He was confident that an integrated theory would eventually be designed to

prescribe a mix of instructional approaches for specific training purposes.

36
 Contemporary approaches to computer-based learning are more often rooted in

cognitive learning theories. They focus not on the product technology of the computer but on

the idea technologies afforded by the computer (Hooper & Rieber, 1995). Idea technologies

tend to emphasize constructivist orientations to learning (Papert, 1981, 1993; Schwartz,

Yerushalmy & Wilson, 1993; White, 1993). The effects of technology on learning can best

be understood when classified as “effects of” versus “with” the computer on cognition

(Salomon, Perkins & Globerson, 1991).

Research on the effects of the computer on cognition attempts to determine if

cognitive residue results as a consequence of the interaction between the individual and

computer, such as an increase in general problem-solving ability or mathematical reasoning.

Research with technology focuses on how human processing changes in distinct, qualitative

ways when an individual is engaged in an intellectual activity using the computer as a tool.

Taken interactively, an intellectual partnership is formed between the individual and the

technology; the resulting changes to cognition cannot be understood when the individual or

the technology is considered apart (Hannafin et al., 1996). An emphasis on learning with

media, as opposed to learning from media, may help to resolve some of the debate and

controversy surrounding media research (Clark, 1983; Kozma, 1991b).

Social Learning Theory

Social learning theory which combines elements from both behaviorist and cognitivist

orientations suggests that people learn from observing others. It was not until the 1960’s that

Bandura focused more on the cognitive processes involved in the observation of subsequent

37
behavior. “Virtually all learning phenomena resulting from direct experiences can occur on a

vicarious basis through observation of the people’s behavior and its consequences for the

observer” (Bandura, 1976, p. 392). Bandura’s observational learning is characterized by the

concept of self-regulation.

The four processes of attention, retention or memory, behavioral rehearsal, and

motivation influence observational learning. More recently, Bandura has focused on self-

efficacy as it influences learning (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). Bandura’s theory has

particular relevance to adult learning in that it accounts for both the learner and the

environment in which he or she operates. Behavior is a function of the interaction of the

person with the environment. This is a reciprocal concept in that people influence their

environment, which in turn influences the way they behave (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999).

Rotter’s (1954) theory assumes that much of human behavior takes place in a

meaningful environment and is acquired through social interactions with other people. Seven

propositions and attendant corollaries that delineate relationships among the concepts of

behavior, personality, experience, and environment frame his theory. Rotter’s theory

assumes “that much of human behavior takes place in a meaningful environment and is

acquired through social interaction with other people” (Phares, 1980, p. 406).

Key to understanding which behavior in the individual’s repertoire will occur in a

given situation is the concepts of expectancy and reinforcement (Merriam & Caffarella,

1999). Expectancy is the likelihood that a particular reinforcement will occur as the result of

specific behavior. The motivation to engage in adult learning activities might be partly

38
explained by Rotter’s notion of locus of control. Another connection to adult learning for the

social learning theory is the importance of context and the learner’s interaction with the

environment to explain behavior.

Humanist Learning Theory

Humanist theories consider learning from the perspective of the human potential for

growth. Humanists refuse to accept the notion that either the environment predetermines

behavior or one’s subconscious. Rather, human beings can control their own destiny; people

are inherently good and will strive for a better world; people are free to act, behavior is the

consequence of human choice; and people possess unlimited potential for growth and

development (Rogers, 1983). From a learning theory perspective, humanism emphasizes that

perceptions are centered in experience, as well as the freedom and responsibility to become

what one is capable of becoming. These principles underlie much of adult learning theory

that stresses the self-directedness of adults and the value of experience in the learning

process.

Rogers’ (1983) client-centered therapy is often equated with student-centered

learning. He believed that learning should: include personal involvement; involve both

affective and cognitive aspects of a person; be self-initiated - a sense of discovery must come

from within; be pervasive - the learning makes a difference in the behavior, attitudes, perhaps

even the personality of the learner; be evaluated by the learner - the learner can best

determine whether the experience is meeting a need; and focus on experiential learning -

39
when experiential learning takes place, its meaning to the learner becomes incorporated into

the total experience.

Constructivism Learning Theory

The historical roots of constructivism are most heavily grounded in developmental

psychology and social learning theories. A constructivist maintains that learning is a process

of constructing meaning. Meaning is made by the individual and is dependent on the

individual’s previous and current knowledge structure. Learning also involves providing

experiences that induce cognitive conflict, and hence, encourages learners to develop new

knowledge schemes that are better adapted to experience. To a constructivist, learning must

be situated in a rich context, reflective of real world contexts, for this constructive process to

occur and transfer to environments beyond the training classroom (Bednar et al., 1995). How

effective or instrumental the learner’s knowledge structure is in facilitating thinking in the

content field is the measure of learning.

The learner must construct an understanding or viewpoint; the content cannot be pre-

specified. While a core knowledge domain may be specified, the student is encouraged to

search for other relevant knowledge domains that may be relevant to the issue. It is clear that

knowledge domains are not readily separated in the world; information from many sources

bears on the analysis of any issue. A central or core body of information must be defined;

however, the boundaries of what may be relevant cannot be defined (Bednar et al., 1995).

The constructivist view does not accept the assumption that types of learning can be

identified independent of the content and the context of learning. It is not possible to isolate

40
units of information or make a priori assumption of how the information will be used.

Instead of dividing up the knowledge domain based on a logical analysis of dependencies, the

constructivist view turns toward a consideration of what real people in a particular knowledge

domain and real life context typically do (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Resnick, 1987).

The overarching goal of such an approach is to move the learner into thinking in the

knowledge domain as an expert user of that domain might think. The goal should be to

portray tasks and not to define the structure of learning required for achieving a task. It is the

process of constructing a perspective or understanding that is essential to learning; no

meaningful construction is possible if all relevant information is pre-specified (Bednar et al.,

1995).

Andragogy

Andragogy is the art and science of teaching adults (Knowles, 1978). Andragogy is a

set of core adult learning principles that apply to all adult learning situations. The six

principles of Andragogy defined by Knowles (1998) are: (1) the learner’s need to know, (2)

self-concept of the learner, (3) prior experience of the learner, (4) readiness to learn, (5)

orientation to learning, and (6) motivation to learn. They are based on assumptions about the

adult learner.

1. The need to know. Adults need to know why they need to learn something before

undertaking to learn it. Even in learning situations in which the learning content is

prescribed, sharing control over the learning strategies is believed to make

learning more effective (Knowles, et al., 1998). Adults need to know the how,

41
 what and why of learning before learning can take place. The first task of the

facilitator of learning is to help the learners become aware of the need to know.

2. The learners’ self-concept. Adults have a self-concept of being responsible for

their own decisions, for their own lives. They develop a deep psychological need

to be seen by others and treated by others as being capable of self-direction.

Tough (1979) found that when adults undertake to learn something on their own,

they will invest considerable energy in probing into the benefits they will gain

from learning it and the negative consequences of not learning it. The facilitator

should create learning experiences in which adults are helped to make the

transition from dependent to self-directing learners.

3. The role of the learners’ experiences. Adults come into an educational activity

with both quantity and quality of experiences. In any group of adults there will be

a wide range of individual differences in terms of background, learning style,

motivation, needs, interest, and goals. Experience is who the adult is. Hence the

emphasis in adult education is placed on individualization of teaching and

learning strategies. The facilitator should make the adults’ experiences a part of

the learning opportunity.

4. Readiness to learn. Adults become ready to learn those things they need to know

and be able to do in order to cope effectively with their real-life situations. The

critical implication of this assumption is the importance of timing learning

experiences to coincide with those developmental tasks. The facilitator should

42
 induce readiness through exposure to models of superior performance, simulation

exercises, and other techniques.

5. Orientation to learning. Adults are life-centered in their orientation to learning.

Adults are motivated to learn to the extent that they perceive that learning will

help them perform tasks or deal with problems that they confront in their life

situations. They learn most effectively when new knowledge, understandings,

skills, values, and attitudes are presented in the context of application to real-life

situations.

6. Motivation to learn. Tough (1979) found in his research that all normal adults are

motivated to keep growing and developing, but this motivation is frequently

blocked by barriers such as negative self-concept, inaccessibility of opportunities

or resources, time constraints, and programs that violate principles of adult

learning. Adults are primarily motivated by the internal pressures such as

increased job satisfaction, self-esteem, and quality of life.

There are a variety of other factors that affect adult learning in any particular situation

and may cause adults to behave more or less closely to the core principles. These include

individual learner differences, situational differences, and goals and purposes of learning.

Andragogy works best in practice when it is adapted to fit the uniqueness of the learners and

the learning situation. The Andragogy in Practice model (Knowles et al., 1998) contains the

six core adult learning principles in the middle. They serve as a sound foundation for

planning adult learning experiences. Surrounding the core principles are two rings, the

43
outermost ring addresses the goals and purposes for learning and the innermost ring addresses

the individual and situational differences.

The goals and purposes for learning include societal growth, individual growth, and

institutional growth. Adult learning is equally powerful in developing better institutions and

societies as well as individuals. The goals and purposes for which the adult learning is

conducted provide a frame that puts shape to the learning experience (Knowles et al., 1998).

Emphasis on the core learning principles will be modified based on the goals and purposes of

the adult learner.

The individual and situational differences include situational differences, individual

learner differences, and subject matter differences. These differences act as a filter that shapes

the practice of andragogy. Analysis should be conducted to understand the particular adult

learners and their individual characteristics, the characteristics of the subject matter, and the

characteristics of the particular situation in which adult learning is being used. Each of these

factors will change the extent to which the core principles of andragogy are applicable to

specific learners in a specific learning situation. The facilitator may place greater emphasis

on a particular principle based on this analysis.

Regardless of their different learning styles and abilities, people increasingly want to

be active rather than passive learners (Albright & Post, 1993). They seek to learn at their

own paces and to learn at the right time so that they can apply new knowledge and skills

immediately. The effective use of electronic performance support depends on skills-based

instruction in which trainees not only learn new skills but also practice them.

44
 A study at the University of Georgia examined different ways adults learn software,

based on their learning styles and preferences, type of work and experience (Harp et al,

1997). The study indicated that dependent learners generally prefer a direct approach; self-

directed learners generally prefer an autonomous approach. Self-directed learners like more

control over what, when and how to learn. Dependent learners prefer one-on-one discussions

with trainers and consultants. Self-directed learners find it more useful to experiment with

software and search menus. Respondents reported that co-workers were available learning

resources as compared to support staff that solved the problem without explaining how. The

respondents in this study reported that watching videos, attending user support groups, and

referring to the training manuals were the least useful learning activities.

The andragogical model is a process model. The andragogical teacher (facilitator)

prepares, in advance, a set of procedures for involving the learner in a process. This process

involves these elements: establishing a climate conducive to learning; creating a mechanism

for mutual planning; diagnosing the needs for learning; formulating program objectives that

will satisfy these needs; designing a pattern of learning experiences; conducting these

learning experiences with suitable techniques and materials; and evaluating the learning

outcomes and rediagnosing learning needs (Knowles, 1978). The process model is concerned

with providing procedures and resources for helping learners acquire information and skills.

Wiswell and Ward (1997) found that changes in both computer technology and the

context in which it operates necessitate a new approach to training that incorporates

constructivist and andragogical practices to deliver a more learner-centered experience. In

45
their action research study of training implementation at three federal agencies, each setting

had a mandate for a comprehensive, organization-wide training program for a particular

training need. Each setting also had a unique set of learner needs to be addressed. Learning

was found to occur in an almost endless variety of ways. Three dimensions in particular

appeared to describe important characteristics to each variety of learning: content, context,

and control (Wiswell & Ward, 1997).

Computer-Based Instruction Theory Building

It is only within the last decade that framework development for CBI has become a

part of the literature. Prior to this time, researchers’ studies compared CBI to traditional

classroom instruction or analyzed the constructs mentioned in Chapter 1 to determine the

variables that influenced learning by means of the computer. It was not until researchers

began to analyze these studies through meta-analysis and review theses meta-analyses that

researchers of CBI began to realize that there were confounding variables that could render

the research invalid.

The continuing progress made by cognitive psychologists in research on how we learn

and the better understanding of the constructivism approach to learning have provided

researchers an opportunity to considered combining learning theories in developing their

frameworks for CBI. The literature on development of frameworks or models for computer-

based instruction is limited. The articles that were found to include a framework for CBI

(Johnson & Aragon, 2002; Kember & Murphy, 1990; Steinberg, 1991; Williams, 2000)

concluded that a synthesis of the learning theories is part of their framework. These

46
researchers have begun to develop frameworks that provide a strategy for future empirical

research. However, it is this researcher’s opinion that these frameworks do not represent all

the critical components that are needed to develop a theory of effective computer-based

instruction for adults.

Johnson and Aragon

Johnson & Aragon (2002) have begun developing a framework for instructional

strategies for use in the computer learning environment. They reviewed numerous studies

(Clark, 1999; Johnson, Aragon, Shaik, & Palma-Rivas, 2000; Navarro & Shoemaker, 1999;

Smeaton & Keogh, 1999) comparing traditional classroom instruction with technology-

supported instruction and found no significant differences. The obvious conclusion was that

the technology used to support instruction has little impact on the learner’s attainment of

educational outcomes. Based on the lack of evidence that technology significantly influences

the learning process, scholars in the field of instructional technology now conclude that the

technology used in an online program is not as important as other instructional factors, such

as pedagogy and course design (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999).

Johnson and Aragon (2002) created a learning environment to support an online

graduate course that was based on the assumption that learning is a complex event that

cannot be explained with a single theory of learning. The researchers hypothesized that

quality learning environments should be based on instructional principles that are derived

from multiple learning theories.

Instructional designers need to look for innovative ways to support quality teaching

47
and learning without succumbing to the temptation to have online instruction become direct

instantiations of traditional forms of instruction (Johnson & Aragon, 2002). The challenge is

to devise ways to create pedagogically sound content for delivery by means of the computer.

Johnson and Aragon contend that online learning environments need to contain a

combination of these principles: (1) address individual differences, (2) motivate the student,

(3) avoid information overload, (4) create a real-life context, (5) encourage social interaction,

(6) provide hands-on activities, and (7) encourage student reflection. They suggested that

quality online learning environments should be comprised of elements of behavioral,

cognitive and social learning theory. Adopting a synthesized theory of learning can have a

synergistic result by integrating the most positive and powerful aspects of each individual

learning theory into an online learning environment (Johnson & Aragon, 2002).

Kember and Murphy

Kember and Murphy (1990) suggested that instructional design theory and

educational technology have been rooted in behavioral psychology. Instruction designed

based on behavioral learning theory has been limiting and that new theories should be

consistent with constructivist theories of psychology and allow flexible, pragmatic

development approaches. They believe that for meaningful and lasting learning to occur,

greater attention should be given to the constructivist paradigm, and specific techniques need

to be devised and implemented which encourage deep learning. Approaches to instructional

design need to be developed that don’t just transmit knowledge, but are able to accomplish

conceptual change in the student. That is, misconceptions in the learners need to be

48
analyzed, and techniques devised to help them to overcome such problems. “If teaching is

the facilitation of learning, then efforts need to be concentrated on the learner rather than the

instruction” (p.45).

Steinberg

CBI draws on learning theories, instructional models, practical experience and

technology. For understanding how these domains contribute to computer-based instruction,

Steinberg (1991) developed a six-component framework for computer-based instruction.

Four components were derived from learning theories and instruction models: target

population, goals, task, and instruction. Two of the components, computer application and

environmental implementation, reflect research and experience with CBI. Steinberg

synthesizes theories of Bransford (1979) and Gagné (1977) in developing her framework.

Bransford’s theory explores learning, remembering, and understanding from a process

perspective. His framework consists of four components: learner characteristics, criterial

task, nature of materials to be learned, and nature of learning activities. Bransford

emphasizes that the most significant idea underlying this framework is the interaction among

components (Steinberg, 1991).

Gagné conceptualizes learning in terms of categories of skills and capabilities and the

conditions under which they are learned. Gagné groups the diverse outcomes of learning into

five categories: intellectual skills, verbal information, cognitive strategies, motor skills, and

attitudes. Elements both within each person and in the surrounding environment affect

learning. Each type of learning outcome occurs under its own set of internal and external

49
conditions. Gagné’s theory suggest that both attributes of the learner and events in the

environment contribute to learning, and each type of learning outcome has its own set of

internal and external conditions.

From Steinberg’s synthesis of Bransford’s and Gagné’s theories, she concluded that

four components are central to learning, regardless of the theoretical perspective: target

population (who is learning), goals (what they are supposed to learn), task (the materials and

skills involved), and instruction (the externally planned activities).

When one looks at the target population, there are many individual differences. The

many characteristics of learners affect their ability to learn and to acquire new knowledge.

An individual’s subject-specific knowledge and general knowledge both affect

comprehension. A general characteristic of all human beings is that they have a limited

capacity to process information. Too much information presented simultaneously is not

likely to be learned and remembered.

Goals, the second component, are the expected outcomes of instruction. Goals in CBI

may be lesson or computer determined. CBI goals include demonstrating knowledge or skill,

engaging in a simulated experience such as decision making, learning how to learn, or

influencing attitudes.

The third component of Steinberg’s model is task. The skills and processes involved

in a task vary with the subject matter and the nature of the materials. Each subject matter

domain has its own subject-specific skills but it also has some skills in common with other

domains. Learning verbal material involves different skills than visual. A single set of

50
materials may be more or less complex, and require different skills depending on the task.

Instruction is the fourth component of Steinberg’s model. Some instructional models

evolve from common wisdom and experience successfully teaching a given subject. Other

models are based on psychological theories of learning or on a combination of experience and

theory. Computers are excellent vehicles for implementing well-established models of

instruction. CBI can support models of instruction that are not possible in other modes.

Computer application means first and foremost the application of sound instructional

principles. Appropriately utilized, the computer is a superb instructional tool. The computer

is an appropriate instructional medium if the lesson it presents is effective, efficient, and

acceptable to the intended learners (Steinberg, 1984).

The sixth component in the framework relates to the environment in which CBI is

implemented. A match between the anticipated and the actual conditions in which learning

takes place is essential.

Each of these six components is necessary, but the crucial aspect of the framework for

CBI is that learning is significantly affected by the interaction of these components. For

example, a computer can be used to implement many models of instruction but if the

computer application is poor or if the model is inappropriate for the target population, there

will probably be little or not learning. The critical idea of this framework of CBI is that the

components interact to affect learning and they do not act independently.

Williams

Williams (2000) found that there were several different views of what learning theory

51
best fits learning by means of the computer. Behaviorism has historically had the greatest

impact on the online learning environment. However, more courses are being designed with

a cognitive view in mind. The current trend in teaching and learning tends to be

constructivism, which is based in cognitive psychology. In learning situations, the

behaviorist wants to take the learner and produce desired behaviors by controlling the

environment, whereas the constructivist wants to see how learning occurs. Hence, both of

these methods are critical to provide a rich learning climate. The nature of online learning

provides a perfect vehicle to integrate behaviorist and constructivist theories in order to

understand the totality of learning in an online environment (Williams, 2000).

An integration of behaviorist principles and constructivist principles may be best

suited for online learning. Although historically the theory that undergirds these principles

has not been combined, Williams’ view is that a combination of these principles will create

new principles for teaching and learning and will mold online methods and strategies.

These researchers agree that learning theories need to synthesize to include several

different learning theories in the development of an effective learning environment for the

computer-based environment.

Research on Computer-Based Instruction

Most of the early research studies on computer-based instruction compared computer-

based instruction with instructor-led instruction. The studies tended to focus on the

computer as the independent variable and thus assumed that the computer itself was

somehow affecting the learning process (Thompson et al., 1993). Traditional achievement

52
measures were outcome measures. Typical dependant variables include final test scores and

scores on standardized achievement tests. In many studies, there are no controls for either the

curriculum content or the teaching methods. Often, different teachers are used for the

computer-based instruction and traditional classroom instruction groups and no control was

made for the teacher effect (Thompson et al., 1993).

The early research in CBI tended to concentrate on the effects of the computer on

student learning, while more recent work is evaluating more specific independent variables.

Current research tends to focus on computer environments that have the potential to improve

student problem solving and information handling skills. Recent research and development

efforts in computer based learning points toward radically changing the roles of teachers and

students in schools. Computer environments are beginning to enable more active and

individualized learning on the part of students and to encourage teachers to serve as

facilitators of this learning rather than as deliverers of knowledge. These potential changes in

teaching and learning, based on cognitive theory, could cause radical re-structuring of schools

(Thompson et al., 1993).

The evidence supports the position that technology based teaching and learning is

effective. People can learn using media and because of the improved instructional strategies

and the enhanced materials, facilitated by media, they may learn more effectively and in some

cases, more efficiently. Educational technology can facilitate the teaching and learning

process and potentially make education richer and more stimulating by creating environments

and presenting content not possible otherwise (Clark, 1983).

53
 Some areas of research conducted in CBI and found in this literature review are:

meta-analyses of CBI, individual differences, attitudes toward computers, support for

learners, learner control, motivation and CBI, context of learning, cooperative learning and

CBI, learning environment, and hypermedia learning environments.

Meta-Analyses of CBI

A means of looking at such studies is through meta-analysis. Meta-analysis allows

the investigator to transform the features and outcomes of the studies into quantitative

measures and examine statistically the relationship between the features and outcomes of the

studies (Glass, 1976). The key concept in meta-analysis is effect size, a statistical

measurement that indicates the degree of change in the subjects after treatment is applied.

In analyzing five meta-analyses conducted by Kulik, Kulik, and Cohen (1980); Kulik,

Kulik, and Shwalb (1986); Kulik and Kulik (1986); Khalili and Shashaani (1994); and Liao

(1998), computer-based instruction positively affected student achievement when compared

to traditional classroom instruction (Lowe, 2002). Clark (1983) suggested that the positive

effect of CBI might be the uncontrolled effects of instructional method or content differences

between treatments that were compared. Many educators believe instructional methodology

is the construct behind student achievement. Unless a research design can hold all the

variables constant except CBI when compared to traditional classroom instruction, these

results have limited validity.

Clark (1985) suggests that, when computer or computer attributes are found to

influence student achievement, other variables may actually be influencing the outcome. In

54
each of the five meta-analyses listed above, effect size was positive for achievement as an

outcome for CBI over conventional instruction. When CBI and traditional classroom

instruction are delivered by the same person, the learning advantage for CBI is reduced to

insignificant levels (Clark, 1985). Salomon (1991) pointed out that “no important impact can

be expected when the same old activity is carried out with a technology that makes it a bit

faster or easier, the activity itself has to change” (p. 8).

Roblyer (1988 cited in Thompson et al., 1993) compared later studies to those meta-

analyses conducted by Kulik. Roblyer found that attitudes toward school and content areas

were significant and positive. She suggested that improving students’ self-image and self-

confidence through computer use was a variable that needed further study. Additional

findings of Roblyer were:

• Computer applications were more effective for teaching mathematics than

reading and language skills

• The greatest effects were found in the science studies, although few. The

computer applications for teaching cognitive skills such as problem-solving

and critical thinking yielded about the same effects as for reading and

mathematics

• Specific computer application types such as drill and practice, tutorial, and

simulation were difficult to analyze because of their relation to specific subject

matter

55
 • High positive effects were found in studies that used simulations for

unstructured work.

Roblyer concludes “the effectiveness of various types of CBI applications varied according to

the content area and the skill being taught” (p. 48).

Contrary to earlier results, Roblyer found that the effects of computer use were

highest at the college level and lowest at the secondary level. She also found differences in

effects of males and females to be inconclusive and suggested further study. The studies that

focus on effects of specific attributes and uses of the computer on specific learner outcomes

are difficult to combine and analyze. The majority of the cognitive dependant variables in the

studies reviewed by Kulik and Roblyer used standardized achievement measures (Thompson

et al., 1993).

Individual Differences

Harrison and Rainer’s (1992) study surveyed 776 knowledge workers from a

university concerning the relationship between individual differences and computer skill.

Based on their findings, individual difference variables associated with higher computer skill

included: male gender, younger age, more experience with computers, an attitude of

confidence regarding computers, lower math anxiety, and a creative cognitive style.

Individual difference variables accounted for 56 percent of the variance associated with

computer skill. Such powerful evidence of the influence of individual differences has several

implications for managers, including training and education of end users, human resource

decisions regarding recruitment and selection, the change process associated with the

56
introduction of new technology in the workplace, and the impacts of technological advances

on individual end-user computing personnel.

The growth of end-use computing suggests that the hands-on use of computers is

becoming an important behavior in effective job performance. Individual differences are

essential determinants of work behavior (Terborg, 1981). Computer-oriented work behavior

is controlled by external factors associated with the work environment (e.g., characteristics of

the job, including technology, job scope, responsibility, physical comfort, etc.) and internal

characteristics of the person (e.g., age, education, attitudes, perceptions, etc.) (Harrison &

Rainer, 1992).

Nelson (1990) uses an interactionist psychology perspective to examine the impact of

individual difference and situational factors on acceptance of information technology.

Nelson argues that job characteristics or situational factors have received the majority of

research attention. She concludes that most studies simply correlate individual characteristics

with computer attitudes. Nelson also notes that studies examining individual differences do

not completely address their impact on work outcomes.

Igbaria and Parasuraman (1989) conclude that prior research on individual differences

and computer-related outcomes had limitations, including use of students as subjects, which

limits the generalizability of results to employed adults; examined bivariate relationships of

demographic and personality variables to computer-related outcomes; and lacked multivariate

linkages among a variety of individual difference variables.

57
 Managers of end-use computing need to be aware of the impact of individual

differences on work behaviors if they wish to create an effective work environment (Harrison

& Rainer, 1992). Researchers (Avner et al., 1980; Bok, 1986; Carrier, 1979) believe that

computers are ideally suited to handle individual learning differences.

An important finding of Harrison & Rainer’s study was the relationship between

attitudes and computer skill, given that the individuals’ attitudes toward an object (computer)

influence their responses to that object (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). The results indicate that

overcoming negative attitudes may remove one barrier preventing individuals from

increasing their computer skill. Education and training can be used to overcome negative

attitudes toward computers (Davis & Davis, 1990).

The aptitude training interaction paradigm in educational psychology emphasizes

adapting instructional methods to meet individual characteristics (Cronbach & Snow, 1977).

The basis for this approach is the critical importance of the prior knowledge and cognitive

skills each person brings to the training process (Pintrich et al., 1986). Therefore, knowledge

of individual characteristics will help organizations tailor techniques to train and educate

their employees most effectively in computer use (Harrison & Rainer, 1992). Nelson and

Cheney (1987) found that training was positively related to computer-related ability.

Harrison & Rainer’s study also suggested that the employee who is less conforming to

rules, social norms, and accepted work patterns is more likely to demonstrate advanced level

computer skills. This finding adds support to the idea that highly skilled end user computing

58
personnel, who have less anxiety and negative attitudes, will be more likely to accept and

adapt to information technology innovations.

Attitudes Toward Computers

Orr, Allen, and Poindexter (2001) also examined the relationship between computer

attitude and experience, demographic and education, and personality type and learning style

in their study. Conclusions drawn based on their findings were: (1) anxiety associated with

computers may be reduced somewhat through formal classroom instruction; (2) students who

have prior computer course experience are more positive about computers at the beginning of

an introductory computer course than their peers with less computer-related course

experience, but by the conclusion of the semester of instruction, this difference is negligible;

(3) students who have work experience using computers have less anxiety, more confidence,

and a greater liking of computers at the beginning of a computer course, but this work

experience only affects the amount they like to use computers by the conclusion of the

course; (4) students who own computers consistently report more positive attitudes toward

computers; (5) males and females do not differ in their attitudes toward computers; and (6)

older students tend to have more positive attitudes toward computers than younger students;

however, (7) freshmen tend to be more positive about computers than upper classmen.

Despite the technologically intensive society in which younger students grew up, researchers

(Busch, 1995; Rosen & Maguire, 1990) report that age is not a factor in predicting computer

attitudes.

59
 Support for Learners

Hannafin and his colleagues (1996) argue that the issue with computer research

should be how to best utilize computers to redefine, support, or compliment teaching and/or

learning efforts rather than if computers are effective in promoting learning. Learners often

experience difficulty accessing important lesson content due to poorly integrated knowledge

or the complexity of lesson presentations. Some are easily disoriented because of the lesson

structure, while others are unable to deal with the cognitive demands associated with

increased decision making in hypermedia learning environments (Jonassen, 1989). Although

computer-based instruction is often rich in opportunities for students to interact and receive

feedback, designers often neglect to provide students with the support supplied by effective

classroom teachers (Hawk, McLeod, & Jonassen, 1985). To support the learner, orienting

activities are often provided to establish expectancies for, and perspectives on, forthcoming

lesson content.

Verbal-orienting activities perform two cognitive functions. They cue important

lesson content and help to link new with existing knowledge. Hannafin and Hughes (1986),

in extrapolating research and theory to the design of interactive video, outlined several

distinctions between learning that results from using explicit objectives derived from

behaviorist traditions and advance organizers based in cognitive traditions.

The specificity of the learning objective is inversely related to transfer (Hannafin et

al., 1996). Specific orienting activities incorporated within interactive video instruction

promote intended learning selectively by eliciting greater attention to highlighted information

60
(Ho, Savenye & Haas, 1986). Explicitly stated learning outcomes often limit students’ ability

to use new information in situations that are dissimilar to those in which initial learning

occurred. Advance organizers, in contrast, tend to simulate higher-level learning (Krahn &

Blanchaer, 1986), but often fail to stimulate factual learning.

Orientation has evolved a different connotation in the study of hypermedia.

Orientation is viewed as the individual’s awareness of his or her location within a

hypermedia system and the individual’s capacity to respond meaningfully given these

perceptions. The concept of disorientation, or of being lost in hyperspace (Edwards &

Hardman, 1989), has been used to characterize the aimless state wherein users find

themselves unable to determine where they are or what to do. Disorientation, in effect, is the

product of insufficient initial orientation to the system and inadequate ongoing guidance in

the nature and use of the system (Hannafin et al., 1996).

The impact of encoding support on student performance may be best understood

within a meaningful learning conceptual model (Hannafin et al., 1996). Mayer (1993)

outlined three phases through which learners must progress in order for learning to become

meaningful. First, learners must select relevant information from that presented to them.

Second, they must organize the information into a coherent outline. Finally, they must relate

the outline to a structure or event with which they are familiar. When the first phase is not

met, no learning occurs. When only the first phase is met, rote learning occurs. When the

first two phases are met, non-meaningful and inflexible learning occur. Meaningful learning

occurs only when the third phase has been reached. Mayer’s framework is consistent with

61
Wittrock’s (1990) generative learning model, which emphasizes improving learning by

stimulating deeper processing. Generative learning stresses forming connections among

information to be learned and linking these associations with each learner’s knowledge and

experiences (Hannafin et al., 1996).

Encoding support will be effective to the extent that it helps learners to select,

organize, and integrate learning experiences within mental models that have been clearly

formulated in memory (Bliss, 1994). To some degree, the specific activity must, by

definition, be idiosyncratic because everyone differs in what is clearly understood. However,

to a larger extent, the nature of the activity that brings about cognitive transformation may

vary little from person to person (Hannafin et al., 1996).

One activity that appears to promote effective learning is error correction. Error

identification helps learners recognize inadequacies in their mental models and stimulates

deeper understanding. Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, Kulik, and Morgan (1991) noted that,

counterintuitively, feedback often failed to benefit, and sometimes even lowered

performance. Feedback must be used mindfully to be effective. Feedback is unlikely to

benefit, and may even diminish learning when students simply reproduce correct answers.

The nature of feedback is strongly related to its impact on learning. Kulhavy and Stock

(1989) outline two feedback components necessary to improve learning in CBI: verification

and elaboration. Verification indicates the accuracy of a response and elaboration refers to

additional information made available to the student. Several studies have indicated that

elaborative feedback is more effective than simple knowledge of correct results.

62
 Pridemore and Klein (1991) found that students demonstrated higher posttest

achievement after receiving information related to the accuracy of a response, the correct

response, and a brief explanation about the correct answer compared to simply receiving a

statement as to the accuracy of a response. Increases in achievement were accompanied by

increases in reading time, suggesting that elaboration may also have improved the quantity of

instruction. The effect of feedback on retrieval increases as error rates increase, as more

opportunities for receiving elaborations are provided (Hannafin et al., 1996). Feedback can

be used to clarify key elements of the response-learning task itself and be employed to

provide strategic information as well as affective information. Research indicates that

feedback is a valuable tool for correcting errors; it is timely, meaningful, and relevant

(Hannafin, Hannafin & Dalton, 1993).

Learner Control

Perhaps no single topic has received as much attention by researchers as that of locus

of instruction control (Hannafin et al., 1996). The benefits and liabilities of learner control

are well-documented (Steinberg, 1977, 1989). Learner control has been found to stimulate

achievement and improve attitudes and motivation (Kinzie, 1990; Kinzie & Berdel, 1990;

Lepper, 1985; Pollock & Sullivan, 1990). Kohn (1993) noted that learner control improved

self-attribution, achievement, and behavior. On the other hand, learners have also proved

poor judges of their learning needs, often seeking information that is not needed or

terminating lessons prematurely (Hannafin, 1984).

Linear lessons and all program-controlled instruction are inherently structured. The

63
nature of the structure either limits or manages individual variability. Linear structures

provide no opportunity for students to engage selectively in activities deemed uniquely

appropriate, emphasizing instead activities thought to be of greatest value to all. Generally,

complete program control has been effective for domain novices and for tasks with explicit

performance requirement (Chung & Reigeluth, 1992). Highly structured environments are

likely to be especially limiting for high-ability and high prior-knowledge students (Hannafin

et al., 1996).

Varying learner control often accommodates differences in learner preferences,

knowledge, and styles. In cases of optimal learner control, students individually identify

what they will study and seek and revisit lesson segments as they evolve new representations.

Doing so involves exploring learning environments many times and from many different

perspectives (Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson & Coulson, 1991).

The issue of learner control appears to be particularly germane in the design of

hypermedia learning environments (McKnight, Dillon, & Richardson, 1996). Hypermedia

represents two critical problems for designers: (1) many students may have difficulty

navigating in hypermedia environments (Park & Hannafin, 1993) and (2) when given unaided

access to information, students may experience difficulties locating and linking information

to build meaningful cognitive structures (Hannafin et al., 1996).

Although locus of instructional control has been researched extensively, continued

efforts are important due to the changing nature of control now afforded to both designers

and learners. Design strategies that maximize the learning potentials of open-ended

64
environments, as well as learners, will likely redefine learner vs. designer controls issues into

the 21st century (Hannafin et al., 1996).

One key to successful sequencing in computer-based environments is to connect to

information that can be readily assimilated by the learner (McKnight, Dillon, & Richardson,

1996). Many systems, especially hypermedia systems, permit students to access parts of a

lesson that may only be tangentially related. Students may link to information related in

literal structure but not in contextual meaning (Gall & Hannafin, 1994; Jonassen, 1989).

Following literal rather than semantic links is more likely to occur among students with

limited related prior knowledge. Given control over lesson sequence, students with high

domain knowledge readily connect conceptually related ideas, while students with little

domain knowledge tend to connect literal definitions and examples rather than make

conceptually advanced associations (Nelson & Palumbo, 1992).

Linking in hypertext/hypermedia is among the most significant capabilities that have

affected design to date. These capabilities make it possible for individuals to access

information in tightly controlled or open-ended manners, literally enabling lessons of

unlimited variations (Hannafin et al., 1996).

Motivation and CBI

Kinzie (1990) suggested that two motivational constructs, intrinsic and continuing

motivation, are important for maintaining the participation necessary to flourish in CBI

environments. Intrinsic motivation describes the state that exists when individuals participate

in an activity for the gratification generated by the activity itself. Continuing motivation is

65
evident when students choose to return to a lesson without the presence of external

motivators (Seymour, Sullivan, Story & Mosley, 1987).

Keller and Suzuki (1988) adapted and elaborated a motivational model for CBI

design. ARCS is an acronym that represents four categories: attention, relevance, confidence,

and satisfaction. They identified three key factors: motivational objectives, learner

characteristics, and learner expectations. The setting of motivational objectives is important

in designing and evaluating CBI (Hannafin et al., 1996). A careful analysis of learner

characteristics can help designers assess the motivational strategies needed. Malone and

Lepper (1987) developed taxonomy of intrinsic motivation based on a survey of computer-

game preferences among elementary school children. They classified motivation into four

categories: challenge, control, curiosity, and fantasy. Few would argue with the proposition

that ensuring initial motivation, maintaining interest during instruction, and encouraging

continuing interest in the subject under study are as critical to the success of CBI as to any

form of instruction (Hannafin et al., 1996).

Context for Learning

Context has become the cornerstone of contemporary research in areas such as

situated cognition, cognitive apprenticeships, authentic learning, and anchored instruction

(Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Choi & Hannafin, 1995). Cognitive processes and context

are viewed as inextricably related, suggesting that knowledge is rooted fundamentally in the

context in which it is acquired (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996).

Technology has played a significant role in establishing contexts for learning.

66
Perhaps the best-known application has been in simulations, where to-be-learned content and

processes are represented in ways deemed to capture important contextual information and

processes (Lewis, Stern & Linn, 1993). In studies by Dalton and Hannafin (1987) and Breuer

and Kummer (1990) content was successfully embedded within, rather than disembodied

from, the contexts that gave it meaning.

Cooperative Learning and CBI

Recent studies suggest that students often complete CBI as effectively, and in some

cases more effectively, with a partner than alone (Repman, 1993; Repman, Rooze & Weller,

1991). Students often learn more effectively and enjoy instruction more when collaborating

than when studying alone at the computer (Hooper, Temiyakarn & Williams, 1993; Hooper,

1992b; Johnson, Johnson & Stanne, 1985, 1986). Johnson and Johnson (1989) identified

several important learning and social benefits associated with cooperative learning. From a

cognitive perspective, cooperative learning produces higher achievement and productivity

than do competitive or individualistic environments and the results are strongest for complex

learning rather than for cognitively low-level learning. Many cognitive benefits can be

gained by working alongside a partner: cooperative learning appears to be particularly

effective for improving student achievement. Cooperative learning is designed to deepen

understanding of complex lesson content through student interaction and modeling. Students

working in groups are made interdependent by controlling individual and group rewards,

encouraging group development, stimulating appropriate intragroup interaction, and

67
maintaining high personal accountability for individual and group performance (Hooper,

1992a).

Learning Environment

Technology can enhance adult learning because it has the potential to increase

flexibility, provide access to expertise, facilitate discussion among learners who cannot meet

face to face, reduce feelings of isolation often experienced by nontraditional learners,

increase learner autonomy; and support and promote constructivist and collaborative learning

(Burge, 1994; Cahoon, 1998; Eastmond, 1998; and Field, 1997). However, “technology in

and of itself does not promote learning” (Burge & Roberts, 1993, p. 35), its use does not

obviate the educator’s responsibility of structuring the learning to ensure these benefits result.

Part of using technology effectively is understanding what adults want in the learning

environment when technology is employed. Suggestions for structuring environments

include the following (Burge and Carter, 1997):

1. Create a place where learners can collect important ideas, express themselves, and

feel some security that they are going in the right direction

2. Provide fast and productive access to help when it is needed

3. Provide a learning environment that promotes both independent and interdependent

activities with cognitive as well as psychosocial support because adults generally have

two basic intrinsic motivating drives of autonomy and affiliation

4. Ensure that the learning tools are intuitive and essential for the immediate task

because adults value economy of effort.

68
 Eastmond (1998) reported that studies of adult learning through online instruction

found that learners engaged in knowledge construction, collaborative learning, reflection, and

interactivity. Eastmond also points out “that none of these elements are inherent in the

technology but must be fostered by the course design, instructor engagement and student

behavior” (p. 37). Adult educators’ primary role should be to ensure that the focus is on the

learning and not the technology (Imel, 1998). “The spotlight should first fall on the

conditions, dynamics, and outcomes of learner activity, in ways that promote learner self-

esteem and their competence as proactive learners” (Burge & Roberts, 1993, p. 37).

Current computing environments allow for a wide range of generative learning

strategies to be incorporated into courseware (Jonassen, 1988). Generative learning models

suggest that meaningful learning results when the learner actively and consciously relates

prior knowledge to new material and creates understandings based on theses relationships

(Wittrock, 1974, 1978; Wetzel, 1993). The role of instruction is to support activities and

strategies that learners may use to generate meaning, and even supply mechanisms for the

learner if they are unable to do their own. Generative learning requires learners to be

proactive and mindful as they search for meaning by continually relating new information to

what they already know. Generative activities include paraphrasing, summarizing, outlining,

analytic reasoning, and mental imagery (Hannafin et al., 1996).

There is a need for the learning experience to be situated in real world contexts

(Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989a; Resnick, 1987; Rogoff & Lave, 1984). The task is part

of a larger context. The learning must be authentic to the context in which it is applied. From

69
this view, information cannot be remembered as independent, abstract entities. Spiro et al.

(1988) argues that we must not simplify environments as we typically do in a school setting,

but rather we must maintain the complexity of the environment and help the student to

understand the concept embedded in the multiple complex environments in which it is found.

Bednar et al. (1995) proposes an authentic environment and a complex environment

referring to authenticity and complexity within a proximal range of the learner’s knowledge

and prior experience. The learning context must be embedded in the use of that content

(Sticht & Hickey, 1991). Several researchers (Duffy, 1985, 1990; Sticht, 1975; & Mikulecky,

1982) argued that reading instruction, as well as the job knowledge, must be taught in the

context of job tasks. The tasks and content combine qualitatively to provide an authentic

context in which the learner can develop integrated skills.

Hypermedia Learning Environments

Hypermedia is nonlinear and presents information in graphic, sound, animation, and

other forms of information transfer. Research studies in this area of CBI are in the formation

stage (Thompson et al., 1993). Preliminary research indicates that the interactivity afforded

by hypermedia environments may positively influence student learning. Hypermedia is an

enabling environment that offers high levels of learner control, offers a new way to learn

course content, and offers challenges in learning how to learn (Thompson et al., 1993).

Tennyson et al. (1984) found that programs that adapt to the learner’s needs based on

past performance are superior to programs that give the learner total control. Other studies

70
show that learner control can facilitate intrinsic motivation in students but may be sub-

optimal in achieving learning outcomes (Thompson et al., 1993).

A shortcoming of hypermedia learning environments is disorientation of the student.

Marchionini (1988), Heller (1990), and Morariu (1988) suggest that learners must be

provided with appropriate and clear navigational and conceptual tools in order to explore the

best design system, whether it is by a comprehensive index or a cognitive map. Thompson

and colleagues (1993) argue that organizers and cognitive maps could provide too much

structure and inhibit the discovery atmosphere of the nonlinear hypermedia environment.

Hypermedia environments can provide researchers a valuable window with which to

observe student learning and learning styles. The window into these processes provided by

the tracks left by a student exploring a hyper-document will be a valuable tool for the hyper-

document designers and the researchers interested in understanding and defining different

learning styles (Thompson et al., 1993).

The role of the computer has changed from a transmitter of knowledge to a tool that

aids in the construction of knowledge (Forman & Pufall, 1988). Understanding how the

processes of teaching, learning, and thinking are influenced by technologies and how these

elements continue to form contexts for learning are the more complex research thrusts of the

21st century. In order to optimize technological capabilities, we need to understand better

what technologies do best: process, present, store, and retrieve information and images on

demand. These capabilities can be managed to engage students in thinking and learning

while concurrently supporting specific teaching strategies.

71
 CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

The methodology by which a theory of effective computer-based instruction for adults

was developed involved the use of Dubin’s (1978) methodology for theory building and

Patterson’s (1986) criteria for evaluating theory. Dubin’s eight-step theory building research

method described in Chapter 2 is composed of two parts: theory development and research

operation. This study followed all four steps of part one of Dubin’s methodology for theory

building which are: (1) units whose interactions constitute the subject matter of attention, (2)

the laws of interaction among the units, (3) the boundaries within which the theory is

expected to hold, and (4) the system states in each of which the units interact differently with

each other. This study also included the first step of part two of Dubin’s theory building

research method: specification of the propositions of the theory. The last three steps of

Dubin’s methodology (part 2) that were not attempted in this research are: identifying

empirical indicators of the theory, constructing the hypotheses derived from the theory, and

(8) testing the theory through empirical research. Torraco (1994) refers to the last three steps

of Dubin’s theory building methodology as taking the theory into real world context to

conduct empirical research. The purpose of this study was to develop the theory and provide

a starting place for further research. A graphical depiction of Dubin’s theory building

research method is shown in Figure 1.

Theory Building Research Process

While Dubin’s methodology includes the critical steps in constructing the theory, it

72
does not incorporate all the steps of a theory building research process. The process used in

this study incorporates Dubin’s theory and expanded on it as shown in the following

overview:

1. Concept Development – conducted initial review of literature to understand

phenomena and refined concept to formulate the study.

2. Identification and Retrieval of Studies - conducted expanded review of literature.

3. Construct Analysis - analyzed constructs and relationships from existing literature.

Theory Development

Units of the Laws of Boundaries System

Theory Interaction States

Research Operation

Propositions Empirical Hypotheses Research

Indicators

Figure 1: Dubin’s Theory Building Inquiry Method

4. Develop An Initial Theory - developed an initial theory of effective computer-

based instruction for adults by developing responses to the following five objectives:

73
 a. What are the units of a theory of effective computer-based instruction for

adults?

b. What are the laws of interaction of a theory of effective computer-based

instruction for adults?

c. What are the boundaries of a theory of effective computer-based

instruction for adults?

d. What are the system states of a theory of effective computer-based

instruction for adults?

e. What are the propositions of a theory of effective computer-based

instruction for adults?

5. Theory Evaluation – theory was evaluated against Patterson’s criteria by a team of

scholars. Telephone interviews were conducted using a Delphi technique to provide

scholarly evaluation of “A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction for

Adults” based on Patterson’s criteria for evaluating theory.

6. Analyze and Synthesize Feedback – analyzed and synthesized feedback from

scholars’ evaluations.

7. Theory Modification - modified the initial theory of effective computer-based

instruction for adults based on synthesis of scholarly evaluation, resulting in a

modified theory.

The process used in each step is described in the remaining parts of this chapter.

74
 Concept Development

Concepts reduce the world’s complexity. Designating the things about which a

science tries to make sense are its concepts (Dubin, 1978). Concepts have certain

characteristics associated with them and when new instances of a concept are encountered,

one can draw on knowledge of associated characteristics to form assumptions and inferences

about the new instance. Concepts and their labels allow individuals to think about their

experiences without necessarily having to consider all their concrete, perceptual aspects.

Dubin (1978) noted that there is some confusion as to the meaning of concepts, and therefore,

employs the more neutral term “units” to designate the things out of which theories are built.

A construct is a concept that is inferred from commonalties among observed phenomena and

that can be used to explain those phenomena.

In previous research, Lowe (2002) found that many research articles on computer-

based instruction addressed only one or two constructs in their research. From a more

comprehensive review of different types of articles for this study, it was determined that

many constructs are involved in computer-based instruction and to identify only a few did not

provide a complete picture of computer-based instruction. A synthesis of the constructs was

developed to provide a theory of effective computer-based instruction for adults upon which

future research could be based.

Identification and Retrieval of Studies

The literature search was a vital part of the theory building process. A literature

75
review functions as a means of conceptualizing, justifying, implementing, and interpreting a

research investigation (Merriam & Simpson, 1995). A literature review is a systematic,

explicit, and reproducible method of identifying, evaluating, and interpreting the existing

body of recorded work produced by researchers, scholars, and practitioners (Fink, 1998). The

literature review provided a theoretical and empirical framework on which the theory of

effective computer-based instruction for adults was based.

For this study, the literature search had two phases. The first phase reported in

Chapter 2 helped to identify and refine the need for new theory. Phase II, described here,

completed the review so a comprehensive set of constructs were analyzed. This phase began

with a computerized search of various databases using WebSPIRS, InfoTrac refereed

publications, and Wilson Web. The databases used in the search were ERIC, Dissertation

Abstracts, and Education Full Text. These searches used computer-based instruction,

computer-based training, computer-assisted instruction, web-based instruction, and web-

based training as key words in the abstracts. When searches identified more than 250

sources, then additional key words adult or training were used to focus the search. From the

research articles that were identified from the computerized search, the reference list of each

study was perused. Research articles that were listed in the reference list and considered by

the author to offer more knowledge were obtained. In order to prevent a one-sided view of

the literature, the researcher reviewed articles written by researchers involved in military

76
training, instructional technologies, adult education, human resource development, and higher

education.

All volumes of the journals listed below, from 1970-2002, located at the Louisiana

State University library were searched by reviewing the table of contents. This was done to

make sure that articles were not overlooked by electronic search methods. The journals

searched were: Review of Educational Research, Journal of Educational Research, Journal

of Computer Based Instruction, Educational Technology Research and Development, Journal

of End User Computing, Journal of Educational Computing Research, Journal of

Instructional Development, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, and American

Education Research Journal.

Construct Analysis

Construct analysis focused on eliciting the basic constructs of the domain. The

construct analysis allowed for the organization of the isolated findings of research into an

explanatory network.

From the phase II literature review described previously in this chapter, a construct

analysis table was developed to help identify the constructs used in theoretical and scholarly

articles. The table in Appendix A provides a list of constructs that were found in existing

research. Other theoretical literature, instructional design literature, and adult education

literature were also used in determining the units that should be part of the theory. The list of

constructs found in the phase II literature search served as the starting point for developing

77
the units of the theory. The articles were numbered as they were read by the researcher-

theorist.

Develop an Initial Theory

An initial theory of effective computer-based instruction for adults was developed.

The initial theory included answers to the five research questions.

In the first step of developing the initial theory, the researcher-theorist identified the

units of the theory. The units present the things about which the researcher is trying to make

sense and are informed by literature and the researcher’s biases. The units represent the

properties of things rather than the things themselves (Dubin, 1978). This step in the theory

development process answered the research objective: What are the units of a theory of

effective computer-based instruction for adults? To identify these units, the researcher-

theorist began by determining which of the constructs from the construct analysis impacted

the outcome of the studies conducted. Numerous combinations of the units were addressed

to determine which led to effective CBI. Combinations of units from the construct analysis

were found not to represent all the units that were needed to provide for an outcome of

effective CBI. Therefore, the researcher-theorist had to consider other units that would help

to make sense of the phenomenon that the theory is all about. These units were derived from

other literature on instructional design, adult education, and theoretical frameworks.

The second step in developing the initial theory of effective computer-based

instruction for adults was to establish the laws of interaction that govern the theory. A law of

78
interaction is a statement by the researcher-theorist of the relationship between units and

shows how the units of the theory are linked to each other. This step in the theory

development process answered the research objective: What are the laws of interaction of a

theory of effective computer-based instruction for adults?

The third step in the theory development was to determine the boundaries of the

theory. The boundaries of the theory establish the real-world limits or the domain of the

theory. The boundaries of the theory were determined through the use of logic and indicate

the domain over which the theory operates as a system. Once the boundaries of the theory

were determined, then the resulting boundaries were compared against two related criteria of

excellence identified by Dubin (1978) of homogeneity and generalization. The criterion of

homogeneity requires that the units employed in the theory and the laws of interaction satisfy

the same boundary determining criteria. The units must fit inside the boundaries before the

theory is complete. The criterion of generalization of a theory relates to the domain size of

the theory; therefore, the bigger the domain of the theory the more general the theory. The

outcome of the third step was the determination and clarification of the two boundaries, open

and closed. These boundaries make clear and explicit the real-world domain over which the

theory is expected to apply. Clarification of the boundaries of the theory enabled the

researcher to answer the third research objective: What are the boundaries of a theory of

effective computer-based instruction for adults?

79
 The fourth step in the theory development was to specify the system states of the

theory. The system states represent conditions under which the theory is operative. Three

criteria identified by Dubin (1978) when identifying the system states of a theory are

inclusiveness, persistence, and distinctiveness. Inclusiveness refers to the need for all the

units of the system to be included in the system states of the theory. Persistence requires that

the system states persist through a meaningful period of time. Distinctiveness requires that

all units take on measurable and distinctive values for the system states.

The fifth and final step in the theory development of this study was to develop the

propositions of a theory of effective computer-based instruction for adults. This step was

conducted after the theory evaluation and modification of the theory. The propositions were

grounded in the explanatory and predictive power embedded in the theoretical framework

constructed during the theory development process. The propositions of the theory are truth

statements that are subject to empirical testing. Specification of the propositions of a theory

of effective computer-based instruction for adults enabled the researcher to answer the last

research objective: What are the propositions of a theory of effective computer-based

instruction for adults?

Theory Evaluation

Evaluation of the initial theory was a critical step in the theory building process.

Ultimately, without the empirical testing of a theory, theories cannot be evaluated as to their

correctness or validity. The purpose of this step was to solicit external reviews as to whether

80
the theory met established criteria of well constructed theory, not to establish its validity.

Scholars were asked to evaluate the initial theory against criteria offered by Patterson (1986)

for evaluating theory. Torraco (1994) compared Patterson’s (1986) criteria for evaluating

theory with five other sources of criteria (Caws, 1965; Gordon, 1968; Hage, 1972; Kaplan,

1964; and Snow, 1973) and Torraco’s rationale for selecting Patterson’s criteria was

appropriate for this study for the following reasons:

• It was developed as criteria for evaluating theory in the behavioral sciences;

• Patterson’s criteria reflects a high degree of overlap among all the criteria from

the six sources reviewed;

• Patterson’s criteria best represent the attributes the author seeks in a theory of

effective computer-based instruction for adults.

Patterson’s eight criteria for evaluating theory were used in this study with the following

definitions:

1. importance – a quality or aspect of having great worth or significance; acceptance

by competent professional may be indicative of importance

2. preciseness and clarity – a state of being clear; hypotheses or predictions can easily

be developed from the theory

3. parsimony and simplicity – uncomplicated; minimal complexity and few

assumptions

4. comprehensiveness – covering completely or broadly; covering the areas of interest

81
 related to computer-based instruction and adults

5. operationality – precise enough to be testable and measurable

6. empirical validity or verifiability – able to be confirmed or substantiated;

experiments and experience that confirm or disconfirm the theory generate new

knowledge

7. fruitfulness – predictions are made that can be tested that lead to the development

of new knowledge; development of new knowledge is considered fruitful

8. practicality – provides a conceptual framework for practice

Delphi Technique

A Delphi technique was used in the theory evaluation process. Strauss and Zeigler

(1975) define the Delphi technique as a method for the systematic solicitation and

aggregation of informed judgments from a group of experts on specific questions or issues.

Strauss and Zeigler (1975) identified three types of Delphi: numeric, policy, and historic.

The goal of the numeric Delphi is to specify a single or a minimum range of numeric

estimates or forecasts on a problem. The goal of the policy Delphi is to define a range of

answers or alternatives to a current or anticipated policy problem. The goal of the historic

Delphi is to explain the range of issues that fostered a specific decision or the identification

of the range of possible alternatives that could have been poised against a certain past

decision.

82
 For this study, the policy Delphi technique was used. It was the goal of this technique

to establish all the differing positions advocated and the principal pro and con arguments for

those positions, rather than to obtain a consensus. The theorist-researcher was looking for the

pro and con arguments for the theory and not for consensus. These arguments were carefully

examined to identify possible modifications to the theory.

Turoff (1970) suggests four possible objectives or secondary goals for the Delphi

technique: (1) to explore or expose underlying assumptions or information leading to

differing judgments; (2) to seek out information which may generate a consensus of judgment

on the part of the respondent group; (3) to correlate informed judgments on a topic spanning

a wide range of disciplines; and (4) to educate the respondent group as to the diverse and

interrelated aspects of the topic. A Delphi exercise can encompass any one or combination of

these objectives. For this study, the objective was to correlate informed judgments on a topic

spanning a wide range of disciplines.

The Delphi technique can also be used as a means of soliciting interpretations,

predictions, or recommendations (Strauss & Zeigler, 1975). The basic principle on which the

Delphi technique operates is that several heads are better than one in making subjective

conjectures about the future, and that experts make conjectures based on rational judgment

rather then merely guessing (Weaver, 1971). The instrument or starting point for the Delphi

technique was the evaluation form found in Appendix B. Information provided to each

scholar is found in Appendix D.

83
Scholar Identification and Participation

Using the construct analysis table list of authors found in Appendix C, the

authors/scholars were sorted in alphabetical order for first, second, third, and fourth author.

From the sorting, the researcher-theorist was able to determine the number of articles that

each of the authors/scholars had written. Because the objective was to include the most

knowledgeable evaluators possible, it was decided to restrict the pool to the scholars that had

authored at least two articles relevant to the theory. The scholars that had authored two or

more articles in this phase II literature review were identified as candidates for the scholarly

evaluation. The scholars that were identified are found in Table 2. Out of 34 scholars

identified, current contact information was found for 26 of the scholars. These 26 scholars

were sent an introduction letter asking them to participate in the evaluation of the theory.

Scholars that did not respond to the first mailing were sent a second request to participate.

Some scholars were sent a third request to participate.

Since scholars of CBI are not expected to be experts in the theory building process, a

scholar with knowledge of Dubin’s Theory Building Research Method was needed to

evaluate the theory from the theory building method perspective. Also, because CBI is often

promoted as self-directed learning, the knowledge of an expert in this area would add to the

evaluation of the theory. Therefore, two additional scholars, one in the area of theory

building and one in the area of self-directed learning, were also asked to evaluate the theory

based on their knowledge in their particular area of expertise.

84
Table 2: Authors Based on Number of Articles in Construct Analysis

Author Article Number Number of Articles

M. J. Hannafin 42 & 45 & 79 & 130 & 168 & 125 6
J. D. Klein 77 & 97 & 80 & 38 & 156 & 85 6
W. M. Reed 92 & 69 & 106 & 90 & 185 5
R. H. Kay* 58 & 60 &66 &129 4
S. D. Stephenson 30 & 31 & 32 & 136 4
H. J. Sullivan 73 & 85 & 37 & 46 4
S. H. Gray 3 & 109 & 110 3
A. A. Koohang 34 & 61 & 59 3
D. J. Ayersman 184 & 185 2
G. P. Cartwright 13 & 55 2
A. M Crawford 26 & 121 2
S. M. Crooks 80 & 97 2
P. A. Federico* 108 & 118 2
R. S. Grabinger 161 & 191 2
I. M. Jawahar 146 & 152 2
E. E. K. Jones 46 & 80 2
G. P. Kearsley 113 & 158 2
M. B. Kinzie 10 & 183 2
G. A. Marcoulides 6 & 14 2
S. L. Massoud 5 & 64 2
G. R. Morrison 84 & 35 2
D. R. Pridemore* 38 & 77 2
C. M Reigeluth 122 & 165 2
L. P. Rieber 153 & 160 2
S. M. Ross 84 & 35 2
G. C. Sales* 57 & 164 2
D. F. Salisbury* 156 & 179 2
P. J. Schloss 13 & 55 2
H. L. Schnackenberg 37 & 46 2
H. A. Schwartz* 20 & 21 2
T. M. Shlechter* 8 & 180 2
E. R. Steinberg* 15 & 50 2
Martin Tessmer 154 & 155 2
A L. White 111 & 76 2
*No current address found

85
 Ten scholars agreed to participate in the evaluation process. The scholars that agreed

to participate in the external theory evaluation process are found in Table 3 along with a

summary of their credentials. Only six of the ten actually evaluated the theory. They were

Dr. David Ayersman, West Virginia University; Dr. Sharon Confessore, The George

Washington University; Dr. Steven Crooks, Texas Tech University; Dr. Susan Gray, New

York Institute of Technology; Dr. Greg Kearsley, consultant; and Dr. George Marcoulides,

California State University, Fullerton.

Table 3: Scholars Agreeing to Evaluate A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction

for Adults

Name, Title, University Notable Experience Field of Research

David J. Ayersman Editor of Journal of Research Individual differences, attitude

Director, Instructional on Technology in Education; toward computers, computer
Technology Resource Center authored more than 25 referred anxiety, performance
West Virginia University publications
G. Phillip Cartwright Previously Contributing Editor Learner control, feedback
Emeritus Professor, University and Technology Columnist for
of California – Davis Change magazine
Retired
Alice M. Crawford Research Psychologist at Navy Simulation and training
Sr. Lecturer, Graduate School Personnel Research &
of Business & Public Policy Development Center; co-
Navy Postgraduate School author Distance Learning for
Executives in the Military
Steven M. Crooks Consulting Editor for Instructional control, attitudes
Assistant Professor, Educational Technology toward computers, cooperative
Instructional Technology Research and Development; learning
Texas Tech University Reviewer for Association for
Educational Communications
and Technology

86
Table 3: (continued)

Name, Title, University Notable Experience Field of Research

Susan H. Gray Combines poetry, poverty, and Locus of control, sequence

Professor, Behavioral Sciences computers in her academic control
New York Institute of work; won 2002 Salpering Hol
Technology Press Chapbook Competition
Greg P. Kearsley Course developer for Walden Human factors, individual
Independent Consultant Institute & University of instruction, effective CBI
Adjunct Professor, University Wisconsin; CEO of Park Row
of Maryland and University of Inc. (software publishing co.);
Wisconsin developed hypertext database
of instructional theories
relevant to adult learning
while at Army Research
Institute
George A. Marcoulides Associate Editor and member Computer anxiety, student
Department of Information of the Review Board for the performance
Systems & Decision Science Journal of Interactive
California State University, Learning Research
Fullerton
W. Michael Reed Editor of Journal of Research Computer experience,
Professor & Chair, on Technology in Education; individual difference,
Educational Communication authored more than 20 referred computer anxiety, attitudes
& Technology Program publications
New York University
Sharon J. Confessore Co-Editor of Guideposts to Self-directed learning
Assistant Professor, Human Self-Directed Learning:
Resource Development Expert Commentary of
The George Washington Essential Concepts; Principal
University of Human Resource
Development Enterprises
Richard J. Torraco Associate Editor and Editor Dubin’s Theory Building
Associate Professor, Elect of Human Resource Process
Educational Administration Development Review
University of Nebraska

87
Evaluating The Theory

The scholars who evaluated the theory were sent the following information

approximately two weeks before their scheduled telephone interview: (1) Chapter 4 of this

study which included a draft copy of “A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction for

Adults,” (2) the Evaluation Package in Appendix D containing instructions for evaluation of

the theory, criteria for evaluating theory based on Patterson’s eight criteria for evaluating

theory, questions and a rating scale to guide the scholars during the telephone interview, and

(3) the scholarly evaluation form found in Appendix B. By sending the list of questions in

advance, the participants were able to become familiar with the questions and had time to

reflect on the questions before the telephone interview. The scholars were asked to evaluate

the theory by providing a rating and comments related to the question for the evaluation

criterion. The scholars were contacted by telephone and their responses tape-recorded. It was

important that all questions asked in the telephone interview with the scholars were phrased

the same to ensure consistency (Dillman, 1978). The scholars also had the option to send

their evaluations in writing, as well as to write on the theory itself and return to the

researcher-theorist. One scholar completed the evaluation form providing a rating and

comments for each criterion but did not wish to be contacted by telephone.

Analyze And Synthesize Feedback

A researcher-theorist looks for disconfirming ideas or data that constitute a signal for

redoing theory. By using Patterson’s criteria for evaluating theory, the researcher-theorist

88
began the first step in making the theory better. Using the evaluation forms as a means of

collecting the scholars’ evaluation and comments, the scholarly responses were grouped by

question and synthesized. For instance, each scholar’s response for question one was

compared and coded for consistent or inconsistent input. In conducting the syntheses and

analyzing the feedback, a qualitative approach to analyzing the feedback was used. This

means that the words or responses obtained were the basis of the analysis. All feedback was

considered by the researcher-theorist and critically evaluated before a theory modification

was made.

This step in the process required the researcher-theorist to integrate the evaluation

data obtained from the scholars’ feedback. Patterson’s evaluation criteria (included in the

questions that were asked) served as the guide. Using a synthesis approach, criticisms of the

theory were divided among each of Patterson’s criteria variables. Then the researcher-

theorist determined which of the criticisms in each criteria variable warranted theory

modification and which criticism did not, based on the strength of the argument provided by

the scholars. The challenge was to make sense of the data, identify significant patterns, and

construct a framework for communicating the essence of what the data revealed (Patton,

1990). There are “few agreed-on canons for qualitative data analysis, in the sense of shared

ground rules for drawing conclusions and verifying their sturdiness” (Miles & Huberman,

1984, p. 16). There are no formulas for determining significance. There are no absolute rules

except to do the very best with your full intellect to fairly represent the data and communicate

89
what the data revealed given the purpose of the study (Patton, 1990). While this theory

building methodology was not a qualitative research study, these comments are appropriate to

describe how the data from the evaluators was analyzed.

Theory Modification

There is no single method for modification of a theory. Theory is modified based on

the evidence of research offered. Once it was determined by the researcher-theorist what

modifications needed to be made to the initial theory, the modifications were made. The

analysis of feedback from the scholars was used as a basis to modify the theory. A theory of

effective computer-based instruction for adults is summarized in Chapter 5.

90
 CHAPTER 4
FINDING AND RESULTS

The purpose of this chapter is to present the findings of the construct analysis based

on the phase two literature review; to develop an initial theory based on those constructs; to

analyze and synthesize the evaluation of the theory by scholars; and to modify the theory

based on the scholarly evaluation. A summary of the final theory can be found in Chapter 5.

Identification and Retrieval of Studies

An electronic search for relevant studies in ERIC, Dissertation Abstracts

International, and Education Full Text databases located articles using the following

keywords: computer-based instruction, computer-based training, computer-assisted

instruction, web-based instruction, and web-based training. In addition, all volumes from

1970 to 2002 of the following referred journals located in the Louisiana State University

Middleton Library were searched for articles on CBI: Review of Educational Research,

Journal of Educational Research, Journal of Computer Based Instruction, Educational

Technology Research and Development, Journal of End User Computing, Journal of

Educational Computing Research, Journal of Instruction Development, Journal of Research

on Computing in Education, and American Education Research Journal. The articles were

reviewed to determine the subjects used for the study. Subjects had to be identified as

undergraduates, graduates, combination of undergraduates and graduates, or adults to be

considered in the review. Studies outside the United States were not considered in this study.

Articles that provided a framework, meta-analysis, or literature review related to the

keywords were also included in this study. A list of the studies can be found in Appendix C.

91
 Construct Analysis

The studies and articles were reviewed to determine the variables that were tested or

included in frameworks, meta-analyses, and literature reviews. The variables that were

found in the articles became the constructs and are listed in the Construct Analysis Table in

Appendix A. All constructs found in these articles were considered for the theory. A

summary of the constructs found in the Construct Analysis Table can be found in Table 4.

Because of the number of constructs, only those found in 12 or more articles are shown in

Table 4. The number 12 was chosen because the appearance of the construct in research

articles dropped off sharply after this counting. These constructs were the ones most often

researched. The constructs found in the summary are aptitude, attitude toward computers,

computer anxiety, computer self-efficacy, support, gender, individual differences, learning

styles, motivation to learn, locus of control, outcomes, feedback, instructional control,

cooperative/group learning, practice activities, time, screen appearance, and computer

experience. The distribution frequency in the table simply identifies which constructs were

most often part of a CBI study or article.

The number of times the construct appeared in the studies did not necessarily denote

its importance to the model. The constructs were the ones identified by the researcher-

theorist as being most often found in research. The construct’s effect on the outcome may or

may not have been significant. Different configurations of the construct with other variables

and treatments resulted in different outcomes and levels of significance.

Many of the constructs could be grouped together. For instance, attitude toward

computers and computer anxiety help to determine computer self-efficacy. The result of the

studies where gender was a construct was considered significant in the earlier studies but not

92
significant in the later studies. Other than the construct of outcomes, which was the

dependent variable in most of the studies, attitude toward computers was the most researched

variable. In the informed theory building process, the critical units of interest are not built

exclusively by aggregating the variables that are already researched, but by also considering

units that are not part of the construct analysis (Dubin, 1978).

Table 4: Summary of Construct Analysis

Number of Times
Construct Construct Found Frequency

Outcomes 98 19.8%
Attitude Toward Computers 67 13.5%
Locus of Control 38 7.7%
Practice Strategy 31 6.3%
Individual Differences 27 5.5%
Instructional Control 26 5.3%
Computer Anxiety 24 4.8%
Computer Self-Efficacy 23 4.6%
Gender 23 4.6%
Motivation to Learn 20 4.0%
Computer Experience 18 3.6%
Screen Design 17 3.4%
Cooperative/Group Learning 15 3.0%
Instructional Support/Feedback 15 3.0%
Support 14 2.8%
Time 14 2.8%
Learning Styles 13 2.6%
Aptitude 12 2.4%

Total 495 100.0%

Most of the constructs previously researched were related to learner characteristics.

These constructs included computer aptitude, attitudes toward computers, computer anxiety,

computer self-efficacy, gender, individual differences, learning styles, motivation to learn,

and locus of control. Attitude toward computers was influenced by the successfulness of the

93
CBI experiences. When computer anxiety was a construct in the study, there existed some

level of computer anxiety for all subjects. Most likely this is due to the fact that new

knowledge, no matter what the experience level with the computer, caused some anxiety.

From the research, computer self-efficacy was determined to be important to learning

outcomes. Computer self-efficacy helps to improve attitudes toward computers, as well as

reduce the level of computer anxiety.

When analyzing the variables of gender, individual differences, and learning styles,

what became apparent was the need for the subject to be able to understand and regulate their

cognitive performance or to be able to recognize their metacognitive skills. Metacognitive

skills are needed in the development of a self-directed learner.

Locus of control was the second most researched construct in the analysis, falling

behind attitudes toward computers. Locus of control exists in adults at different levels. The

adult who exhibits the internal locus of control personality trait exerts greater control of their

environment, exhibits better learning, seeks new information more actively, and seems more

concerned with information than with social demands of the situation. The adult who

exhibits the external locus of control personality trait attributes the control of events to

outside forces, are more anxious, and rely on luck rather than skill to perform tasks

successfully. This personality trait is a critical component in the development of a self-

directed learner.

The constructs of instructional support, instructional control, practice strategy, and

screen design were found to be important in CBI design. The number of research studies in

the area of CBI design was smaller compared to the amount of research found on learner

characteristics. A limited amount of research on the delivery strategy of cooperative or

94
group learning was found. The need for adults to have support or another adult with whom

to communicate was a consideration of this theory. Even though the unit of instructional

strategy design was seldom found as a construct in the research, it was assumed in many

studies that “good” instructional strategy design was used. Using the construct analysis as a

starting point, the researcher-theorist of this study began the development of the theory.

Development of Initial Theory

After numerous iterations, a conceptual model of “A Theory of Effective Computer-

Based Instruction for Adults” was developed based on the construct analysis and the second

phase of the literature review. The units were identified and arrows were used to identify

interactions between units. The boundaries were determined and system states developed.

The theory development phase of Dubin’s theory building inquiry method was used in

developing the theory. The conceptual model is found in Figure 2.

An assumption of the conceptual model is that CBI is an appropriate way to deliver

the instruction. There exists a gap between what is and what should be and he intervention of

computer-based instruction will fill the gap and achieve the learning goal. Several reasons

that CBI may be appropriate are: (1) to guarantee consistency and standardization of

information no matter what the location; (2) time constraints, as well as budget constraints

for travel, that would not allow a teacher to deliver the instruction in a classroom setting; (3)

CBI is available at any time that the computer is available to the learner, providing just-in-

time instruction; (4) CBI allows for the accommodation of individual differences; (5) CBI

allows students to review instruction until it has been mastered without risk of humiliation

and group impatience; and (6) CBI allows learning under conditions of simulated risk that

95
 Input Process Output

External Support

Self-Directedness
Support • Locus of Control CBI Design
• Metacognitive Skills
• Motivation to Learn • Instructional Control
• Instructional Support
Computer Self-Efficacy
Learning

Outcome
• Screen Design
Design
• Practice Strategy

Learning Goal Level Instructional Strategy Design

• Organizational Strategy
• Delivery Strategy
• Management Strategy

Figure 2: A Conceptual Model of Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults

96
would not be appropriate in the real world. The decision-making process for selecting CBI

as the appropriate intervention is outside the boundary of this theory.

A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults

A theory of effective computer-based instruction for adults integrates the critical

components of computer-based instruction to provide a much-needed framework for research

in CBI for adults. The researcher-theorist will begin by identifying the units of the theory,

followed by a description of how these units interact, referred to as the laws of interaction.

Once the laws of interaction have been presented, the limited domain of the world in which

the theory is expected to hold true will be found in the boundaries of the theory. The last step

in developing the theoretical framework will be the development of the system states, the

state as a whole under which the theory operates. Finally, the propositions of the theory will

be developed after the scholarly evaluation and theory modifications have been made to

complete this study.

Units of Theory

The units of the theory are the basic building blocks from which the researcher-

theorist constructs the theory (Lynham, 2002). The units represent those things whose

interactions constitute the subject matter or the phenomenon of the theory (Dubin, 1978).

The units of learning outcome, self-directedness, computer self-efficacy, learning goal level,

instructional strategy design, CBI design, and external support represent the concepts about

which the researcher is trying to make sense.

Learning Outcome

Learning outcome is defined for this study as achieving learning goal level through

appropriate instruction delivered by means of a computer. Learning outcomes are the

97
performance made possible by learning (Wager & Gagné, 1988). The learning outcome

describes what the learner is able to do when learning is completed. Students’ performance

or learning is assessed to determine whether the designed instruction has met its design

objectives (Gagné et al., 1992). Assessment also determines whether the student has

achieved the set of capabilities defined by the instructional objectives. The outcomes of

learning are important in any theory of learning (Steinberg, 1991).

Gagné and colleagues (1992) provide five categories of learning outcomes: verbal

information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, attitudes, and psychomotor skills. Gagné

conjectured that the type of mental processing required for achieving outcomes in each

category is qualitatively different from the mental activities required in other categories

(Smith & Ragan, 1993).

Verbal information learning is analogous to Anderson’s (1976) declarative

knowledge, which is sometimes described as “knowing that” something is the case (Gagné,

1985). Verbal information is often designed to convey systematically organized ideas in

various discourse forms such as description, exposition, and narrative. It is sometimes called

declarative knowledge. It is also comparable to Bloom’s (1956) levels of knowledge and

comprehension. Assessing the learning of verbal information means measuring quantity

(Gagné & Beard, 1978). Verbal information objectives require a learner to recall in

verbatim, paraphrase, or summarize facts, lists, names, or organized information.

Intellectual skill outcome is the predominant objective of instruction and training.

This kind of learning outcome enables the learner to do something that requires cognitive

processing. Anderson (1976) described this type of learning as procedural knowledge.

Gagné (1985) distinguished it from declarative knowledge of “knowing that” to one of

98
procedural knowledge of “knowing how.” Several varieties of intellectual skills are usually

distinguished: discriminations, concepts, rules, and procedures or problem solving.

Assessment requires the use of a variety of intellectual skills to recognize or construct the

correct answer. Intellectual skills are analogous to Bloom’s (1956) levels of application,

analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

Cognitive strategy outcome resembles a problem-solving analysis (Smith & Ragan,

1993). These outcomes influence learning across content and domains. Cognitive strategies

are frequently combined with other types of learning such as intellectual skills. For this

study, cognitive strategies are a part of self-directedness. Students use cognitive strategies to

manage their own learning. Cognitive strategies differ from the other domains of learning

because there are no specific, observable instructional outcomes in cognitive strategies.

Instead, cognitive strategies are involved in whatever one is learning (Hannum, 1988). One

expects that such skills will improve over a relatively long period of time as the individual

engages in more and more studying, learning, and thinking (Gagné, 1992).

Attitude is an acquired internal state that influences the learner’s choice of personal

action (Wager & Gagné, 1988). For an outcome of a learned or modified attitude, the change

must be observable in the choices that the learner makes. In many cases, direct observation

of behavior becomes infeasible and some form of self-reporting is used instead. Instruction

in attitudes is often subtle and indirect. Instructional designers are hard pressed to

intentionally design components into the instruction that can influence attitudes (Smith &

Ragan, 1993). Attitudes are often measured by obtaining self-reports of the likelihood of

actions as opposed to direct observations of the action.

99
 Psychomotor skills are the most obvious kinds of human capacity. Although

psychomotor skills have a visible muscular component, they are also dependent on a

cognitive component, usually a procedural rule that organizes the kind and sequence of

actions (Smith & Ragan, 1993). The sequence of actions embodied in a motor skill

constitutes a procedure, which has been called the executive subroutine (Fitts & Posner,

1967). The subroutine of a motor skill is usually learned as an early part of practice and

before the actual motor practice is undertaken (Wager & Gagné, 1988). Instruction may be

designed to teach the rules related to motor skills; however, psychomotor skills must be

physically practiced to be learned. The standards for assessment of motor skills typically

refer to the precision and speed of the performance. Since motor skills are known to improve

in either or both qualities with extended practice, it is unrealistic to expect that mastery can

be defined in the sense of learned or not learned. Rather, a standard of performance must be

decided upon to determine whether mastery has been achieved (Gagné et al., 1992).

Self-Directedness

Self-directedness is defined as an approach where learners are motivated to assume

personal responsibility and collaborative control of the cognitive and contextual processes in

constructing and confirming meaningful and worthwhile learning outcomes (Garrison, 1997).

Self-directedness is the learner’s ability to independently plan, conduct, and evaluate their

learning activities (Guglielmino, 1977). The level of self-directedness is different for each

learner. CBI is often referred to as self-directed learning because the learners use it at their

own pace and at their own convenience with little or no human contact, and the process of

learning is the responsibility of the learner. Computers can aid in promoting self-direction

and efficiency (Lewis, 1990). Computer-based instruction must be designed to take different

100
levels of self-directedness into consideration in order to influence the learning outcome.

There are three dimensions to the self-directedness unit: motivation to learn, metacognitive

skills, and locus of control.

Motivation to Learn. CBI provides individualized instruction that accounts for

various learning differences of adults. One of those differences is the motivation to learn.

Knowles et al. (1998) noted the fundamental differences that motivate adults to learn, known

as the andragogical model. For adults, the motivation to learn is internal payoffs, the

personal value they will gain in solving problems, or issues in life which promotes learning.

The most potent motivators for adults are internal ones (Wlodowski, 1985). The learning

that adults value the most is that which has personal value to them. Therefore, the adult must

see value in the CBI in solving problems or providing internal payoffs. This motivation to

learn will influence the learning outcome.

Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1995) posited that an individual’s motivation is the sum

of three factors: valence, instrumentality, and expectancy. Valence is the value a person

places on the outcome. Instrumentality is the probability that the valued outcomes will be

received given that certain outcomes have occurred. Expectancy is the belief a person has

that certain effort will lead to outcomes that get rewarded. Therefore, adults will be most

motivated to learn when they believe they can learn the new material (expectancy) and the

learning will help them with a problem or issue (instrumentality) that is important in their life

(valence).

Metacognitive Skills. Metacognitive skills are those that help a person understand

and regulate cognitive performance (Artzt & Armour-Thomas, 1992; Slife & Weaver, 1992).

Because of the advances made with computer technology and the research in cognitive

101
psychology, researchers are learning more about cognition and metacognitive skills. Adult

metacognition is a multidimensional array of self-constructed, regulatory skills that span a

variety of diverse cognitive domains (Schraw, 1998). Chipman and Segal (1985) described

metacognition as the “deliberate and reasoned deployment of cognitive resources and

strategies” (p. 7). Metacognitive skills enable the learner to know how and when to apply

previously acquired knowledge or skills that are crucial to their performance in learning tasks

(Flavell, 1980). The degree to which an individual is aware of these skills varies from person

to person. Being able to recognize the cues and understanding how one learns will influence

the learning outcome of CBI.

Metacognition distinguishes between knowledge of cognition and regulation of

cognition (Baker, 1989; Schraw & Moshman, 1995). Knowledge of cognition refers to what

we know about our cognition and usually includes declarative knowledge, procedural

knowledge, and conditional knowledge. Declarative knowledge includes knowledge about

ourselves as learners and the factors which influence our performance. Most adults know the

limitations of their memory system and can plan accordingly for a task based on this

knowledge. Procedural knowledge refers to knowledge about strategies and other

procedures. Most adults possess a basic repertoire of useful strategies such as note taking,

slowing down for important information, skimming unimportant information, using

mnemonics, summarizing main ideas, and periodic self-testing. Conditional knowledge

refers to knowing why and when to use a strategy. Individuals with a high degree of

conditional knowledge are better able to assess the demands of a specific learning situation

and in turn, select strategies that are most appropriate for that situation.

102
 The second component of metacognition is the regulation of cognition such as

planning, monitoring, and evaluation (Jacobs & Paris, 1987; Kluwe, 1987). Planning

involves the selection of appropriate strategies and the allocation of resources. Monitoring

includes self-testing skills to control learning. Research suggests that skilled adult learners

are poor monitors under certain conditions (Koriat, 1994; Pressley & Ghatala, 1988).

Evaluation refers to appraising the products and a regulatory process of one’s learning.

Conscious use of regulatory processes typically is related to limitations in one’s ability to

reflect rather than the ability to regulate (Schraw, 1998).

Locus of Control. Locus of control is a person’s belief in the ability to control

outcomes of forces either internal or external to themselves (Rotter, 1990). When people

attribute the cause or control of events to themselves or to an external environment, this is

referred to as locus of control (Spector, 1982). Internal locus of control ascribes control of

events to themselves. Learners who possess internal locus of control will take responsibility

for their learning with CBI, while those with external locus of control will blame the program

or things external to the program for not obtaining expected learning outcomes. Providing

opportunities for the learner to be in control and successful is critical to the learning outcome

of CBI.

Phares (1976) noted that individuals with an internal locus of control exert greater

control of their environment, exhibit better learning, seek new information more actively, and

seem more concerned with information than with social demands of situations. Those that

have the personality trait of external locus of control attribute the control of events to outside

forces. When it comes to successfully performing a task that requires luck or skill, they will

rely on luck (Kahle, 1980). This stable trait may not be easily changed.

103
Computer Self-Efficacy

Computer self-efficacy is defined as the individual’s belief about his capabilities to

successfully engage in CBI. Based on the social cognitive theory developed by Bandura

(1986), self-efficacy can be defined as the belief that one has the capability to perform a

particular behavior. Bandura (1993) suggests that perceived self-efficacy plays an important

role in affecting motivation and behavior. Theory and research on self-efficacy suggests that

in contrast to individuals with low levels of self-efficacy, the highly efficacious exert more

effort, persist in the face of difficulty, and achieve higher levels of performance (Jawahar,

Stone, & Cooper, 1992; Wood & Bandura, 1989). Students holding a low sense of self-

efficacy for achieving a task may attempt to avoid it, whereas those who feel more

efficacious may attempt it more eagerly (Bandura, 1977; Schunk, 1984).

Previous studies on computer self-efficacy determined that self-efficacy is essential in

the learning and use of computers (Delcourt & Kinzie, 1993; Hill et al., 1987; Jorde-Bloom,

1988; Kinzie et al., 1994; Miura, 1987; Schunk, 1981, 1985). Geissler and Horridge (1993)

suggested that the commitment to learning by using the computer would need to precede the

CBI. Mehlhoff and Sisler (1989) indicated that desire to learn, or willingness to make a

commitment to CBI would be a prerequisite to gaining the computer skills needed in the

information age. Ertmer, Evenbeck, Cennamo, and Lehman (1994) found that the students’

self-perceived confidence levels are related to their computer self-efficacy. Teacher

candidates who are confident in their ability to perform computer tasks (computer self-

efficacy) are also less anxious about using the computer, hold more positive attitudes toward

technology and computer, were more confident in their ability to perform tasks related to

teaching with technology, and used more computer coping strategies. Zhang and Espinoza

104
(1998) confirmed the findings of other studies (Delcourt & Kinzie, 1993; Hill et al., 1987)

that students’ attitudes toward computers affect their confidence levels about computers.

Learning Goal Level

A learning goal level is defined as the activities or performance required in the

affective, cognitive, and/or psychomotor learning domains that results in the desired outcome

of learning (Gagné et al., 1992). To determine if the learning outcome is attained, the

learning goal level must be a part of the theory (Steinberg, 1991). There are three domains of

behavioral learning: affective, cognitive and psychomotor. Learning goal level is

demonstrated using Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in the Affective and

Cognitive Domains (1956) and Dave’s Taxonomy of the Psychomotor Domain (1970).

Bloom’s Taxonomy of the Affective Domain consists of five levels, each behavior

building on the previous behavior level. The affective domain includes the manner in which

one deals with things emotionally such as feelings, values, appreciations, enthusiasms,

motivations, and attitudes. The first level in the affective domain is receiving. This level is

concerned with the learner’s sensitivity to the existence of certain phenomena and stimuli

and the learner’s willingness to receive or attend to them. The second level of the affective

domain is responding. Responding indicates that the learner has become sufficiently

involved in or committed to a subject, phenomenon, or activity that he or she seeks out and

gains satisfaction from working with it or engaging in it. The third level of the affective

domain is valuing. This behavior is sufficiently consistent and stable and takes on the

characteristics of a belief or an attitude. Many adults change their attitudes toward

computers based on the value of the computer to them. The fourth level in the affective

domain is organizing. As learners internalize values, they encounter situations where more

105
than one value is relevant. Krathwohl et al. (1964) suggests that this is the level at which

value systems are developed. The final level of the affective domain is characterizing. At

this level of internalization, the individual’s value hierarchy is organized into an internally

consistent system. This behavior is consistent with the values internalized and when the

individual is threatened or challenged the behavior arouses emotion.

Bloom’s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain consists of six levels, each building on

the previous. The cognitive domain involves knowledge and the development of intellectual

skills. The first and simplest level is knowledge, defined by Bloom as recognition and recall

of facts and specifics. The second goal level is comprehension, which requires knowledge.

Bloom defines comprehension as being able to interpret, translate, summarize, or paraphrase

given information. The third goal level in the cognitive domain is application, which

requires comprehension of information in order to apply in new situations. Application is

defined as using information in a situation different from the original learning context.

Analysis is the fourth goal level and is defined as the ability to separate the whole into its

parts until relationships among the elements are clear. Analysis requires the ability to apply

information in order to analyze. Synthesis is the fifth goal level in Bloom’s Taxonomy and is

defined as the ability to combine elements to form a new entity from the original one. Like

the other goal levels before it, this level requires analysis in order to synthesize. The last

goal level of Bloom’s Taxonomy is evaluation. Evaluation involves acts of decision-making,

judging, or selecting based on criteria and rationale. To complete the last step in the

taxonomy, one must possess each of these cognitive skills.

Several taxonomies for the psychomotor domain exist (Harrow, 1972; Simpson,

1972), but in this study Dave’s (1970) Taxonomy of Psychomotor Domain was used. Dave’s

106
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in the Psychomotor Domain consists of five levels:

imitation, manipulation, precision, articulation, and naturalization. The psychomotor domain

includes physical movement, coordination, and use of the motor-skill areas. Development of

these skills requires practice and is measured in execution terms of speed, precision, distance,

procedures, or techniques. Imitation is the first level of the taxonomy and includes repeating

an act that has been demonstrated or explained. It includes trial and error until an appropriate

response is achieved.

Manipulation is the second level of psychomotor domain and consists of continued

practice of a skill or sequence until it becomes habitual and the action can be performed with

confidence and proficiency. Precision is the third level of the taxonomy and denotes that the

skill has been attained with accuracy, proportion, and exactness. The fourth level of the

psychomotor domain, articulation, requires a higher level of precision. The skills are well

developed and can be modified to fit new situations or combined with other skills in

sequence with harmony and consistency. The last level of the psychomotor domain

taxonomy is naturalization. Naturalization occurs when the response is automatic but with

limited physical or mental exertion.

For CBI, most of the research has been in the cognitive domain. Lewis (1990)

suggested that the learning goal level of knowledge can be accomplished through the CBI

modes of drill and practice, tutorial or simulation. Tutorial programs are used to teach new

skills and provide new knowledge (Wager & Gagné, 1988). Drill and practice programs are

used to strengthen learned associations and build skill in concept classification and rule

usage. Simulation is a representation of reality. Learning from simulation is trial and error

or a discovery learning process.

107
 The learning goal level of comprehension is best accomplished through the CBI

modes of tutorial and simulation or through drill and practice. The learning goal level of

application is best accomplished through the CBI mode of simulation and tutorial. The

learning goal levels of analysis and synthesis are best accomplished through the CBI mode of

simulation. Finally, the learning goal level of evaluation can be obtained through the CBI

mode of simulation. The quality of the program may determine the learning goal achieved.

The modes of CBI may be appropriate for any of the three learning domains; however, in

most cases the cognitive domain is most often referenced. The lower cognitive learning goal

levels are often a prerequisite to the affective and psychomotor learning goal levels.

Federico (1982) suggested that no method of instruction produces identical

instructional outcomes in all students, not even computer-managed mastery learning. The

real challenge facing educational technologists is to consider the goals of instruction and

adjust the strategies, models, and tactics to attune the nature of the task to the perspective of

the student (Jonassen, 1994). Jawahar and Elango (2001) suggested that specific,

challenging goals should be set in respect to learning and transfer.

Instructional Strategy Design

Instructional strategy design is defined as elemental methods for determining and

sequencing content, presenting content and decision-making related to the content and its

delivery. Janniro (1993) found CBI to be most effective when systematically developed and

course content follows the principles of teaching. Steinberg (1991) suggested that

appropriate computer application means the application of sound instructional principles.

The design of learning materials and environment is the core of educational technology

(Kozma, 2000). Tennyson and Foshay (2000) included the following activities in the

108
instructional design process: analyzing the information, identifying entry knowledge and

behaviors, determining the organization and sequencing of information, specifying the

instructional strategies, message design, and human factors. Reigeluth (1983) classified the

components of instructional strategy design unit into three types: organizational strategy,

delivery strategy, and management strategy.

Organizational Strategy. Organizational strategy is the method of sequencing the

subject matter content for instruction. Gagné and Briggs’ (1979) events of instruction should

be included in the organizational strategy of the lesson or learning module. Sequencing of

information within a module of CBI would be determined by the objectives. For those

objectives in the declarative and procedural areas, the information would be sequenced by

applying principles from the learning theory in use. For higher-order objectives, the

sequence is based on an interaction with the learner and information (Tennyson & Foshay,

2000).

Bunderson and Inouye (1987) proposed that when designing instruction, the

information can be analyzed to determine the most efficient arrangement of the knowledge

for purposes of learning, not for purposes of disciplined organization. Learning gains related

to lesson organization may ultimately relate to the total available mental processing capacity

of the learner (Clariana, 1993). Well-organized information serves as a graphic organizer,

helps in learning the information, and provides an external map-like organizer for guiding the

acquisition of unfamiliar material (Dean & Kulhavy, 1981). This map links incoming

information to preexisting knowledge, processed at a deeper level of encoding, resulting in

associative learning (Anderson & Archer, 1970; Craig & Lockhart, 1972; Foss & Harwood,

1975; Rothkopf & Coke, 1968). Organized content increase the efficiency of searches

109
(Christie & Just, 1976). Older or high-ability learners with more remembering or thinking

capacity may be more likely to benefit from organization. Shute and Gluck (1996) found that

a higher level of education and interest in the content of the instruction were the two key

factors associated with more exploratory behavior and with higher posttest achievement.

Delivery Strategy. Delivery strategies normally involve determining the appropriate

media of instruction and grouping strategies. Because the need for CBI was determined

previously, one only needs to address the grouping strategy for instruction. The instructional

delivery strategy for CBI could be individual, dyad, or small group consisting of three

students. Stephenson (1991) suggested that low achievers benefit from having another

human around who is aware of actions that alter the learning behavior. Carrier and Sales

(1987) found that students working in pairs with CBI provided an opportunity for the

students to check out understanding of concepts with their partner.

Management Strategy. The instructional management strategy guides the

orchestration of organizational and delivery strategies (Smith & Ragan, 1993). Scheduling of

instruction and the mechanisms for delivery of instruction are guided by the management

strategy. With CBI, scheduling may include providing times when a computer room is

available or using resources to ensure that enough computers are available for those needing

CBI. This strategy also includes the management of instruction for individuals, which

provides diagnosis, prescriptions, status reports, and test scores for each individual in the CBI

program. Management strategies involve the use of resources and managing individualized

instruction.

110
CBI Design

CBI design is defined as the programming of content and lesson design that considers

the individual differences of the learner to achieve the learning goal level delivered by

computer. Critical for promoting achievement in CBI are features that provide opportunities

for problem solving, corrective feedback, elaboration, visual and graphic cues, control of the

routine by the learner, and appropriate wait time between input and response (Lewis, 1990).

This unit of the model makes CBI different from other forms of individualized instruction.

CBI design is comprised of four components: instructional control, instructional support,

screen design, and practice strategy.

Instructional Control. Instructional control can be program controlled where the

program guides the learner; learner controlled where the learner determines the options; or

adaptive controlled that is a combination of program and learner controlled where control is

based on the learner’s responses. CBI that is adaptive or intelligent to student’s responses

and rate of learning is twice as effective (Gibbons & Fairweather, 2000). Gibbons and

Fairweather (2000) believed that this instructional approach is a potent effectiveness factor in

CBI. Numerous researchers have found that learner control in CBI positively influences

retention of information and increases test performance (Hansen, 1974; Kinzie, Sullivan, &

Berdel, 1988; Newkirk, 1973; Ross & Morrison, 1989; Schloss, Wisniewski, & Cartwright,

1988; Steinberg, Baskin, & Hofer, 1986). Several researchers have found positive

achievement results from giving learners control over elements of their instruction such as

amount of contextual support (Ross, Morrison, & O’Dell, 1989; Shaw, 1992), amount of

information and practice (Hannafin & Sullivan, 1995), amount of review (Kinzie, Sullivan, &

Berdel, 1988), and sequencing of the instruction (Gray, 1987). Gray (1989) concluded that

111
CBI for single class sessions and directed at students with little background in the subject

matter will be effective with minimum user control over the sequencing of instructional

content.

Instructional Support. Supporting the adult learner during the CBI learning process is

important to the learning outcome of CBI. Weiss (1985) noted that the more a CBI program

must “stand alone,” through lack of instructional support, the greater the burden on the

instructional content to be clear, and on documentation and guides to explain how to use the

CBI program. Instructional support enhances the understanding of the content of instruction

by specific examples, glossary, procedures, help, hints, feedback, and coaching. When

learners perceive instruction to be difficult, they seek out more instructional support (Tobias,

1982) such as elaborate feedback.

Feedback is one form of instructional support that influences the learning process by

motivating the learner and/or by providing additional information about the task (Sales &

Williams, 1988; Steinberg, 1991). Feedback is the evaluative or corrective information about

an action, choice or inquiry that the learner has made within the instructional program.

Clariana (1993) found that the more information provided by feedback, the better the

performance. Feedback has to be valued by the learner to be motivating. Feedback can

motivate students by encouraging them when learning is difficult (Steinberg, 1991). Kulhavy

and Stock (1989) referred to feedback as a unit of information with two components,

verification and elaboration. Pridemore and Klein (1991) found that students who received

elaboration feedback during instruction performed better than students who received

verification feedback, and suggested that different feedback messages be provided based on

the student responses. Verification feedback could be provided to students when their initial

112
response is correct and elaborate feedback provided when an initial response is incorrect.

Students who received verification feedback indicated a desire to have more feedback during

instruction.

Screen Design. Screen design research indicates that displaying information at a

consistent location or relevant to graphical information facilitates learning (Aspillaga, 1991).

The enriched screen-control capabilities of computers provide displays that more clearly

represent information in meaningful contexts (Tennyson & Foshay, 2000). Good screen

design can have an important motivating role because it maintains the attention and interest

of the student (Steinberg, 1991). Spatial location aids learning by providing encoding links

to existing information (Belezza, 1983; Christies & Just, 1976; Cross, 1974; Gagné, 1977;

Roger & Cable, 1976; Rothkopf & Coke, 1968). Location as a cue is only helpful by its

association with the content (Foss & Harwood, 1975), for it works as a mediator between

content and visual material (Christie & Just, 1976; Zechmeister & McKillip, 1972). Layout

has been shown to enhance transfer of information providing a second choice for the learner

in arrangement of content through location (Aspillaga, 1991). CBI designers can improve

learning by integrating instructional visuals designed using information-processing learning

theories, and including screen design strategies to enhance the transfer of information

(Janniro, 1993). CBI designers should continue to create innovative visuals that help

students remember facts and relationships and grasp the overall concepts of the lesson.

Computer presentation of text can facilitate learning by providing focus. Gillingham’s

(1988) review of research suggested three aspects of structure and organization that affect

learning and remembering. They are superordination, topic relatedness, and cohesion. A

superordinate sentence explicitly states the main idea of the accompanying text. Research

113
indicates that adults learn the top-level or superordinate ideas of text first and filter out

peripheral information (Steinberg, 1991). They are less likely to forget superordinate

information (Meyer, 1977; 1985). Research with technical prose also reveals the importance

of stating the main idea, and stating it first (Kieras, 1982). Topic relatedness refers to the

idea that text is expected to be on a single topic. This is particularly important in technical

prose (Steinberg, 1991). Cohesion is the connectedness of prose. Prose is most readily

learned and remembered when writers follow some sort of plan and signal this plan to the

reader (Meyer, 1977). The implication for CBI is that it is counterproductive to display text

one sentence at a time because it may interferes with understanding the relatedness of the text

(Steinberg, 1991).

Graphics represent important capabilities for CBI in terms of encouraging intuition or

insight about the relationship between concepts (Bork, 1977; Kearsley & Hillelsohn, 1982).

Graphics have value in illustrating processes students cannot see and increasing active

participation in the instruction (Lahey, Crawford, & Hurlock, 1975; Trollip, 1979). Reeder,

Charney, and Morgan (1986) found that elaborated text was advantageous for learning

complex procedural skills. Ross, Morrison, and O’Dell (1988) found that low-density

presentations reduced lesson length and reading time without adversely affecting learning of

important facts and concepts.

Practice Strategy. The appropriate amount of information and practice to include in

CBI varies by the difficulty of the subject-matter and individual learner characteristics. When

faced with the decision of determining the amount of practice to include in CBI, a greater

amount of practice should be provided if higher student achievement is an important goal of

the instruction (Schnackenberg et al., 1998).

114
 Fitts and Posner (1967) identified the stages of skill learning as: cognitive stage,

associative stage, and autonomous stage. Cognitive stage of skill learning begins with an

instructional or overview phase in which the learner receives or studies information or

instruction about the skill. The learner typically gives a verbal description of how the skill is

performed and states the basic facts associated with the skill. In the associative stage of skill

learning, the learner attempts to perform the skill based on the knowledge acquired in the

cognitive stage. In this stage the errors or inadequacies are corrected. In the autonomous

stage of skill acquisition, the performance of the skill becomes automatic and rapid. Not all

skills reach the autonomous stage. Automaticity is a necessity for more complex, higher

level skill (Smith & Ragan, 1993).

Salisbury (1988) provided the following overview of the three stages of skill

acquisition and the important role of practice in the learning process. Practice during the

cognitive stage usually involves the learning of factual information, which is a prerequisite to

performing the final skill. During the associative stage, practice assists the learner in

performing the skill smoothly and accurately. The learner may have to use considerable of

mental concentration to perform the skill. During the autonomous stage, practice allows the

learner to perform the skill without much mental concentration so that the learner’s attention

capacity is available to devote to other aspects of the task. Many skills must be performed at

the autonomous stage to be useful.

Schnackenberg et al. (1998) found that students practiced more in their instructional

program scored higher on the posttest than those that had a lesser amount of practice.

Students preferred more practice and information in abstract or hypothetical learning

situations than students working through a program in a real instructional setting.

115
Marcoulides (1990) found that students who are “spoon-fed” sets of rules for choosing and

using statistical procedures without hands-on practice in concrete examples tended to

misapply or forget the rules. Students need hands-on examples to help visualize the

operational procedures.

External Support

External support is defined as providing for the needs of the learner with support

external to the CBI program but is required to promote the learning outcome of CBI.

External support should provide appropriate computer equipment, technical support, time for

the learner to participate in CBI, and support from peers, supervisors, facilitator,

management, friends, and family. Tough (1967, 1979) repeatedly highlighted the strong

reliance on external resources, both human and material, in the conduct of learning projects

and noted that adults would like more assistance in their learning pursuits.

The necessity of considering the learning environment and its support systems has

been widely recognized in education and instructional design (Tessmer, 1990). Environment

analysis may be recognized as important to the success of an instructional project, but it is

rarely completed as a major stage or factor in the instructional design process. Instruction

may embody the proper outcomes and strategies but lack the means to be thoroughly or

successfully utilized in its intended environments. Tessmer (1990) suggested two factors that

should be considered in the environmental analysis: physical and use factors. Each of these

two factors is further divided into instructional environment and support environment. The

physical factors of the instructional environment are facilities, instructional lifespan, and

equipment. In the case of the psychomotor domain, the instructional environment must

provide for development of the motor skills. The use factors of the instructional environment

116
are patterns of use, reasons for use, student-user characteristics, and administrator

characteristics. The support environment is the system in which the instructional

environment is embedded, the system that administers, facilitates, and supports instructional

activities. The physical factors of the support environment are site distribution, management

and coordination, and seasons and climate. These factors are part of the instructional strategy

design. The use factors of the support environment are production services, storage and

delivery services, dissemination considerations, and support resources. For this study,

external support factors are those in the learning environment that are not addressed

elsewhere in the model.

Research in external support is limited, but several researchers found it important in

accomplishment of the learning outcome of CBI. Peters and O’Connor (1980; Peters,

O’Connor, & Eulberg, 1985) reported that situational constraints interfere with or restrict an

individual’s performance. Mathieu et al. (1992, 1993) found that trainees’ foreknowledge of

constraints reduces their motivation to perform well in training or instruction. Jawahar

(2002) referred to these situational constraints as complexity of training, time, and software

user-friendliness that restrict the range of individual performance. Mathieu and Martineau

(1998) referred to the situational constraints as adequacy of job-related information, tools and

equipment, materials and supplies, financial and budgetary support, and time availability. If

there are severe constraints in a given setting, performance is less a function of individual

differences and more a function of situational factors, and less predictable from measures of

theoretically-relevant individual differences. Stephenson (1991) found that the instructor

/facilitator interaction with the student increased his or her achievement. Jawahar (2002)

found that the perception of the situational constraints negatively influenced end user

117
performance. Providing support for the computer system and its users increased employees’

outcome expectancy and ultimately organizational commitment (Stone & Henry, 2003).

Laws of Interaction

A law of interaction is a statement by the researcher-theorist of the relationship

between units and shows how the units of the theory are linked. In this section, the laws of

interaction of “A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults” are developed.

To provide for the output of learning outcome, the CBI design unit interacts with the other

units of the model: self-directedness, computer self-efficacy, external support, instructional

strategy design, and learning goal level

In the conceptual model in Figure 2, the units of the model were arranged into two

distinct horizontal halves of the model, the top half of support and the bottom half of design.

The units of the support half are external support, self-directedness, computer self-efficacy

and the components of instructional control and instructional support of CBI design. The

units of the design half are learning goal level, instructional strategy design, and the

components of screen design and practice strategy of CBI design. The learning goal level

influences both the support and design halves of the model.

Self-Directedness and CBI Design

Self-directedness is expected to influence the components of instructional control and

instructional support of the unit domain of CBI design. Learners who possess internal locus

of control, high metacognitive skills, and a high level of motivation to learn will be

successful using learner controlled options for CBI design and less instructional support.

Learners who possess external locus of control, low metacognitive skills, and low level of

motivation to learn will need program control for instruction and much instructional support.

118
Instructional support through feedback will improve motivation. Learners with low

metacognitive skills will need more program control to assure that the learner receives all the

information for the learning outcome. Learners who possess a continuum of these self-

directedness characteristics and the components of instructional control and instructional

support will need to be considerate of these differences.

Learner control may be unsuccessful for some subjects because they lack

metacognitive skills (Allen & Merrill, 1985; Rigney, 1978) or lack information they need

about the learning progress to make meaningful decisions about how to manage learning

(Tennyson & Rothen, 1979). Holden (1995) found that higher self-directed learning

readiness participates had higher achievement than lower level participants and lower level

self-directed learning readiness participates with program control had higher achievement

than participants with learner control. Grow (1991) identified four stages of self-directed

learning and the teaching style associated with each. The four stages of self-directedness

were: stage 1 is the dependent learner with the teaching style of authority and coach; stage 2

is the interested learner with the teaching style of motivator and guide; stage 3 is the involved

learner with the teaching style of facilitator; and stage 4 is the self-directed learner with the

teaching style of consultant or delegator. The most severe problems occur when dependent

learners are mismatched with the non-directive teaching styles, and when self-directed

learners are mismatched with the directive teaching style. Most adults are not self-directed

and need to transition to a self-directed learner (Grow, 1991). CBI should help students

move from stage 1 of dependent learner to stage 4 of the self-directed learner over their

lifelong learning process.

119
 Kinzie (1990) proposed a framework that demonstrated an interdependence and

mutual importance of learner control and self-regulated learning and continuing motivation.

The exercise of learner control is a precursor to the development of self-regulation. Learners

who command the greatest range and depth of learning skills will be the best equipped to

handle learner control and other forms of instructional self-management (Resnick, 1972).

When learner control in an interactive system is exercised, the benefits are reflected in

increased student self-regulation and continuing motivation. Similarly, when interactive

systems stimulate student motivation, students’ excitement and interest in learning can

positively influence their desire to exercise control and mange their own learning (Kinzie,

1990).

Gray (1989) found that more program control of the sequencing of instruction the

better the performance. Students that showed higher external locus of control and were given

learner control of sequencing of instruction performed poorly. However, students that

showed higher internal locus of control and were provided some control over the sequencing

performed the best. Gray (1989) found that CBI is more effective when sequencing is

program controlled and learners control the review. The less familiar learners are with the

content, the greater the need for instructional supportive structure. Program control of the

order of presented topics can be viewed as a form of supportive structure analogous to clearly

stated objective and other guidance devices. Gray (1989) recommends that instruction or

informational retrieval application mold their structure to the external locus of control

learners who will be less skilled in finding and using information. Instructional programs

that are meant for single class sessions and directed at students with little prior background in

120
the subject matter will be more effective with minimum user control over the sequencing of

instruction (Gray, 1989).

If the learner possesses the attribute of internal locus of control, to take some control

over the learning is important to that learner (Hannafin, 1984). Learner control strategies

should include coaching to assist learners in making informed decisions (Ross, 1984;

Tennyson & Buttrey, 1980). Failure to provide guidance can prove frustrating to learners as

they may be unable to make intelligent informed choices. Numerous researchers have found

that learner control in CBI positively influenced retention of information and increased test

performance (Hansen, 1974; Kinzie, Sullivan, & Berdel, 1988; Newkirk, 1973; Ross &

Morrison, 1989; Schloss, Wisniewski, & Cartwright, 1988; Steinberg, Baskin, & Hofer,

1986). Therefore, learners with internal locus of control may need to be able to control some

of the practice and review activities. Santiago and Okey (1992) suggested that the

instructional designers should determine what role CBI could play in effecting shifts in

learners from external locus of control to internal locus of control.

For some subjects, learner control may be unsuccessful because they lack the

metacognitive skills (Allen & Merrill, 1985; Rigney, 1978) or lack the information they need

about their learning progress to make meaningful decisions about how to manage learning

(Tennyson & Rothen, 1979). Motivation, as well as cognition, influences learner control

(Steinberg, 1991).

Another reason for using learner control is that it helps students become independent

learners and develop their self-efficacy and self-determination (Kinzie, 1990; Snow, 1980).

Mager (1964) and Merrill (1975) contended that learners know their own instructional needs

best and are uniquely qualified to tailor instruction to meet those needs. From the

121
constructivist viewpoint, learners construct their own knowledge, and yielding some control

over instruction to the learner enables them to construct knowledge in the context of their

own needs and experience (Jonassen, 1991).

A fundamental issue in planning instruction is how much instructional support to

provide to the student at any particular moment in the learning process (Allen & Merrill,

1985). Using Bovy’s (1981) model for matching intervention with cognitive skills, Allen

and Merrill (1985) suggested that low cognitive skills require more instructional support and

high cognitive skills require less instructional support, since the learner has his own

internalized knowledge about how to learn.

Sales and Carrier (1987) found that students selected elaborative feedback when

given the opportunity to select from a continuum of choices ranging from no feedback to

information-dense screens. Learner control of feedback selection resulted in students asking

for knowledge of correct responses or elaborate feedback more frequently than simple

knowledge of results feedback (Sales & Williams, 1988). The capacity to provide different

levels of feedback within a single instructional lesson is an attribute associated with the

computer. These different levels of feedback should be tailored to match the needs of the

learners as well as the desired learning outcomes (Sales, 1988). Individual learner

characteristics can be associated with types and amounts of instructional support. For CBI to

be effective, students’ interest must be aroused and maintained (Sales & Williams, 1988).

Accommodating individual needs and preferences related to instructional support may help

to accomplish this goal.

122
Computer Self-Efficacy and CBI Design

Computer self-efficacy is expected to influence the components of instructional

control and instructional support of the unit domain of CBI design. Learners with low

computer self-efficacy must be given the opportunity to be successful. Only through

experience and success with CBI will the computer self-efficacy level rise. Instructional

support such as feedback and coaching needs to be available to the learner to enable them to

be successful. An adaptive instructional control program would allow the learner to increase

their level of computer self-efficacy, as they are successful with CBI. Learner control is

more appropriate for the learner with high computer self-efficacy.

Olivier and Shapiro (1993) found that those who possess a high degree of self-

efficacy tend to be higher achievers than those who have a lower degree of self-efficacy.

Low self-efficacy reflects a lack of confidence in the ability to manipulate the system to

achieve desired results (Hill & Hannafin, 1997). Consequently, users are more likely to

accept rather than question system-generated information or program controlled design.

High self-efficacy users tend to be more persistent in their search and more confident in their

ability to locate the resources they seek (Murphy, 1988), so learner control may be more

appropriate as the instructional control. Gist, Schowerer, and Rosen (1989) found that

vicarious experiences with the computer increased one’s feelings of control and confidence.

Hattie (1990) suggested that the higher perceived controllability of the computer by the

individual, the higher his/her perceived self-efficacy is to maintain that control. There is

evidence that giving learners partial control over elements of instruction yields more

favorable attitudes toward CBI and produce relatively high learner achievement (Schnakerber

et al., 1998; Crooks et al., 1996). Leso and Peck (1992) found that students may encounter

123
less frustration and gain more confidence when they attempt and accomplish relatively

simpler tasks and receive immediate feedback regarding their success with software

application. Ertmer et al. (1994) found that to enhance the effect of the learning experience

on students’ efficacy through situating those experiences within a learning context that

provides an acceptable means for voicing frustration and receiving encouraging feedback

regarding one’s developing skills was most important. Jawahar and Elango (2001) found that

enhancing the motivation of end users is one avenue to increase end user performance where

attitudes toward working with computers, goal setting, and computer self-efficacy address

motivation of end users.

Self-Directedness and External Support

Self-directedness is expected to influence the unit of external support. The higher the

level of self-directedness of the learner, the less external support is required. For instance,

the learners who possess internal locus of control, high metacognitive skills, and high

motivation to learn require less external support. Learners who possess external locus of

control will need more external support since they believe that performance is a result of the

external events or environments. Low motivation to learn can be promoted through external

support. Management’s encouragement and support could be of great importance to the

learner with low motivation to learn. Dependent learners want close supervision, immediate

feedback, frequent interaction, constant motivation and continuous direction (Grow, 1991).

External support can provide many of these elements for the dependent learner. As the

learner becomes more self-directed, less external support is required. Steinberg (1991)

suggested two factors that influence the likelihood of students completing a CBI course are

124
personal contacts with instructors and students’ self-discipline. A student must have the

opportunity to complete the course for it to be effective.

Research supports the claim that enhancing motivation of end users to learn and

effectively use end user computing skills is crucial to end user computing (Bostrom, Olfman,

& Sein, 1990; Jawahar, 2002; Jawahar & Elango, 2001; Sein, Bostrom, & Olfman, 1987).

Jawahar (2002) found managers can positively influence employees’ attitudes toward using

CBI by communicating how the knowledge can enhance their productivity. Jawahar (2002)

also found that goal setting had the most effect on end user performance. Kopelman, Brief,

and Guzzo (1990) suggested that having sufficient supplies, materials, equipment, services

and resources necessary to perform one’s job would yield higher employee motivation,

whereas lack of the same would create frustration. The researcher-theorist suggests that it is

also true with CBI.

Computer Self-Efficacy and External Support

Computer self-efficacy is expected to influence the unit of external support. Learners

who have a high level of computer self-efficacy require less external support than those with

a low level of computer self-efficacy. Learners with high levels of computer self-efficacy

will take it upon themselves to find the external support that is needed. However, learners

with low computer self-efficacy will look to external support to facilitate learning. The low

computer self-efficacy learner will need technical support, time from work to participate, and

encouraging words from management to help raise their level of computer self-efficacy.

Stone and Henry (2003) found that links between organizational commitment and

computer self-efficacy and outcome expectancy are consistent with results reported in the

literature. Their model linked past computer experience, computer staff support, system ease

125
of use and the degree of system use to the end-user’s sense of computer self-efficacy,

outcome expectancy, and ultimately organizational commitment. Jawahar (2002) found that

situational factors such as insufficient or faulty equipment, lack of resources, and time

constraints adversely affects performance, and reduces the ability of individual differences to

predict performance. Jawahar (2002) also found that attitudes toward working with

computers, goal setting, and self-efficacy were positively related to end user performance.

Jawahar and Elango (2001) found managers could increase end user performance by

enhancing end users’ self-efficacy beliefs. Bandura (1982) suggested self-efficacy beliefs

can be enhanced through performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal

persuasion and emotional arousal. Jorde-Bloom (1988) found that organizational components

and environmental considerations served as powerful motivators in determining computer-

related behavior. Individuals who exhibit a low self-efficacy with technological innovations

are more apt to be resistant to them (Hill, Smith & Mann, 1987). An individual’s feelings of

self-efficacy regulates the degree of commitment that the individual is willing to invest in

learning about CBI. Ertmer and colleagues (1994) found it possible to enhance the effect of

the CBI experience on students’ efficacy judgments by situating those experiences within a

learning context which provides a means for voicing frustration and for receiving

encouraging feedback. Therefore, creating a non-threatening environment or, in this case,

providing an external support would significantly influence the individual’s level of

commitment to CBI.

External Support and CBI Design

External support and CBI design are expected to interrelate. Strong external support

can be incorporated in CBI design-support. Strong external support will offset weak CBI

126
design. If CBI design is a strong design that allows for the individual differences in the

learner, external support can be at a minimum. However, if CBI design is weak and does not

provide for the individual differences of the learner, external support must be strong. CBI

design may take into account the individual differences, but some of those differences will

require external support.

External support should provide for motor skill practice when the CBI design is

influenced by the learning goal level of the psychomotor domain. Jawahar (2002) found that

providing time to practice newly acquired computer skills is one way of providing external

support by managers for CBI. Shlechter (1990) found that students who received CBI in a

group presentation completed the instruction with increased efficiency and less external

support (proctor assistance). Stephenson (1992) found that in pairs of learners with little

experience on spreadsheet software, the dyad partner provided the feedback, support, and

social facilitation typically provided by the instructor in a traditional classroom.

Instructional Strategy Design and CBI Design

Instructional strategy design precedes the components of screen design and practice

of the unit domain of CBI design. The instructional strategy design unit influences the screen

design based on the organization of the information and the practice strategy based on the

level of learning goal to be accomplished. Strong instructional strategy design should

influence the CBI design related to appropriate screen design and type of practice. Weak

instructional strategy design will result in poor CBI design.

The organizational strategy of the instruction influences the screen design. How the

instruction is sequenced, the location of the content on the screen, and how the content is

displayed impacts the learning process of the adult. Computer presentation of text can

127
facilitate learning by providing focus (Steinberg, 1991). This occurs when the computer

lesson is presented in limited amounts of text on the screen and the learner presses a key to

continue reading the text at his own pace. Gillingham (1988) found that program control of

the rate of presenting text is not a useful approach. Ross, Morrison, and O’Dell (1988)

suggested the use of low-density text as a standard feature or learner-control option for CBI.

If an instructional path has been deemed to be the most effective, it should be

provided to both program and learner controlled options. The learner controlled option

should not prevent the learner from having the most effective instructional path available

(Hannafin, 1984). Structural guidance, such as the event of instruction, should be provided

regardless of the instructional control.

Practice provides for the learner’s active participation in the learning process and

assesses how learning is progressing so that remediation may be provided if the student is not

learning (Smith & Ragan, 1993). Provision of instruction with explicit practice items is very

important to the outcome of learning. Smith and Ragan (1993) suggested that learners

should have several opportunities to practice the performance related to a specific objective

to promote over-learning and automaticity of skilled performance. Student practice of

instructional objectives is considered an essential element of well-designed instruction

because appropriate practice during instruction gives students the opportunity to engage in

activities similar to those in the objectives and assessed on an objectives-referenced test

(Popham, 1969; Gagné, 1985).

Schnackenberg and colleagues (1998) found that the CBI that contained more

practice resulted in learners scoring significantly higher on the posttest than CBI with less

128
practice. The object of good practice should be to convert a learning task that does not have

much inherent meaning into something more meaningful (Salisbury et al., 1985).

Learning Goal Level and Instructional Strategy Design

Learning goal level is expected to influence the unit of instructional strategy design.

The learning goal level influences how the instruction is organized and presented. CBI is

judged to be successful when the essential content supports the learner’s attainment of

instructional goals (Hannum, 1988). Different instructional strategies are implemented based

on the learning goal level to be achieved (Salisbury et al., 1985). Because different

conditions are required for different learning outcomes, the nature of the events of instruction

also differs for each type of learning outcome. CBI that incorporates events that are

appropriate for the desired type of learning outcomes will be more likely to attain the desired

learning goals (Wager & Gagné, 1988).

The learning goal level determines the type of learning for which the instructional

strategy design must be developed. In the first two levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy of the

Cognitive Domain (1956), knowledge and comprehension, learners would be required to

recall in verbatim, paraphrased, or summarized form facts, lists, names or organized

information. The instructional strategy design would be developed for that learning outcome.

In the application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy of

Cognitive Domain, students learn how to recall and apply other instances not encountered

during instruction. Therefore, the instructional strategy design would be developed so that

the learner can discriminate, acquire concrete and defined concepts, and learn rules or

principles.

129
 Tennyson and Foshay (2000) suggested that cognitive psychology offers two basic

types of goals: the acquisition of knowledge and the employment and improvement of

knowledge. Identifying which forms of knowledge acquisition and employment are feasible

will help the instructional designer select appropriate instructional strategies in the design

domain. An important design activity is defining the learning outcomes that relate to the

goals of the learning environment.

Learning Goal Level and CBI Design

Learning goal level is expected to influence the components of instructional control

and instructional support of the unit domain of CBI design. Learning goal levels based on

Bloom’s Taxonomy levels of knowledge and comprehension would be more likely to use

program controlled CBI design, while learning goal levels of application, synthesis, and

evaluation would use learner controlled or adaptive controlled. Romiszowski (1981) found

that learner control was unsuccessful for some subjects because they did not have clearly

formed objectives. These objectives are developed based on the learning goals that are to be

achieved.

Hannafin (1984) suggested that instructional control is dependent upon the nature of

the learning task. Procedural tasks, verbatim learning tasks, unfamiliar material, and tutorials

are best taught by program control, while contextual and substantive information, higher

order skills, familiar material, and drill and practice are better taught under learner control.

Tennyson and Foshay (2000) reported that managing the learning environment should be

consistent with the defined learning goals and objectives of the instruction. Trollip (1979)

found that CBI used in teaching holding patterns and procedures resulted in significantly less

critical errors, and the CBI group was better prepared mentally for the task.

130
 Knowledge of the outcomes guides the designer in the amount of encouragement

and/or amount of instruction needed in feedback to achieve the proper results without

prolonging the learning process (Sales, 1988). Sales (1988) suggested that the most complex

outcome for CBI is the development of cognitive strategies. Cognitive strategies are learned

techniques for manipulating information. Knowledge of consequence feedback requires the

learner to think through the instructional situation to determine which factors have combined

to produce the results. CBI designed for higher level learning outcomes such as problem

solving, rule learning, and defined concepts requires that the learners generate solutions to

problems, demonstrate the use of rules they have learned, and classify objects based on the

instruction they have received (Briggs & Wager, 1981; Gagne & Briggs, 1979; Smith &

Boyce, 1984). Instruction at this level requires the learner to acquire new knowledge and to

formulate, test, and refine hypotheses on the correct use of this knowledge. Elaborative

feedback that provides explanation of errors as well as additional instruction may prove to be

most effective.

CBI designed for lower level of learning outcomes, such as concrete concepts and

discriminations, requires the learner to identify or to discriminate between specific members

of the concept class presented in the instruction (Briggs & Wager, 1981; Gagne & Briggs,

1979; Smith & Boyce, 1984). Feedback that simply informs the learners of the correctness

of their response will be sufficient in most cases. The learning outcome associated with

verbal information helps learners memorize facts and labels. Feedback consisting of simple

knowledge of incorrect response or knowledge of response should be adequate for this

learning goal level. As the complexity of the information increases, the needs of the learners

increases, and the level of feedback must be adjusted (Sales, 1988).

131
 When verbal information of a verbatim or literal nature is the learning goal, program

control provides for a greater degree of certainty of exactness. Contextual and substantive

information are best taught using learner control. Learner control design permits the learner

to form individually relevant associations among prior and current information, thereby

deepening and enriching the level at which instruction is processed. Hannafin (1984) found

that lower-order intellectual skills are best taught using program control, while higher order

skills may be best taught using learner control. Program control is desirable for learning with

established goals of mastery criteria. For CBI that does not have mastery criteria as a goal,

program control is useful for tutorial and learner control useful for drill and practice.

Program control is more effective for unfamiliar learning and learner control more effective

for familiar learning (Ross & Rakow, 1981; Tobia, 1981).

CBI Design and Learning Outcome

The unit of CBI design precedes and influences the unit of learning outcome.

Boettcher et al. (1981) suggested that learning outcomes are influenced not only by the mode

of instruction, but by the level of the cognitive category. It is how CBI is used, rather than

the fact that it is used, that determines learning effectiveness (Avner et al., 1980; Boettcher et

al., 1981).

Instructional control, instructional support, screen design, and practice activities must

be designed with the learning goal level and the appropriate instructional strategies for the

learning outcome desired. CBI incorporating events that are appropriate for the type of

learning outcome desired will be more likely to attain the desired learning goal (Wager &

Gagné, 1988). Different types of CBI serve different roles in the instructional process. The

various categories of learning outcomes differ notably in the expectations of learning results.

132
Each of the outcomes requires a different content organization for display and practice

activities during the course of instruction. Formatting screen displays, placement of

questions and response prompts on the screen, instructions to the learner about options under

their control, and instructional support in the form of feedback, all impact the learning

outcome.

Assessment is used to determine the learning outcome and the appropriate design of

CBI. If the outcome is not met, a redesign of the CBI processes and instructional strategy

may be required. CBI must be designed with the learning outcome firmly in mind.

Summary of the Laws of Interaction

A major conclusion to be drawn from the preceding discussion is that a change in one

unit of the theory brings about subsequent changes in another unit of the theory. The

following Laws of Interaction are derived from the dynamic relationships among the units:

Law 1. The units of self-directedness, external support, computer self-efficacy,

instructional strategy design, learning goal level, and CBI design are required for the

output of the desired learning outcome.

Law 2. The units of self-directedness and computer self-efficacy influence external

support.

Law 3. The units of self-directedness, external support, computer self-efficacy,

instructional strategy design, and learning goal level influence CBI design.

Law 4. Self-directedness, computer self-efficacy, and learning goal level are inputs

into the process of CBI design.

Law 5. Learning goal level is input into the process of instructional strategy design.

Law 6. External support and CBI design-support have a 2-way relationship

133
 a. Strong external support will influence the amount of CBI design-support.

b. Strong CBI design-support will influence the amount of external support.

Law 7. Instructional strategy design precedes CBI design as processes that are

required for an output of the desired learning outcome.

Boundaries

A theoretical model is bounded when the limiting values on the units comprising the

model are known (Dubin, 1978). Determining the boundaries of the theory enables the

researcher to set and clarify the aspects of the real world that the theory is attempting to

model. In setting the boundaries, the theoretical domain is distinguished from those aspects

of the real world not addressed or explained by the theory (Lynham, 2002). Using Dubin’s

theory building method, the boundaries are determined not by empirical data, but through the

use of logic to indicate the “domain over which the theory operates as a system” (Dubin,

1978, p. 141).

The boundaries of A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults are

first defined by the distinction between adult and non-adult. There appears to be no concrete

age boundaries when referring to adults. For purposes of this theory, adults are defined as

anyone 18 years of age or older. Adults approach learning on a need to know basis, using

prior experience as a mental model for new knowledge. They are motivated by the impact of

the new knowledge in contextual and life situations. For the purpose of establishing the

boundaries of the theory, all humans are either adults or non-adults. Age will be used to

determine whether or not humans are adults. If one concludes that the learner is either adult

or non-adult, then the boundary becomes closed. Dubin (1978) advocated “a closed

134
boundary is used when exchange does not take place between the domains through which the

boundary extends” (Torraco, 1994, p. 162).

The second boundary condition of “A Theory of Effective Computer-Based

Instruction for Adults” exists within the domain of adult. The theory applies to computer-

based instruction within the domain of adult. Computer-based instruction is defined as the

delivery of instructional content by means of the computer to achieve learning goals through

desired outcomes. The units of the theory fit within the domain of CBI. The goals or

outcomes of computer-based instruction may be varied. Therefore, the boundary condition is

an open boundary within the domain of adult as defined by Dubin (1978). “An open system

is one in which some kind of exchange takes place between the system and its environment”

(p. 126).

Two criteria for determining the boundaries of a theory are homogeneity and

generalization. The criterion of homogeneity requires that the units employed in the theory

and the laws of interaction satisfy the same boundary-determining criteria (Dubin, 1978).

The units of the model must fit into the boundaries before the theory is complete. The units

of self-directedness, computer self-efficacy, external support, instructional strategy design,

learning goal level, CBI design, and learning outcome and the laws of interaction all fit

within the open boundary of computer-based instruction and satisfy the criteria of the internal

boundary.

The second criterion of generalization of a theory relates to domain size of the theory.

The larger the domain, the more general the theory (Dubin, 1978). In this particular case,

only two variables are held constant, adults and computer-based instruction. Employing two

boundaries, one open and one closed, and applying two step-related criteria of homogeneity

135
and generalization enabled the researcher-theorist to determine that “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults” is not unlimited or unbounded.

The boundaries of the model are depicted in Figure 3 where the open boundary of the

domain computer-based instruction is represented by the dotted oval line and the closed

boundary of adult is represented by the solid oval line.

Non-Adult

Adult

All Humans CBI

All Humans

Figure 3: The Boundaries of a Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults

In summary, the domain within which “A Theory of Effective Computer-Based

Instruction” is expected to hold is in the domain of adult. The distinction between adult and

non-adult separates the domain of the theory from non-adult not addressed by the theory.

Within the domain of adult, the theory applies to computer-based instruction. The boundary

defining the application of the theory to computer-based instruction and adult is an open

136
boundary operating within the boundary defining the application of the theory to the domains

of adult, a closed boundary.

System States

System states indicate the complexity of the real world that the theory is presumed to

represent and the different conditions under which the theory operates. A system state is a

condition of the system being modeled in which the units of the theory interact differently

(Lynham, 2002). A system state is a state of the system as a whole and represents a

condition under which the theory is operative (Dubin, 1978; Torraco, 1994, 1997, 2000).

Dubin (1978) defined a system state as a condition of the system being modeled in which all

the units of the system take on characteristic values and attributes that have persistence

through time, regardless of the length of the time interval. All units of the system states are

determinant and measurable and are distinctive for each state of the theoretical system

(Dubin, 1978; Torraco, 1994; Lynham, 2002). A system state that accurately represents a

condition of the system being modeled has three characteristics: (1) inclusiveness, in that all

units of the system are included in the system state, (2) persistence, where the system state

persists through some meaningful period of time, and (3) distinctiveness, where all the units

take on unique values for that system state.

There are three system states that reflect different values and alignments that impact

the output of effective CBI. The three system states are effective system state, ineffective

system state, and moderately effective system state. In each of these three system states, the

units of the system take on characteristic values for the single event of CBI.

137
Effective System State

In the effective system state, an alignment of both the upper support half and the

lower design half of the model results in effective CBI. Different levels of support and

design are required to meet learners’ needs. In the support half of the model, two weak units

must be balanced by two strong units for alignment in the support area. Four possible

combinations of values of the units exist where support would be effective.

One possible arrangement of the support units would be strong self-directedness,

strong computer self-efficacy, weak external support, and weak CBI design of instructional

control and instructional support. A second possible arrangement where support would be

effective would be strong CBI design of instructional control and instructional support,

strong external support, weak self-directedness, and weak computer self-efficacy. A third

possible arrangement of effective support would be weak computer self-efficacy, strong

external support, strong self-directedness, and weak CBI design of instructional control and

instructional support. A fourth possible arrangement of effective support would be strong

computer self-efficacy, weak external support, weak self-directedness, and strong CBI design

of instructional control and instructional support.

In the design half of the model, the units of design must be aligned with the units of

support to provide for an effective model. The three units of learning goal level, instructional

strategy design, and CBI design components of practice activities and screen design must be

aligned to have appropriate design. The instructional strategy design should be matched with

the learning goal level to be effective in the area of design. The CBI design components of

screen design and practice strategy are developed from the instructional strategy design unit.

138
Therefore, if the instructional strategy is matched with the learning goal level, the design

components of CBI design are more likely to be strong.

One possible arrangement of support and design would be a low learning goal level

matched with the instructional strategy design and strong CBI design composed of the four

components of instructional control, instructional support, screen design, and practice

activities where support consist of weak computer self-efficacy, weak self-directedness and

strong external support. Another possible alignment with the strong CBI design of the four

components would be strong computer self-efficacy, weak self-directedness, and weak

external support. To have an effective model for CBI, the four units of support must be

aligned with the three units of design.

Ineffective System State

In an ineffective system state, the upper support half and the lower design half of the

model are not aligned. The values of the units of support do not provide for effective

support. A possible alignment would be that weak self-directedness, self-efficacy, external

support, and CBI design would result in weak support. If computer self-efficacy is low, CBI

design would not provide the instructional support needed, and external support would not be

available to provide the support needed for low computer self-efficacy. If self-directedness is

the weak unit, computer self-efficacy is likely to be weak as well, and poor external support

and CBI design would make for an ineffective system state. Even if one unit of the support

area is strong and the other three units are weak, the support area will be weak.

In the design half of the model for ineffective system state, the instructional strategy

design is not appropriate for the learning goal level. Therefore, the CBI design would be

weak since the instructional strategy design is an important input into the CBI design

139
process. A weak support area consisting of the units of low self-directedness, low computer-

self-efficacy, weak or no external support, and weak CBI design resulting from instructional

strategy design not being appropriate for the learning goal level, will result in ineffective

CBI.

Moderately Effective System State

In the moderately effective system state, there exist two possible alignments. The

first alignment consists of a strong support half with a weak design half and the second

alignment consists of a weak support half with a strong design half. In most cases, the

second alignment, one of weak support and strong design, exists in most CBI learning

experiences.

In the possible alignment of a moderately effective system state, the units of self-

directedness, computer self-efficacy, and external support are strong, with a weak CBI design

resulting in a strong support configuration. However, a weak CBI design results when the

instructional strategy design is not matched by learning goal level. Because of the strong

support from three of the four units in the support area, the learning goal may be achieved

despite the weak design.

If the instructional strategy design is not matched with the learning goal level, the

CBI design is weak. This CBI design would need to be aligned with strong computer self-

efficacy, strong self-directedness, weak external support, and weak CBI design components

of instructional control, instructional support, screen design, and practice activities. Another

possible alignment of weak CBI design is weak computer self-efficacy, strong self-

directedness, and strong external support that would provide for moderately effective CBI.

140
 In most organizations, the second alignment of weak support and strong design is

typical. The instructional strategy design is based on the learning goal level and the CBI

design uses both of these units in the design process. However, with three of the four units of

support being low, computer self-efficacy, self-directedness and external support, the support

configuration does not ensure that the program will be effective. The external support would

need to be strong and the learning goal level would align with the instructional control and

instructional support of the CBI design. Because most CBI is purchased off the shelf and is

developed by instructional designers and programmers, it will have strong design. However,

if the other components of support are not in place, no matter how good the design, the CBI

will be moderately effective. The three system states of effective, ineffective, and

moderately effective represent the conditions under which the theory of effective CBI for

adults operate.

Evaluating Theory

Without the empirical testing of a theory, theories cannot be evaluated on their

correctness or validity. However, a theory may be good without being totally correct.

Patterson (1986, p. xx) provides eight criteria for evaluating theory with the following

definitions:

1. importance – a quality or aspect of having great worth or significance;

acceptance by competent professional may be indicative of importance

2. preciseness and clarity – a state of being clear; hypotheses or predictions can

easily be developed from the theory

3. parsimony and simplicity – uncomplicated; minimal complexity and few

assumptions

141
 4. comprehensiveness – covering completely or broadly; covering the areas of

interest related to computer-based instruction and adults

5. operationality – precise enough to be testable and measurable

6. empirical validity or verifiability – able to be confirmed or substantiated;

experiments and experience that confirm or disconfirm the theory generate new

knowledge

7. fruitfulness – predictions are made that can be tested and lead to the development

of new knowledge; development of new knowledge is considered fruitful

8. practicality – provides a conceptual framework for practice

Using the construct analysis table list of authors, the authors were sorted in

alphabetical order for first author, second author, third author and fourth author. From the

sorting, the researcher-theorist was able to determine the number of articles that each of the

authors had written. Researchers must have authored at least two articles to be included in

the list of potential scholarly evaluators. This information can be found in Table 2, Authors

Based on Number of Articles in Construct Analysis in Chapter 3. Thirty-four authors were

identified as having written at least two articles for this study. Twenty-six were contacted

and ask to evaluate “A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” The

rest of the scholars could not be located.

Since scholars of CBI are not expected to be experts in the theory building process, a

scholar with knowledge of Dubin’s Theory Building Research Method was needed to

evaluate the theory from the theory building method perspective. Also, CBI is often

promoted as self-directed learning and the knowledge of an expert in this area would provide

the appropriate evaluation of the theory from this perspective. Therefore, two additional

142
scholars, one in the area of theory building and one in the area of self-directed learning, were

asked to evaluate the theory based on their knowledge in their particular area of expertise.

The number of scholars that agreed to participate in the evaluation of the theory is found in

Table 3 in Chapter 3. The scholars that participated in the external theory evaluation process

were Dr. David Ayersman, Dr. Sharon Confessore, Dr. Steven Crooks, Dr. Susan Gray, Dr.

Greg Kearsley, and Dr. George Marcoulides.

The scholars were sent a letter asking them to participate in the evaluation process. In

the initial contact, they were also sent a list of questions and advised of the telephone

interview. Those that agreed to participate were sent an email providing the time and date of

the telephone interview that was prearranged after their agreement to participate. Scholars

were also sent an evaluation package (Appendix D) that contained instructions for the

evaluation process, an explanation of the criteria for evaluating the theory, questions to guide

the telephone interview with a rating table, and the initial theory (Chapter 4).

Analyze and Synthesize Feedback

Six scholars evaluated “A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction for

Adults.” Each scholar was asked to rate the eight criteria for evaluating theory developed by

Patterson (1986) on a scale of one to five, with one being very low and five being very high,

and provide comments about the theory pertaining to the criterion being rated. A ninth

question provided the evaluators an opportunity to provide any additional comments related

to the theory. Five of the scholars comments were tape recorded and transcribed onto the

evaluation form found in Appendix B. One scholar submitted his rating and comments on

the evaluation form found in Appendix B. A summary of the ratings are found in Table 5.

143
 The first criterion rated by the scholars was on the importance of “A Theory of

Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Patterson (1986) defines importance as

“a quality or aspect of having great worth or significance” (p. xx). One scholar rated the

importance as low, four scholars rated the importance as high, and one rated the importance

as very high. The scholar that rated this criterion low commented that while the theory

summarized and synthesized old research, it did not provide new explanations or predictions

about computer- based learning. The researcher-theorist disagreed with the scholar’s

Table 5: Summary of Scholarly Rating of Criteria for Evaluating Theory

Rating Criteria 1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
1 Importance/Significance 1 4 1
2 Precision and Clarity 2 3 1
3 Parsimony or Simplicity 3 2 1
4 Comprehensiveness 2 2 2
5 Operationality 1 1 3 1
6 Empirical Validity 2 2 2
7 Fruitfulness 1 3 2
8 Practicality 3 2 1

comments based on the feedback from the other scholars which suggested that the

summarized and synthesized research provided a comprehensive look at the many attributes

that impact computer-based instruction for adults and provided a beginning framework for

which research can be developed. The majority of the scholars found the theory important.

To summarize their comments, the theory provides a framework for testing, and when proven

the importance will become self-evident.

The second criterion rated by the scholars was the preciseness and clarity of “A

Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Preciseness and clarity have to

144
do with how clear and understandable the theory is. “A theory should be understandable,

internally consistent, and free from ambiguities” (Patterson, 1986, p. xx). Two scholars

rated precision and clarity as moderate, three rated precision and clarity as high, and one

rated precision and clarity as very high. One of the scholars that rated this criterion as

moderate suggested that a summary would make the theory more clear and precise. The

other scholar that rated this criterion as moderate suggested that some of the concepts overlap

but she was unable to provide specific examples. Upon review of the concepts, the

researcher-theorist did not find overlapping constructs and, since the scholar was not able to

provide specific information and none of the other scholars suggested such overlapping, the

concepts were not changed. A synthesis of the scholar’s comments suggests that a summary

of the theory would incorporate the conceptual model in narrative. This summary is found in

Chapter 5. One scholar found that the theory contained both descriptive and prescriptive

theories but was not sure of the purpose of the theory. When discussing instructional design

theory, there are both prescriptive and descriptive theories that are included. The purpose of

developing “A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults” is to predict or

explain why computer-based instruction for adults is effective and provide a framework for

empirical research.

The third criterion rated by the scholars was the parsimony or simplicity of “A

Theory of Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Parsimony means that a theory contains

a minimum of complexity, is economically constructed with a limited number of concepts,

and contains few assumptions. Three scholars rated parsimony or simplicity as moderate,

two scholars rated parsimony or simplicity as high, and one scholar rate parsimony or

simplicity as very high. The scholars recognized the challenge of the theory having

145
parsimony yet including all the units and relationships. One scholar that rated this criterion

as moderate wondered if all the units made the theory stronger or more robust. The

researcher-theorist reviewed the theory and was unable to remove any of the units from the

theory. One scholar suggested that having a moderate rating in this criterion was not

necessarily a bad thing. The more parsimonious the theory, the more of a risk you run in

losing some explanatory value. Comments of the third scholar that rated this criterion as

moderate were related to relationships of units in the model. The researcher-theorist

disagreed with the scholar’s comments for additional relationships between units based on

the research reviewed.

The fourth criterion rated by the scholars was the comprehensiveness of “A Theory of

Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” A theory is comprehensive if it

completely covers the area of interest and includes all known data in the field. Two scholars

rated comprehensiveness moderate, two scholars rated comprehensiveness high, and two

scholars rated comprehensiveness very high. The two scholars that rated comprehensiveness

as moderate provided additional reference sources. Some of the information obtained from

these additional references that add value to the theory was incorporated into the theory. The

other scholars commented that it was quite comprehensive and focused on a particular aspect

of reality. One scholar suggested that CBI be defined as a range. For purposes of this study,

CBI is defined as the delivery of instructional content by means of the computer to achieve

learning goals through desired learning outcomes. The computer may or may not require a

computer connection to the network and does not typically provide links to learning

resources.

146
 The fifth criterion that was rated by the scholars was the operationality of “A Theory

of Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” A theory should be capable of being

reduced to procedures for testing its propositions or predictions. Patterson (1986) points out

that not all concepts of a theory need to be operationalized; concepts may be used to indicate

relationships and organization among concepts. One scholar rated operationality low, one

scholar rated operationality moderate, three scholars rated operationality high, and one

scholar rated operationality very high. The scholar that rated this criterion as low found that

the laws of interaction could be stated in a form that could be operationally tested or applied

easily. However, the implications of the system states for the design and delivery of CBI

needed to be elaborated. Because the theory has not been validated, this was not attempted

by the researcher-theorist. Once validated, the system states of the theory would provide a

helpful guide. The scholar that rated operationality moderate suggested more precision with

definitions or more specificity of some of the aspects of the components of the theory related

to self-directedness. In researching the definition of self-directedness the researcher-theorist

found that there were a number of definitions to choose from. Straka (2000) reported that

Carré had discovered well over 20 different terms for self-directed learning while Hiemstra

had found over 200. To provide a definition that would please all scholars in this field would

be somewhat unlikely. The definition for self-directedness was not changed.

The sixth criterion that was rated by the scholars was the potential of the empirical

validity that could be derived by converting the propositions developed for “A Theory of

Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults” into empirical indicators. The empirical

indicators are translated into hypotheses, which are confirmed or disconfirmed by empirical

research. Two scholars rated empirical validity as low, two scholars rated empirical validity

147
as high, and two scholars rated empirical validity as very high. The two scholars that rated

this criterion as low were concerned with measuring of the constructs. The likelihood of

finding or conducting research that includes each of these constructs is doubtful in

Ayersman’s opinion. Conducting research that includes all the units of the theory would be a

challenge and would require additional instruments being developed and validated to

measure some of the constructs. The comments from the scholarly evaluators ran from

“don’t see it” to “there is a world of potential here.” Since the propositions were not

provided with the theory, some of the scholars were unable to see the potential. However,

more of the scholars were able to see the potential than not. No changes were made to the

theory because developing the empirical indicators were not part of this study.

The seventh criterion rated by the scholars was the fruitfulness of “A Theory of

Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” The capacity of a theory to lead to

predictions that can be tested and lead to the development of new knowledge is referred to as

its fruitfulness. The hypotheses or predictions are based on the theory’s propositions. The

propositions contribute to the fruitfulness of the theory and are tested through empirical

research. One scholar rated fruitfulness as low, three scholars rated fruitfulness high, and

two scholars rated fruitfulness very high. The scholar that rated this criterion as low

suggested that the hypotheses be put in a more operational form. Since the propositions were

not provided, this scholar referred to the laws of interaction as hypotheses. The laws of

interaction only provide for relationships and not the development of hypotheses. The

researcher-theorist agreed with the scholar that the laws of interaction that he referred to as

hypotheses were not in the appropriate form for testing. The hypotheses for testing were not

148
part of this study. The scholars found that the theory focused research efforts and provided a

systematic layout.

The eighth and final criterion that was rated by the scholars was the practicality of “A

Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” A theory is practical if it is

useful to researchers and practitioners in organizing their thinking and practice by providing

a conceptual framework for practice. A theory allows the practitioner to move beyond the

empirical level of trial-and-error application of techniques to the rational application of

principles. Three of the scholars rated practicality as moderate, two scholars rated

practicality as high, and one scholar rate practicality as very high. One of the scholars that

rated this criterion moderate suggested the theory as a useful guide, but indicated that the

rigor would be incredible and impractical because the thoroughness required would be quite

time consuming. Another of the scholars that rated this criterion moderate expressed a need

to see a recipe for practitioners developed from the theory included for practicality, while

others could see it as a guide or framework for the practitioner. The third scholar that rated

this criterion as moderate suggested that the system states could be useful for organizational

planning if the implications of the different system states for making decisions about design

and delivery were explained. Because the theory has not been validated, this was not

attempted by the researcher-theorist. Once validated, this would provide a helpful guide.

There is nothing as practical as good theory (Lewin, 1951). After validation of the theory,

the prescription for practitioners should be derived.

149
 Theory Modification

Based on the evaluations by the scholars, no changes were made to the theory.

However, additional research literature was reviewed that would add to the support and

research foundation of the theory.

Self-Directedness

Carré (2000) suggested that every professional trainer knows that the typical adult

learner comes to the learning/training scene with a combination of motivation, educational

habit, and self-image that predisposes them whether or not to learn. The concept of intention

is at the core of efficient adult learning. Intentional learning can be defined as the voluntary

search for knowledge, skills or attitudes of lasting value. When learning is intentional, the

dynamics of educational engagement are mediated by a favorable motivational set, as

opposed to the case of unintentional or compulsory learning situations, when the voluntary

learning processes (attention, cognitive organization, metacognition) may or may not be

involved, depending on the individual relationship to the context, thus resulting in hazardous

learning outcomes (Carré, 2000).

The notions of will or intention to learn belong to the conceptual realm of motivation.

A review of motivation in adult training established the importance of motivation in the

learning process (Carré, 1998 cited in Carré, 2000). Specifically, motivation plays a central,

although indirect, part in the learning process by: fostering motives which provide goals to

the learning endeavor; focusing attention to processes, which favor short-term memorizing;

allowing long-term memory work by facilitating cognitive organization; favoring deep-

level/conceptual treatment of information; and promoting metacognitive learning strategies.

Motivation plays a major role in the efficiency of adult learning efforts.

150
 If the dominant characteristic of self-direction in learning is affiliated with the realm

of psychological control (Long, 1989), a distinction can be made between intentional and

self-directed learning. Self-direction demands two specific characteristics (Carré, Moisan, &

Poisson, 1997 cited in Carré, 2000): proactivity and metacognitive competence. Proactivity

is defined as the ability to initiate action and maintain active control. Metacognitive

competence is the ability to reflect on the learning experience and improve the processes of

learning. Carré (2000) suggested that intentional and self-directed learning appear closely

related. Self-directed learning is necessarily intentional. Beyond intention, self-direction in

learning requires proactivity and metacognitive competence. Beyond psychological control,

self-directed learning benefits from pedagogical and organizational control.

Attention is drawn to the difference made between self and other-directed learning

(Candy, 1991). Learning is other directed when what is learned and how it is to be learned is

given from outside. Whether a learner keeps to this is another matter. Only the person doing

the learning can determine whether or to what extent their experiences are internalized and

realize the learning activities as self-directed (Straka, 2000). However, with reference to

empirical research results, conditions may be provided to make self-directed learning more

probable. On one hand this depends upon a person’s internal conditions, especially his

concept of himself, his knowledge, abilities, motives, interests, emotional dispositions, etc.

Otherwise, the environmental conditions may be arranged to trigger the experience of

competence, autonomy, and social relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Straka, 1997 cited in

Straka, 2000).

151
Self-Directedness and CBI Design

Long (1988) suggested that self-direction in learning might be a better term than self-

directed learning as the former is more amenable to the concept of degrees. It is easier to

think of self-directed learning as being present or absent, while self-direction may be easier

thought of as existing in varying degrees or levels.

Long (1989) suggested that adult self-directed learning has three conceptual

dimensions: sociological, pedagogical, and psychological. The most popular usage of the

term self-directed learning applies to the sociological dimension. As a consequence self-

directed learning is equated with independent learning. Independent learning has two

dimensions: (1) physical separation or isolation of the learner and (2) interpersonal power.

The primary use of the sociological dimension is defined as learning that occurs in isolation,

such as correspondence study and computer-based instruction. The second dimension,

interpersonal power of the independent learner, is an autonomous learner for whom the

parameters and learning activities are personally established. Both of these ideas tend to

stress possible solitary behavior (Long, 1989) and ignore pedagogical distinctiveness and

psychological implications.

The second concept of self-directed learning is focused on the pedagogical model.

The degree to which learning is self-directed is determined by the freedom given the learner

to set learning goals, identify and use resources, determine the effort and time allocated to

learning, and decide how and what kind of evaluation of learning will take place. This

concept does not require sociological isolation or autonomy of the learner.

The third concept is the psychological dimension. Long (1989) suggests that the

critical dimension in self-directed learning is the psychological variable, “the degree to which

152
the learner, or the self, maintains active control of the learning process” (p. 3). Psychological

control is the cause for self-directed learning. Autonomous learning as studied by Tough

(1967) contained the greatest likelihood for psychological self-direction, in contrast with

pedagogical direction. Pedagogical self-directed learning emerges from the interaction of

psychological control and pedagogical control. When each of the forms of control is equal or

when psychological control exceeds pedagogical control the situation can be described as a

self-directed learning condition. When pedagogical control is excessive, the learner’s

psychological control is limited, and learning becomes other-directed (Long, 1989).

Emphasis on pedagogical procedures to the neglect of psychological process is a dead-end

approach to studying self-direction in learning. Self-directed learning occurs only when the

learner primarily controls the learning or cognitive processes.

Long (1989) pointed out that “the critical dimension in self-directed learning is not

the sociological variable, nor is it the pedagogical factor. The main distinction is the

psychological variable, which is the degree to which the learner or the self maintains active

control of the learning process” (p. 3).

Long (1989) developed a theoretical framework that demonstrates the differing

degrees of pedagogical and psychological influence in self-directed learning of adults

involved in group activities. In Long’s model, he placed psychological control on the

vertical axis and pedagogical control on the horizontal axis. The model consisted of four

quadrates. In Quadrate I, the learner has high psychological control and the teacher uses low

pedagogical control techniques. In Quadrate II, a condition of high psychological control

and high pedagogical control exists. Quadrate III represents a condition of high pedagogical

control and low psychological control. A situation distinguished by low pedagogical and low

153
psychological control is found in Quadrate IV. Long suggested that self-direction in learning

is highest in Quadrate I and lowest in Quadrate III. In Quadrates I and III the psychological

preference of the learner is matched with a non-threatening pedagogical structure. In

Quadrates II and IV a mismatch exists and the learner is subject to threat and anxiety. In the

situation represented by Quadrate II, the learner’s psychological strength will be an asset,

while in Quadrate IV the learner’s relatively weak psychological strength will interact

negatively with the relative absence of pedagogical structure.

Self-Directedness and External Support

Spear and Mocker (1984) derived the concept of the “Organizing Circumstance”

which postulates that self-directed learners, rather than preplanning their learning projects,

tend to select a course from limited alternatives within their environment that structures their

learning project. They defined circumstance as a subjective concept, which gives meaning to

the individual’s environment, the reality that exists apart from or depends on concept or

perception.

Spear and Mocker (1984) found in their study that the expectation of the learner, the

individual’s inventory of skills and knowledge, and the resources present within the

environment were essential elements for understanding the self-directed learning process.

The specific circumstances that provide the organization for self-directed learning were as

varied as the learners and their respective settings. Each learner’s circumstances were unique

and the demographic characteristics appeared less important than the uniqueness of the

individual circumstances (Spear & Mocker, 1984). Four inferences were drawn from their

analysis:

154
 1. The impetus or triggering event for a learning project or episode is a result of a

change in life circumstances or is observed within the life space of the individual.

Life space is defined as the physical, social, and psychological environment in

which the individual lives and functions.

2. The changed circumstance tends to provide few resources or opportunities for

learning that are reasonable or attractive for the learner.

3. The structure, methods, resources and conditions for learning are provided or

dictated most frequently by the circumstances.

4. Learning sequences progress, not necessarily in linear fashion, but as the

circumstances created during one episode become the circumstances for the next

necessary and logical step.

Individuals bring to each episode or project their own motivation, aptitude, creativity,

energy, and tenacity. They may differ in their ability to identify alternative means for

learning present within the circumstance. However, this analysis suggested that the most

powerful determinants lie within the circumstance, which tends to structure or organize the

learning process.

The “Organizing Circumstance” focuses upon the structure and limits imposed upon

an activity by environment factors in the individual’s life space. The environment has

significant impact on human behavior, and to understand self-directed learning without

reference to environment ignores both important research and common sense (Spear, 1988).

Propositions

A proposition of a theoretical model is a truth statement about the model in operation

(Dubin, 1978). The propositions are grounded in the explanatory and predictive power

155
embedded in the theoretical framework constructed during the theory development process

(Lynham, 2002). The only criterion of consistency is that truth be established by reference to

only one system of logic for all the propositions set forth about the model (Dubin, 1978). It

is important to note that the propositions are not truth statements about aspects of the real

world that the theory represents (Torraco, 1994). One must convert the proposition

statements first into empirical indicators, and second then into hypotheses, and third test the

hypotheses through research to address the problem of matching the theory with the real

world (Torraco, 1994).

The proposition statements are predictions about the model in operation if the units,

laws of interaction, boundaries, and system states that characterize the model are known.

The propositions of a model are all the truth statements about the conjoined values of two or

more units whose relationship is expressed in the laws of interaction of the model. Dubin

(1978) noted that the model or theory is a synthetic product, being constructed logically and

intellectually by the theorist; therefore, the truth statements about the model are also

synthetic. This synthetic quality of the propositions does not imply empirical accuracy of the

propositions. Rather, the accuracy of a proposition is whether or not it follows logically from

the model.

Dubin (1978) highlighted three types of proposition statements. The first type of

proposition is about the values of a single unit being revealed in relation to the value of the

other units connected to the unit in question by a law of interaction (Lynham, 2002). The

second type of proposition “may be predictions about the continuity of a system state that in

turn involves a prediction about the conjoined values of all units in the system” (Dubin,

1978, p. 166). The third type of proposition is a “prediction about the oscillation of the

156
system from one state to another that again involves predictions about the values of all units

of the system as they pass over the boundary of one system state to another” (p. 166).

In specifying the propositions for a theory, there are three criteria for consideration by

the researcher-theorist, consistency, accuracy, and parsimony (Dubin, 1978; Lynham, 2002).

“The only criterion of consistency that propositions of a model need to meet is the criterion

that their truth be established by reference to only one system of logic for all the propositions

set forth about the model” (Dubin, 1978, p. 160). “The criterion of accuracy refers to

whether the propositions follow logically from the theoretical framework to which they

apply” (Lynham, 2002, p. 263). The criterion of parsimony refers to the selection of strategic

propositions (Dubin, 1978). “The strategic propositions point out where something notable is

happening to the values of one or more units” (p. 169). Therefore, it is not the job of the

researcher-theorist to identify all possible propositions of the theory, but to seek some

parsimony in the specification of propositions.

Nine propositions were specified for “A Theory of Effective Computer-Based

Instruction for Adults.” The nine proposition statements logically derived from the

theoretical framework are as follows:

Proposition 1: The level of learner self-directedness will be inversely related to the

external support desired.

Proposition 2: The level of learner computer self-efficacy will be inversely related to

the external support desired.

Proposition 3: The level of learner self-directedness will be inversely related to the

CBI design components of instructional control and instructional support.

157
 Proposition 4: The level of learner computer self-efficacy will be inversely related to

the CBI design components of instructional control and instructional support.

Proposition 5: The learning goal level is inversely related to instructional control and

instructional support in CBI design.

Proposition 6: The learning goal level directly influences the instructional strategy

design.

Proposition 7: The instructional strategy design directly influences screen design and

practice strategy in CBI design.

Proposition 8: The level of external support is inversely related to instructional

support and instructional control in CBI design.

Proposition 9: The effectiveness of CBI will be maximized when the levels of self-

directedness, computer self-efficacy, learning goal level, and external support are

incorporated in the CBI design.

From these propositions, one would convert the proposition statements first to

empirical indicators, and then into hypotheses, and then test the hypotheses through empirical

research to address the problem of matching the theory with the real world for which the

theory is intended to model.

158
 CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study presents a theory of critical components that impact the effectiveness of

computer-based instruction for adults. The theory was developed to provide a framework for

research to explain or predict effective learning by adults using a desktop computer. This

chapter summarizes the research questions findings, defines the limitations of the study,

provides a conclusion for the study, and suggests implications for future research and

practice.

Research Questions

In developing a theory of effective computer-based instruction for adults, five

objectives or research questions were answered using Dubin’s applied theory building

method. The development of the empirical indicators, step six, and the hypotheses, step

seven, of Dubin’s applied theory building method are not a part of this study. The

development of the empirical indicators and the hypotheses will be a part of the implications

for future empirical research. The eighth and final step, also not a part of this study, is the

empirical research which will be conducted to validate this theory.

Research Question 1: What are the Units or Variables of a Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults?

The units represent the properties of things whose interactions constitute the subject

matter or the phenomenon that the theory is all about. The units represent the concepts about

which the researcher is trying to make sense and are informed by literature and experience.

By translating these concepts to units, the researcher was able to identify the variables whose

interactions make up the subject matter of attention. The units enable the researcher-theorist

159
to answer the first objective of the study: What are the units of a theory of effective

computer-based instruction for adults?

There are seven units identified as critical components in a theory of computer-based

instruction for adults. The units are learning outcome, self-directedness, computer self-

efficacy, learning goal level, instructional strategy design, CBI design, and external support.

Learning outcome is defined as achieving learning goal level through appropriate instruction

delivered by means of a computer. Self-directedness is defined as an approach where

learners are motivated to assume personal responsibility and collaborative control of the

cognitive and contextual processes in constructing and confirming meaningful and

worthwhile learning outcomes (Garrison, 1997). Computer self-efficacy is defined as the

belief that one has about their capabilities to successfully engage in CBI. Learning goal level

is defined as the activities or performance required in the affective, cognitive, and/or

psychomotor learning domains that result in the desired learning outcome (Gagné et al.,

1992). Instructional strategy design is defined as elemental methods for determining and

sequencing content, and presenting content and decision-making related to the content and its

delivery. CBI design is defined as the programming of content and lesson design that

incorporates the individual differences of the learner to achieve learning goal level delivered

by means of the computer. External support is defined as providing for the needs of the

learner that are external to the CBI program but are required to promote the learning outcome

of CBI.

The conceptual model found in Figure 4 depicts the model as having input, process,

and output units. There are three input units: self-directedness, computer self-efficacy, and

learning goal level. The process units of the theory are instructional strategy

160
 Input Process Output

External Support

Self-Directedness
Support • Locus of Control
• Metacognitive Skills CBI Design
• Motivation to Learn
• Instructional Control
• Instructional Support
Computer Self-Efficacy
Learning
Outcome
• Screen Design
• Practice Strategy
Design

Instructional Strategy Design

Learning Goal Level • Organizational Strategy
• Delivery Strategy
• Management Strategy

Figure 4: A Conceptual Model of Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults

161
design, CBI design, and external support. External support is considered to be a process unit

because it requires the instructional designer to go back and forth between external support

and CBI design to make sure appropriate support is provided. Finally, the output unit of the

theory is learning outcome. These seven units and their interaction are the phenomenon that

the theory is all about.

Research Question 2: What are the Laws of Interaction of a Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults?

The second step in the theory building method was to clarify which the units of the

theory interact and relate to one another. The laws of interaction are statements by the

researcher-theorist of relationships between the units and how they are linked. The laws of

interaction do not necessarily indicate causality nor are they measured. The laws of

interaction show how changes in one or more of the units of the theory influence the

remaining units and enable the research-theorist to answer the second objective of the study:

What are the laws of interaction of a theory of effective computer-based instruction for

adults?

The input units of self-directedness, computer self-efficacy, and learning goal level

have an effect on the condition or development of the process units. The two process units,

external support and instructional strategy design, influence CBI design. The process unit of

CBI design influences the output unit of learning outcome. A major conclusion drawn from

this research is that change in one unit of the theory brings about subsequent changes in

another unit of the theory. The following laws of interaction are derived from the dynamic

relationships among the units:

162
 Law 1. The units of self-directedness, computer self-efficacy, learning goal level,

external support, instructional strategy design, and CBI design are required for the

output of the desired learning outcome.

Law 2. The units of self-directedness and computer self-efficacy influence external

support.

Law 3. The units of self-directedness, external support, computer self-efficacy,

instructional strategy design, and learning goal level influence CBI design.

Law 4. Self-directedness, computer self-efficacy, and learning goal level are inputs

into the process of CBI design.

Law 5. Learning goal level is input into the process of instructional strategy design.

Law 6. External support and CBI design-support have a 2-way relationship.

a. Strong external support will influence the amount of CBI design-support.

b. Strong CBI design-support will influence the amount of external support.

Law 7. Instructional strategy design precedes CBI design as processes that are

required for an output of the desired learning outcome.

Research Question 3: What are the Boundaries of a Theory of Effective Computer-

Based Instruction for Adults?

Determining the boundaries of the theory enables the researcher to set and clarify the

aspects of the real world that the theory is attempting to model. The boundaries of a theory

establish the real world limits of the theory and in so doing distinguish the theoretical domain

of the theory from aspects of the real world not addressed or explained by the theory. The

boundaries of a theory are important in that they enable the researcher-theorist to make clear

and explicit the portions of the world within which the theory is expected to hold.

163
 Dubin (1978) distinguished between a closed and open system. A closed system is

usually defined as one in which there is no exchange between the system and its

environment, while an open system is defined as a system where there is some kind of

exchange over the boundary between the domains through which the boundary extends. The

boundaries of a theory are determined not by empirical data but rather through the use of

logic.

There are two boundary conditions of “A Theory of Effective Computer-Based

Instruction for Adults.” The first boundary condition is a closed boundary and defined by the

distinction between adult and non-adult, where adult is defined as anyone 18 years of age or

older. The theory establishes the real world limits of the domain of adult. All humans are

either adult or non-adult.

A second boundary condition exists within the domain of adult. The theory applies to

CBI within the domain of adult. The units of the theory fit within the domain of CBI. There

exists an exchange over the boundary between the domain of adults and the domain of CBI.

The outcomes of CBI are varied depending on the adult. Therefore, the boundary condition

is an open boundary within the domain of adult.

Research Question 4: What are the System States of a Theory of Effective Computer-
Based Instruction for Adults?

A system state is a state of the system as a whole and represents a condition under

which the theory is operative (Dubin, 1978; Torraco, 1994, 1997, 2000). All units of the

system states are determinant and measurable and are distinctive for each state of the

theoretical system. Dubin (1976, 1978) defined a system state as a condition of the system

being modeled in which all the units of the system take on characteristic values that have

persistence through time, regardless of the length of the time interval. All units of the system

164
have values that are determinant, meaning they are measurable and distinctive for that state

of the system. In determining the system states of the theory, the researcher-theorist answers

the fourth objective of the study: What are the system states of a theory of effective

computer-based instruction for adults?

The conceptual model of the theory as seen in Figure 4 consists of two halves. The

upper support half consists of self-directedness, computer self-efficacy, external support, and

the components of instructional control and instruction support in the unit of CBI design.

The lower design half consists of learning goal level, instructional strategy design, and the

components of screen design and practice strategy in the unit of CBI design.

There are three system states that reflect different values and alignments that impact

learning outcomes. They are an effective system state, an ineffective system state, and a

moderately effective system state. Alignments of both the upper support half and the lower

design half of the model results in effective CBI. In an ineffective system state, the upper

support half and the lower design half of the model are not aligned. In the moderately

effective system state, there exist two possible alignments. The first alignment consists of a

strong support half with a weak design half of the model. The second alignment consists of a

weak support half with a strong design half of the model. In most cases of computer-based

instruction, the second alignment of weak support and strong design exists. For example,

when CBI is bought off the shelf, it is designed with strong CBI design for the components of

screen design and practice, good instructional strategy design, and the CBI design is

appropriate for the learning goal level. However, the units of self-directedness, computer

self-efficacy, and external support typically are not considered in the CBI design of

instructional control and support. Therefore, the units that make up the support half of the

165
model are not aligned and CBI is moderately effective because of the exclusion of the

alignment of critical components in the support half of the model.

Research Question 5: What are the Propositions of a Theory of Effective Computer-

Based Instruction for Adults?

A proposition of a theoretical model is a truth statement about the model in operation

(Dubin, 1978). The proposition statements are predictions about what is true in the operation

of the units, laws of interaction, boundaries, and system states that characterize the model.

The propositions are all the truth statements about the conjoined values of two or more units

whose relationship is expressed in the laws of interaction of the model. The propositions are

constructed logically and intellectually by the researcher-theorist. Because propositions can

be subjected to empirical testing, the theory also may be subjected to empirical testing

(Torraco, 2000). Propositions enable the researcher-theorist to make predictions about the

values of the units of the theoretical framework in the real world (Lynham, 2002). The

proposition statements were logically derived from the theoretical framework and enabled

the researcher-theorist to answer the fourth objective of the study: What are the propositions

of a theory of effective computer-based instruction for adults?

Proposition 1: The level of learner self-directedness will be inversely related to the

external support desired.

Proposition 2: The level of learner computer self-efficacy will be inversely related to

the external support desired.

Proposition 3: The level of learner self-directedness will be inversely related to the

CBI design components of instructional control and instructional support.

Proposition 4: The level of learner computer self-efficacy will be inversely related to

the CBI design components of instructional control and instructional support.

166
 Proposition 5: The learning goal level is inversely related to instructional control and

instructional support in CBI design.

Proposition 6: The learning goal level directly influences the instructional strategy

design.

Proposition 7: The instructional strategy design directly influences screen design and

practice strategy in CBI design.

Proposition 8: The level of external support is inversely related to instructional

support and instructional control in CBI design.

Proposition 9: The effectiveness of CBI will be maximized when the levels of self-

directedness, computer self-efficacy, learning goal level, and external support are

incorporated in the CBI design.

Limitations of Study

Readers of this research should be aware of the two limitations of this study. First, as

brought out in the evaluation of the theory by Dr. George Marcoulides, “there is no theory

that one can put on paper that proposally models the richness of reality” (Appendix B, p.

262). Anytime that you try to model reality some aspects will be excluded. Being able to

translate this theory into the real world in order to validate the theory is a limitation of this

theory.

Second, the researcher-theorist’s own logic and objectivity influenced the outcome of

this study. This theory was developed using Dubin’s theory building methodology. It is not

a theory as defined by Gioia and Pitre (1990, p. 587) of “a coherent description, explanation,

and representation of observed or experienced phenomena,” but it is a part of the theory

167
building research which “is the ongoing process of producing, confirming, applying, and

adapting theory” (Lynham, 2002, p. 222).

Conclusions

Why do some adults start CBI but never finish? Why do some adults complete CBI

without the desired learning outcome? Why hasn’t CBI become the most used learning

strategy for adults? This theory brings to the forefront some of the questions pondered by

CBI researchers and practitioners. Five key conclusions can be drawn from this study that

may help to answer these questions.

The first conclusion drawn is that characteristics of the adult learner play an

important role in the designing of CBI for adults. Clearly, there are unique characteristics of

adult learners that may significantly impact the design of CBI. The adult characteristics of

self-directedness and computer self-efficacy were found to be important when using CBI.

Adults possess different levels of self-directedness and computer self-efficacy and these

differences should be taken into consideration. Adults with lower levels of self-directedness

and computer self-efficacy would require more external support and program control of

instruction. Those with higher levels of self-directedness and computer self-efficacy require

less external support and more learner control of instruction. The component of instructional

control of CBI design is important for those adults with a high level of self-directedness.

When faced with program controlled CBI, they may become frustrated and not complete the

instruction. Even with high levels of self-directedness, program control is required for new

knowledge to ensure content is covered in a low learning goal level. If the level of self-

directedness and computer self-efficacy are not aligned with the level of external support, the

components of instructional control, and instructional support of CBI design, the adult

168
learner will not complete or obtain the desired learning outcome. CBI should be developed

to respond to these individual adult differences.

The second conclusion drawn from this theory is that learning goal level impacts the

instructional design strategy and the component of instructional control of CBI design. This

requires both the instructional designer and the instructional technologist to work together to

ensure an appropriate CBI design for the learning goal level. For lower learning goal levels,

CBI should be designed with more program control. The lower learning goal level is usually

new knowledge or a procedure that requires learning step by step. Adults tend to

demonstrate more anxiety when new material is to be learned. Therefore, program control

insures that the adult is exposed to all content in the proper order. On the other hand, higher

learning goal levels should be designed with learner control of instruction. The higher

learning goal levels foster the use of metacognitive skills possessed by the adult learner.

Adult learners like to share their knowledge, and a cooperative learning experience would be

beneficial at the higher learning goal level. The instructional designer should use

instructional design principles in developing the instructional strategy design unit. The

instructional design strategy should be developed to incorporate various activities that the

adults may be involved in for active learning using CBI.

A third key conclusion of this study is that external and instructional support are

extremely important. While the literature hints at the importance of external and instruction

support, there is very little research in this area. Most research in instructional support is

primarily in instructional feedback. External support and instructional support in CBI design

helps to develop the attributes of self-directedness and computer self-efficacy in adults. One

way to help adults improve their self-directedness or computer self-efficacy is to provide

169
positive experiences. By providing external support, adults receive encouragement and have

opportunities for positive experiences. This may be in the form of allowing the adult learner

to engage in CBI during working hours, providing a computer lab with the appropriate

hardware and software for CBI, praise for the adult learner’s participation in the CBI, or a

peer providing positive feedback about the experience. If adults are frustrated because

external support is not available to answer their questions or provide assistance, the

experience becomes negative and they are not likely to engage in CBI again. The facilitator

and the organization that is sponsoring the CBI should make available the external support

that the adult learner needs.

Instructional support in CBI is a component of the CBI design unit in the support half

of the model. Feedback is one way of providing instructional support. This support should

be delivered in small doses with the opportunity to obtain more information if needed. This

requires learner control for feedback to be a part of the CBI design. This is not to say that the

adult learner would have complete learner control of the entire program. By giving the adult

learner some control of their learning they will develop additional skills and have positive

experiences that will improve their level of self-directedness and computer self-efficacy.

When the adult learner can find the support they need, their computer self-efficacy level

should improve.

A fourth conclusion drawn from this study is that CBI design is interwoven with the

units of self-directedness, computer self-efficacy, learning goal level, instructional design

strategy, and external support. This is not a simple relationship. Using software that

converts face-to-face instruction to CBI is only part of the elements to be considered in

developing effective CBI. It is important to note that successful CBI must consider the

170
alignment of each of the units of this theory to be effective. The support half of the model is

equally as important as the design half of the model in designing effective CBI. Not only are

all units required, but they must be matched to provide appropriate levels of each unit to

achieve the desired learning outcomes. If both self-directedness and computer self-efficacy

are at a low level, then both external support and the support part of CBI design must be at a

high level for the support level to be aligned. Likewise, if the learning goal level is low and

the instructional strategy design is appropriate for the learning outcome, CBI design must be

aligned with the support half of the model to be effective. There are many combinations of

aligning the support half with the design half, but no matter what the combination, there must

be a match for effective CBI.

Finally, this theory draws together the isolated variables that researchers have

considered important in the adult learning process and aligns them to provide for effective

CBI. This study provides a theoretical relationship and interaction between the variables.

Many of these variables have been suspected as being important to CBI but have not been

presented in a comprehensive, systematic manner. Many researchers have looked at these

variables individually and identified small sets of variables as necessary components in CBI.

However, few have attempted to develop a theory that incorporates so many variables

because of the complexity of adults and CBI. This theory provides a framework for research

and, when validated, will provide a guide for the practitioner.

As technology continues to advance in this information age, the use of computers for

individualized instruction becomes more affordable. Computers that can respond to the

individual’s response truly provide for individualized instruction. As additional knowledge

and skills continue to be needed by the adult population to enhance their job situation or

171
provide for educational growth, the use of computers will continue to increase for training

and education. The need for a framework upon which to develop effective computer-based

instruction has become more evident. “A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction

for Adults” provides the framework to drive research and provide guidelines for practice.

Implications for Future Research

There are three major implications for future research provided by this study:

developing and refining empirical indicators, developing and testing hypotheses, and

designing empirical research.

Developing and refining empirical indicators is the first major implication for future

research. Research, which follows Dubin’s (1978) methodology for theory building and is

intended to match the theory with the real world, begins by converting the propositions of the

theory into hypotheses that can be tested through empirical research. This is done by

operationally defining key concepts of the theory with enough precision that each concept

can be measured (Torraco, 1994). Dubin (1978) refers to the specification of procedures for

measuring key concepts as producing the empirical indicators. An empirical indicator is an

operation employed by a researcher to secure measurement of values of the unit. The

empirical indicators are a translation of the theory’s propositions into measurable statements.

The researcher-theorist would begin the empirical research by determining the empirical

indicators.

There are several instruments that have already been developed that could be used to

measure units of the theory. In measuring self-directedness, two different instruments were

found: Guglielmino’s Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS) (Guglielmino,

1977) and Oddi’s Continuing Learning Inventory (OCLI) (Oddi, 1986). Instruments for

172
providing a measurement for the component parts of self-directedness were also found. For

the component of locus of control, there is Rotter’s (1966) Internal-External LOC, which

provides a locus of control continuum and the Nowicki-Strickland Adult Internal-External

Survey (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973). Lawler’s Motivation Potential Score (1981) provides

a measurement for the motivation to learn. The metacognitive component could be measured

by the adult’s ability to solve problems. This measurement would be a continuum from low

metacognitive abilities to high metacognitive abilities. A specific instrument for measuring

metacognitive skill was not found by the researcher-theorist. Therefore, a Likert scale

instrument could be development to measure the metacognitive abilities.

In measuring the computer self-efficacy unit, there are several instruments that the

researcher may consider: Computer Attitude Scale (Loyd & Gressard, 1984), Computer

Competence Instrument (Martinez, 1988), Computer Anxiety Scale (Marcoulides, Rosen, &

Sears, 1985), and Computer Self-Efficacy Instrument (Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Compeau,

Higgins, & Huff, 1999). A Personal Computer Competency Instrument (PCCI) was

developed by Bersch (1990) in her dissertation and used by Barrett (1991) in her dissertation.

A factor analysis of these measurements may be required to determine the correlation

between the variables and overlapping of instruments.

The unit of learning goal level can be measured using the taxonomy of the affective,

cognitive, or psychomotor domains. This measurement could be assigned a number

depending upon the learning goal level to be obtained. For instance, if CBI is used for a

learning goal of application then a number of three could be assigned as a learning goal level.

No instrument was found that would measure the unit of external support. Therefore,

the researcher would need to address the measurement of this variable. A survey of adults

173
could be conducted to determine what adults look for in the area of support from their family,

peers, supervisor, technical support, organization, etc. Then a measurement instrument could

be developed using a Likert scale to determine levels of support that could be used in

empirical research.

The unit of CBI design is made up of screen design, practice, instructional control,

and instructional support. The different levels of each component could provide a

measurement of this unit. Some possible considerations for this unit would be learner

controlled or program controlled practice and feedback. The screen design could provide for

full or lean text with options for additional information. There are a number of possibilities

that could be considered with this unit. Holding certain components of this unit constant may

be a consideration for a quasi-experimental design.

An instrument was not found that would measure the instructional strategy design

unit. To measure this unit may require that it either follows or does not follow appropriate

instructional design principles. Holding this unit constant may be a consideration for a quasi-

experimental design.

The learning outcome unit will be the dependent variable. One would need to know

what is to be learned before an instrument could be developed to measure this unit. This

instrument would be developed during the CBI instructional design process.

The second major implication for future research is the development and testing of

the hypotheses. Once the empirical indicators are determined or developed, the next step

would be to convert the propositions into hypotheses. The hypotheses convert the

propositions into testable hypotheses using the empirical indicators as variables in the

hypothesis statements. They predict what will be true in the real world if the phenomena of

174
interest behave according to the theory. Hypotheses derived from theory are known as

deductive hypotheses. They drive the research process, which is ultimately intended to

produce data to either support or disconfirm the theory.

Dubin (1978) used the concept of “perpetual theory building” (p. 220) to indicate that

one is never done with theory building. The notion of ongoing theory building, of ongoing

refinement of the theory is based on the results of research and testing and the use of those

results to further inform and continually develop and improve the theory (Lynham, 2002).

For example, beginning with proposition 1, the researcher would deduct the following

research hypothesis: Hypothesis 1: The adult learner’s self-directedness as measured by the

Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS) is inversely related to the amount of

external support as measured by the External Support Scale for effective CBI. This research

hypothesis needs to be converted into a null hypothesis in order to be tested by statistical

procedures. The null hypothesis would be: There is no relationship between self-

directedness as measured by the SDLRS and external support as measured by the External

Support Scale for effective CBI.

The third major implication for future research is the need for design of empirical

research studies. In designing empirical research studies to validate this theory, there are a

number of different research designs that could be employed. It will take a numerous studies

to fully validate the theory. One approach is to design quasi-experimental studies focusing

on subsets of the variables. For example, the researcher could focus on the relationship

between certain support variables. The dependent variable would be the learning outcomes,

which would be determined by a posttest. The researcher would need two groups of adults

that had signed up for CBI. Both groups would be given an instrument that would measure

175
their self-directedness and computer self-efficacy. The treatment for group one would be to

provide external support and group two would not receive any external support during CBI,

including not being able to ask anyone else in the group for help. All other variables such as

learning goal level, instructional strategy design, and CBI design would be held constant. If

the theory is valid, differences in learning outcomes should be found.

Another approach for examining these seven variables would be to use structural

equation modeling (SEM) in a non-experimental design. Structural equation modeling

provides a straight forward method of dealing with multiple relationships simultaneously

while providing statistical efficiency, assessing the relationships comprehensively, and

providing a transition from exploratory to confirmatory analysis (Hair et al., 1998). For this

theory, the confirmatory modeling strategy is the most direct application of SEM. The

researcher would take the conceptual model in Figure 4 and use SEM to assess its statistical

significance. Hair et al. (1998) identified seven stages in SEM: (1) develop a theoretically

based model, (2) construct a path diagram of causal relationships, (3) convert the path

diagram into a set of structural and measurement models, (4) choose the input matrix type

and estimate the proposed model, (5) assess the identification of the structural model, (6)

evaluate the goodness-of-fit criteria, and (7) interpret and modify the model, if theoretically

justified. In this study the theoretical model has been developed. The other five steps would

need to be followed. The researcher would begin by developing a precise path diagram,

which would represent predictive and associative relationships or correlations among the

constructs. The path diagrams are defined in terms of the construct and the researcher would

use the empirical indicator variables to measure each construct. For instance, the constructs

of self-directedness and external support may be shown with a curved arrow joining each to

176
represent a correlation between the two independent constructs, and a straight arrow from

each of these constructs pointing to the construct of CBI design, the dependent variable. The

path diagrams would be translated into structural equations and the remaining steps of the

SEM would be followed. After completion of the sixth step, the goodness-of-fit criteria

would be used to assess the validity of the path model and determine whether or not to

modify the model.

Some of the implications for future research are found in the comments made by the

scholarly evaluators. Dr. George Marcoulides had this to say about the theory: “The

originality of the theory, I think clearly in the literature that I know of, no one has ever really

brought to fruition all the various aspects of the design and the various processing steps that

occurred. And so I see this as a very unique and comprehensive attempt to look at CBI not

only for adults. I know you talked about adults but I think all CBI” (Appendix B, p. 264).

Dr. Steven Crooks commented, “I was thinking as I was going through that my students

probably ought to read this to generate ideas for research” (Appendix B, p. 247).

Implications for Practice

What does this theory provide for the practitioner? Without empirical validation, this

theory must be used cautiously by the practitioner. However, the potential is great and there

are limited uses that are appropriate even without validation. It gives the practitioner some

variables to consider when using CBI as a means of instruction. As practitioners, even

though they may not have had a theory to follow before, through their own experiences in

working with CBI they have seen what seems to work best for the adult learner. They may

have also wondered why the CBI had not worked on some occasions. This theory provides

the practitioner with other variables to consider when providing CBI for adults. Two aspects

177
of the theory offer particularly important implications for practitioners: the importance of

external support and the need for instructional control in CBI design to match the learning

goal level.

The first implication for practice is the importance of external support to have a

positive CBI experience. Most practitioners know that each adult learner has his or her own

reason for learning and that each adult learner is different. The practitioner realizes that there

are different levels of self-directedness and computer self-efficacy, they often overlook the

importance of external support to CBI. External support can make the difference between a

positive experience and negative experience for the learner. Practitioners know that negative

experiences with CBI will keep the adult from returning to the next CBI experience.

Therefore, creating a positive experience with CBI requires that external support be carefully

considered as part of CBI.

The second immediate implication for practice is the importance of the learning goal

level matching the level instructional control. The lower the learning goal level the more

program control is required. Why is this? The lower learning goal level is usually new

knowledge or a procedure that requires learning step by step. Adults tend to demonstrate

more anxiety when something new is to be learned. Therefore, program control would insure

that the adult is being exposed to all the content in the proper order. Many adults want to

control their own learning, which is part of their self-directedness. However, because not all

adults possess the level of metacognitive skills necessary to navigate through CBI, program

control is usually needed at the lower learning goal levels.

In situations when the learning goal level is high, learner control should be more

prevalent. If the adult learner is engaged in a higher level learning goal, they possess

178
metacognitive skills that allow them to navigate through CBI on their own. If not, then

external support becomes even more important. Adults like to share their knowledge with

peers, and in a high learning goal level, this provides a great opportunity for CBI cooperative

learning. These realizations may be helpful to the practitioners before the theory is validated.

One of the scholarly evaluators, Dr. Sharon Confessore, made the following

comments concerning the theory and its immediate implications for practice: “As I sat here

looking at this, I thought that this is interesting because we are in the middle of a massive

training program and we are going to include CBI. And I am looking at this thing and I am

thinking that it is really interesting as I think about my positions and where they are placed

on all of this. The factors that you have here are clearly the ones that we are asking about

from a theoretical perspective. My overall sense of what you have done here is that you have

done a very good piece of work and very interesting study“ (Appendix B, pp. 243-244).

The coming years will demand that learning occurs faster, in more diverse places,

across more cultural and national boundaries, and with more efficiency (Flanagan, 1999).

The real challenge is to find new ways to implement effective and efficient learning

technologies that deliver immediate, strategic, and influential results (Ruona et al., 2003).

This theory will provide a framework for more effective delivery of CBI for adults.

179
 REFERENCES

Ahern, T. C., & Repman, J. (1994). The effects of technology on online education.
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(4), 537-546.

Albright, R. C., & Post, P. E. (1993). The challenges of electronic learning. Training
& Development, 47(8), 27-29.

Allen, B. S., & Merrill, M. D. (1985). System-assigned strategies and CBI. Journal
of Educational Computing Research, 1(1), 3-21.

Allred, K. F., & Locatis, C. (1988). Research, instructional design, and new
technology. Journal of Instructional Development, 11(1), 2-5.

Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, memory, and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Anderson, R. C., & Archer, C. S. (1970). Imagery and sentence learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 62, 526-530.

Armstrong, M. (1996). Self-directed learning about computers and computers for

self-directed learning. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 17(3), 84-86.

Arthur, W., Jr., & Hart, D. (1990). Empirical relationships between cognitive ability
and computer familiarity. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23, 457-463.

Artzt, A. F., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1992). Development of a cognitive-

metacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problems solving in small
groups. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 137-175.

Aspillaga, M. (1991). Screen design: Location of information and its effects on

learning. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18(3), 89-92.

Astleitner, H., & Keller, J. M. (1995). A model for motivationally adaptive

computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27(3), 270-
280.

Avner, A., Moore, C., & Smith, S. (1980). Active external control: A basis for
superiority of CBI. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 6(4), 115-118.

Ayersman, D. J. (1996). Reviewing the research on hypermedia-based learning.

Journal of Reseach on Computing in Education, 28(4), 500-525.

180
 Ayersman, D. J., & Reed, W. M. (1995-96). Effects of learning styles, programming,
and gender on computer anxiety. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(2),
148-161.

Baack, S. A., Brown, T. S., & Brown, J. T. (1991). Attitudes toward computers:
Views of older adults compared with those of young adults. Journal of Reseach on
Computing in Education, 23(3), 422-433.

Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation.

Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496-515.

Baird, W. E., & Silvern, S. B. (1992). Computer learning and appropriate testing: A
first step in validity assessment. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(1), 18-
27.

Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader.

Educational Psychology Review, 1, 3-38.

Bandura, A. (1976). Modeling theory. In W. S. Sahakian (Ed.), Learning: Systems,

models, and theories (2nd ed.). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American

Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive

theory. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and

functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.

Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C-L., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The
instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61, 213-
238.

Barab, S. A., Bowdish, B. E., & Lawless, K. A. (1997). Hypermedia navigation:

Profiles of hypermedia users. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3),
23-41.

Barrett, H. C. (1991). Adult self-directed learning, personal computer competency,

and learning styles: Models for more effective learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
The Fielding Institute, Santa Barbara, California.

181
 Bates, R. A., Holton, E. F., & Seyler, D. L. (1996). Principles of CBI design and the
adult learner: The need for further research. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 9(2), 3-24.

Batte, M. T., Fiske, J. R., & Taylor, R. D. (1986). Assessing the concept of computer
literacy: A case evaluation in the college of agriculture. Association for Educational Data
Systems Journal, 20(1), 255-269.

Beard, C. H. (1993). Transfer of computer skills from introductory computer courses.

Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(4), 413-430.

Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, R. M., & Perry, J. D. (1995). Theory into
practice: How do we link? In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional Technology: Past, present, and
future (2nd ed., pp. 100-112). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

Belland, J. C., Taylor, W. D., Canelos, J., Dwyer, F., & Baker, P. (1985). Is the self-
paced instructional program, via microcomputer-based instruction, the most effective method
of addressing individual learning differences? Educational Communication and Technology
Journal, 33(3), 185-198.

Bellezza, F. S. (1983). The spatial arrangement mnemonic. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 75, 830-837.

Benson, J. K. (1977). Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 22, 1-21.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York:
Anchor Books.

Berkowitz, M. S., & Szabo, M. (1979). Computer-based inquiry into scientific

problem solving. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 5(4), 79-85.

Bersch, G. T. (1990). Factors relating to the acquisition of competency in the use of

personal computers among adults in Alaska. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State
University, Tallahassee, FL.

Billings, D. M., & Cobb, K. L. (1992). Effects of learning style preferences, attitude
and GPA on learner achievement using computer assisted interactive videodisc instruction.
Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(1), 12-16.

Bliss, J. (1994). From mental models to modeling. In H. Mellar, J. Bliss, R. Boohan,

J. Ogborn, & C. Tompsett (Eds.), Learning with artificial worlds: computer based modeling
in the curriculum (pp. 27-32). London: Falmer.

182
 Bloom, B. S. (Ed.), Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., Krathwohl, D. R.
(1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals
(Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain). New York: David McKay Company, Inc.

Boettcher, E. G., Alderson, S. F., & Saccucci, M. S. (1981). A comparison of the

effects of computer-assisted instruction versus printed instruction on student learning in the
cognitive categories of knowledge and application. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction,
8(1), 13-17.

Bok, D. (1986). Higher education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bonner, J. (1982). Systematic lesson design for adult learners. Journal of

Instructional Development, 6(1), 34-42.

Bork, A. (1977). Learning through graphics. In R. J. Seidel, et al., (Eds.), Computers

and communications. New York: Academic Press.

Bosco, J., & Morrison, J. E. (2000). Contexts for training. In S. Tobias, & J. D.
Fletcher (Eds.), Training & retraining: A handbook for business, industry, government, and
the military (pp.25-50). New York: Macmillian Reference USA.

Bostrom, R. P., Olfman, L., Sein, M. K. (1990). The importance of learning style in
end-user training. MIS Quarterly, 14(1), 101-119.

Bovy, R. C. (1981). Successful instructional methods: A cognitive information

processing approach. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 29(4), 203-217.

Bowmen, B. J., Grupe, F. H., & Simkin, M. G. (1995). Teaching end-user

applications with computer-based training: Theory and an empirical investigation. Journal of
End User Computing, 7(2), 12-18.

Bransford, J. D. (1979). Human cognition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bratton-Jeffery, M. F. (1997). An information-processing model as a metacognitive

strategy: Its effects on performance in a military computer-based training environment.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama.

Breuer, K., & Kummer, R. (1990). Cognitive effects of process learning with
computer-based instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 6, 69-81.

Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1981). Handbook of procedures for the design of
instruction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

183
 Brock, D. B., & Sulsky, L. M. (1994). Attitudes toward computers: Construct
validation and relations to use. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 17-35.

Brown, B. L. (2000). Web-based training. ERIC Digest No. 218.

Brown, K. G. (2001). Using computers to deliver training: Which employees learn

and why? Personnel Psychology, 54(2), 271-296.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989a). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989b). Debating the situation: A rejoinder
to Palincsar and Winegurg. Educational Research, 18, 10-12, 62.

Brudenell, I., & Carpenter, C. S. (1990). Adult learning styles and attitudes toward
computer assisted instruction. The Journal of Nursing Education, 29(2), 79-83.

Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1). 21-
32.

Bruner, J. S. (1985). Models of the learner. Educational Researcher, 14(6), 5-8.

Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Buehner-Brent, L. J. (1990). Computer-based instruction: Effect of cognitive style,

instructional format, and subject-matter content on learning (AFHRL-TR 88-63, pp 1-30).
Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, Air Force Systems
Command.

Bunderson, V., & Inouye, D. K. (1987). The evaluation of computer-aided

educational delivery systems. In R. Gagné (Ed.), Instructional technology: Foundations (pp.
283-318). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Burge, E. (1994). Electronic highway or weaving loom? Thinking about conferencing

technologies for learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 377 814).

Burge, E. J., & Carter, N. M. (1997). It’s building, but is it designing? Constructing
Internet-based learning environments. Paper presented at the 18th World Conference of the
International Council for Distance Education, University Park, PA. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 412 333)

184
 Burge, E. J., & Roberts, J. M. (1993). Classrooms with a difference: A practical
guide to the use of conferencing technologies. Toronto: Distance Learning Office, Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education, ED 364 206.

Burger, K. (1985). Computer-assisted instruction: Learning style and academic

achievement. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 12(1), 21-22.

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational

analysis. London: Heinemann.

Busch, T. (1995). Gender differences in self-efficacy and attitudes toward computers.

Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(2), 147-158.

Byrd, D. M., & Koohang, A. A. (1989). A professional development question: Is

computer experience associated with subjects’ attitudes toward the perceived usefulness of
computers? Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 22, 401-410.

Cahoon, B. (1998). Teaching and learning Internet skills. In B. Cahoon (Ed.), Adult
learning and the Internet: No. 78. New directions for adult and continuing education (pp. 5-
13). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cambre, M. A., & Cook, D. L. (1985). Computer anxiety: Definition, measurement,

and correlates. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1(1), 37-54.

Campbell, N. J. (1992). Enrollment in computer courses by college students:

Computer proficiency, attitudes, and attributions. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 25(1), 61-74.

Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Carlson, H. L. (1991). Learning style and program design in interactive multimedia.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 41-48.

Carlson, R. D., & Grabowski, B. L. (1992). The effects of computer self-efficacy on

direction-following behavior in computer assisted instruction. Journal of Computer-Based
Instruction, 19(1), 6-11.

Carlson, R. E., & Wright, D. G. (1993). Computer anxiety and communication

apprehension: Relationship and introductory college course effects. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 9(3), 329-338.

Carré, P. (2000). From intentional to self-directed learning. In G. A. Straka (Ed.),

Conceptions of self-directed learning: Theoretical and conceptional considerations (pp. 49-
57). Munster: Waxmann Verlag GmbH.

185
 Carrier, C. A. (1979). The role of learning characteristics in computer-based
instruction. National Society for Programmed Instruction Journal, 18(5), 22-25.

Carrier, C. A., & Sales, G. C. (1987). Pair versus individual work on the acquisition
of concepts in a computer-based instruction lesson. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction,
14, 11-17.

Caws, P. (1965). The philosophy of science, a systematic account. Princeton, NJ:

Van Nostrand.

Chalmers, P. A. (2000). User interface improvements in computer-assisted

instruction: The challenge. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(5), 507-517.

Chalofsky, N. E. (1998). Professionalization comes from theory and research: The

“why” instead of the “how-to”. In R. J. Torraco (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of
Human Resource Development Annual Conference (26-2). Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of
Human Resource Development.

Chau, P. Y. K. (2001). Influence of computer attitude and self-efficacy on IT usage

behavior. Journal of End User Computing, 13(1), 26.

Chipman, S. F., & Segal, J. W. (1985). Higher cognitive goals for education: An
introduction. In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, & R. Glaser, (Eds.), Thinking and learning
skills: Relating instruction to research (Vol. 1, pp. 1-19). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chisholm, I. M., Carey, J., & Hernandez, A. (2002). Information technology skills for
a pluralistic society: Is the playing field level? Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 35(1), 58-80.

Choi, J-I., & Hannafin, M. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments:
Roles, structures, and implications for design. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 43(2), 53-69.

Christensen, R. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of

teachers and students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 411-434.

Christie, J. M., & Just, M. A. (1976). Remembering the location and content of
sentences in a prose passage. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 702-710.

Christoph, R. T., Schoenfeld, G. A., & Tansky, J. W. (1998). Overcoming barriers to

training utilizing technology: The influence of self-efficacy factors on multimedia-based
training receptiveness. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9(1), 25-38.

186
 Chung, J. & Reigeluth, C. (1992). Instructional prescriptions for learner control.
Educational Technology, 32(10), 14-20.

Clariana, R. B. (1993). A review of multiple-try feedback in traditional and

computer-based instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(3), 67-74.

Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of

Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459.

Clark, R. E. (1984). Research on student thought processes during computer-based

instruction. Journal of Instructional Development, 7(3), 2-5.

Clark, R. E. (1985). Confounding in educational computing research. Journal of

Educational Computing Research, 1(2), 137-148.

Clarke, D. (1999). Getting results with distance education. The American Journal of
Distance Education, 12(1), 38-51.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (rev. ed.).
New York: Academic Press.

Cohen, B. P. (1991). Developing sociological knowledge: Theory and method (2nd

ed.). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Collet, L. S., & Shiffler, N. L. (1985). A computer simulation approach to teaching

research and evaluation skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1(3), 339-354.

Compeau, D. (2002). The role of trainer behavior in end user software training.
Journal of End User Computing, 14(1), 23-33.

Compeau, D., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a

measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189-211.

Compeau, D., Higgins, C. A., & Huff, S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and
individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23(2),
145-158.

Confessore, S. J., & Kops, W. J. (1998). Self-directed learning and the learning
organization: Examining the connection between the individual and the learning
environment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9(4), 365-375.

Conklin, D. N. (1983). A study of computer-assisted instruction in nursing education.

Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 9(3), 98-107.

187
 Cook, K. C. (2000). Online professional communication: Pedagogy, instructional
design, and student preference in internet-based distance education. Business
Communication Quarterly, 63(2), 106-110.

Courtney, S., Vasa, S., Luo, J., & Muggy, V. (1999). Characteristics of adults as
learners and implications for computer-based systems for information and instruction. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 451 340)

Cowen, M. (1991). The role of feedback in computer-based training. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, The Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, California.

Craig, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for

memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.

Crawford, A. M., & Crawford, K. S. (1978). Simulation of operational equipment

with a computer-based instructional system: A low cost training technology. Human Factors,
20(2), 215-224.

Crawford, A., & Suchan, J. (1996). Media selection in graduate education for Navy
medical officers (NPS-SM—96-003) Monterey, CA: Naval Post-Graduate School.

Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A

handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc.

Crooks, S. M., Klein, J. D., Jones, E. E. K., & Dwyer, H. (1996). Effects of
cooperative learning and learner-control modes in computer-based instruction. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 29(2), 109-123.

Cross, G. R. (1974). The psychology of learning: An introduction for students of

education. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press Ltd.

Crowder, N. A. (1962). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Programming. In J. E. Coulson (Ed.),

Proceedings of the Conference on Application of Digital Computers to Automated Instruction (p.
58-66). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Croy, M. J., Cook, J. R., & Green, M. G. (1993-94). Human-supplied versus computer-
supplied feedback: An empirical and pragmatic study. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 26(2), 185-204.

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom of technology since 1920.
New York: Teachers College Press.

Dalton, D. W. & Hannafin, M. J. (1987). The effects of knowledge-versus context-based

188
design strategies on information and application learning from interactive video. Journal of
Computer-Based Instruction, 14(4), 138-141.

Danis, C., & Trembaly, N. A. (1988). Autodidactic learning experiences: Questioning

established adult learning principles. In H. B. Long & Associates (Eds.), Self-directed learning:
Application & theory (pp. 171-197). Athens, GA: Adult Education Department of the
University of Georgia.

Dave, R. H. (1970). Psychomotor domain. In R. J. Armstrong (Ed.), Developing and

writing behavioral objectives (pp. 20-21). Tucson, AZ: Educational Innovators Press.

Davidson, G. V., Savenye, W. C., & Orr, K. B. (1992). How do learning styles relate to
performance in a computer applications course? Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 24(3), 348-358.

Davis, B. L., & Mount, M. K. (1984). Effectiveness of performance appraisal training

using computer assisted instruction and behavior modeling. Personnel Psychology, 37(3), 439-
452.

Davis, D. L., & Davis, D. F. (1990). The effect of training techniques and personal
characteristics on training end users of information systems. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 7(2), 93-110.

Dean, R. S., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1981). Influences on spatial organization in prose

learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 57-64.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Instrinsic motivation and self0determination in

human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

Delclos, V. R., & Hartman, A. (1993). The impact of an interactive multimedia system
on the quality of learning in educational psychology: An exploratory study. Journal of Research
on Computing in Education, 26(1), 83-93.

Delcourt, M. A., & Kinzie, M. B. (1993). Computer technologies in teacher education:

The measurement of attitudes and self-efficacy. Journal of Research and Development in
Education, 27, 35-41.

Dennis, V. E. (1979). The effect of display rate and memory support on correct
responses, trials, total instructional time and response latency in a computer-based learning
environment. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 6(2), 50-54.

Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review

of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control and style. Review of
Educational Research, 68(3), 322-349.

189
 Dixon, P. N., & Judd, W. A. (1977). A comparison of computer-managed instruction and
lecture mode for teaching basic statistics. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 4(1), 22-25.

Dossett, D. L., & Hulvershorn, P. (1983). Increasing technical training efficiency: Peer
training via computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 552-558.

Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building (Rev. ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Dubin, R. (1976). Theory building in applied areas. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook

of industrial and organizational psychology (pp.17-39), Chicago: Rand McNally College
Publishing Company.

Duffy, T. M. (1985). Literacy instruction in the military. Armed Forces & Society,
11(3), 437-467.

Duffy, T. M. (1990). What makes a difference in instruction? In T. G. Sticht, B.

McDonald, & M. Beeler (Eds.), The intergenerational transfer of cognitive skills. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.

Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design
and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational
communications and technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Duin, A. H. (1990). Computer documentation: Centering on the learner. Journal of

Computer-Based Instruction, 17(2), 73-78.

Eastmond, D. (1998). Adult learners and Internet-based distance education. In B.

Cahoon (Ed.), Adult learning and the Internet (pp. 33-41). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Edwards, D. M., & Hardman, L. (1989). Lost in hyperspace: Cognitive mapping and
navigation in hypertext environment. In R. McAleese (Ed.), Hypertext: Theory into practice (pp.
90-105). Exeter, England: Intellect Books.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of

Management Review, 14, 532-550.

Elder, V. B., Gardner, E. P., & Ruth, S. R. (1987). Gender and age in technostress:
effects on white collar productivity. Government Finance Review, 17-21.

Ertmer, P. A., Evenbeck, E., Cennamo, K. S., & Lehman, J. D. (1994). Enhancing self-
efficacy for computer technologies through the use of positive classroom experience.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(3), 45-62.

190
 Federico, P-A. (1982). Individual differences in cognitive characteristics and computer-
managed mastery learning. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 9(1), 10-18.

Federico, P-A. (1983). Changes in the cognitive components of achievement as students

proceed through computer-managed instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 9(4),
156-168.

Field, J. (1997). Passive or proactive? Adults learning, 8(6), 160-161.

Filipczak, B. (1997). CBT on the rise. Training , 34(12), 71-72.

Fink, A. (1998). Conducting research literature reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. J. (1967). Human performance. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Flanagan, R. J. (1999, June). Knowledge management in global organizations in the 21st

century. HR Magazine, 54-55.

Flavell, J. H. (1968). The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget. New York: D. Van
Nostrand Company.

Flavell, J. H. (1980). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive

developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.

Fletcher, J. D. (1999). What have we learned about intelligent tutoring systems and who
do we need to do next? Proceedings of the NASA Workshop on Advanced Training
Technologies and Learning Environments. NASA Langley Research Center, March 9-10,
Hampton, VA.

Fogarty, T. J., & Goldwater, P. M. (1993-94). Increasing student control through an

expert system: An academic accounting innovation and field test. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 26(2), 238-255.

Forester, J. (1983). Critical theory and organizational analysis. In G. Morgan (Ed.),

Beyond method: Strategies for social research (pp. 234-246). Beverly Hills, CA: Safe.

Forman, G., & Pufall, P. (Eds.). (1988). Constructivism in the computer age. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.

191
 Forsythe, A. B., & Freed, J. R. (1979). An evaluation of computer-aided instruction in
an introductory biostatistics course. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 5(3), 57-62.

Foss, D. G., & Harwood, D. A. (1975). Memory for sentences: Implications for human
associative memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 1-16.

Freitag, E. T., & Sullivan, H. J. (1995). Matching learner preference to amount of

instruction: An alternative form of learner control. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 43(2), 5-14.

Gagné, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston.

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

Gagné, R. M., & Beard, J. G. (1978). Assessment of learning outcomes. In R. Glaser

(Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 261-294). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Gagné, R., & Briggs, L. (1979). Principles of instructional design (2nd ed.). New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Gagné, R. M., & Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design
(4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Gall, J., & Hannafin, M. J. (1994). A framework for the study of hypertext.
Instructional Science, 22, 207-232.

Gardner H. (1985). The mind’s new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. New
York: Basic Books, Inc.

Garhart, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (1986). The accuracy of cognitive monitoring during
computer-based instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 13(3), 88-93.

Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult

Education Quarterly, 48, 18-33.

Gaynor, P. (1981). The effect of feedback delay on retention of computer-based

mathematical material. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 8(2), 28-34.

Geissler, J. E., & Horridge, P. (1993). University students’ computer knowledge and
commitment to learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25, 347-365.

192
 Gibbons, A. S., & Fairweather, P. G. (2000). Computer-based instruction. In S. Tobias
& J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Training & retraining: A handbook for business, industry, government,
and the military (pp. 410-442). New York: Macmillan Reference USA.

Gillingham, M. G. (1988). Text in computer-based instruction: What the research says.

Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15(1), 1-6.

Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy
of Management Review, 15(4), 584-602.

Gist, M. E., Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of alternative training methods
on self-efficacy and performance in computer software training. Journal of Applied Psychology,
74(6), 884-891.

Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational

Research, 5, 3-8.

Glaser, R. (1990). The emergence of learning theory within instructional research.

American Psychologist, 45, 29-39.

Gordon, I. J. (1968). Criteria for theories of instruction. Washington, D.C.: Association

for Supervision and Curriculum Development, N.E.A.

Grabe, M., Petros, T., & Sawler, B. (1989). An evaluation of computer assisted study in
controlled and free access settings. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16(3), 110-116.

Grabinger, R. S. (1993). Computer screen designs: Viewer judgments. Educational

Technology Research and Development, 41(2), 35-73.

Gray, S. H. (1987). The effect of sequence control on computer assisted learning. Journal
of Computer-Based Instruction, 14(2), 54-56.

Gray, S. H. (1988). Sequence control menus and CAI: A follow-up study. Journal of
Computer-Based Instruction, 15(2), 57-60.

Gray, S. H. (1989). The effect of locus of control and sequence control on computerized
information retrieval and retention. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(4), 459-471.

Grippin, P., & Peters, S. (1983). Learning theory and learning outcomes: The connection.
Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.

Grow, G. O. (1991). Teaching learners to be self-directed. Adult Education Quarterly,

41(3), 125-149.

193
 Guglielmino, L. M. (1977). Development of the self-directed learning readiness scale
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38,
6467A.

Guthrie, B. M., & McPherson, M. (1992). The efficacy of a customized approach to

computer assisted instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(3), 100-104.

Hage, J. (1972). Techniques and problems of theory construction in sociology. New

York: John Wiley.

Hair, Jr., J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hall, C. S., & Lindzey, G. (1970). Theories of personality (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

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.

Hannafin, M. J., & Carney, B. W. (1991). Effects of elaboration strategies on learning and
depth of processing during computer-based instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction,
18(3), 77-82.

Hannafin, M. J., & Hughes, C. W. (1986). A framework for incorporating orienting

activities in computer-based interactive video. Instructional Science, 15, 239-255.

Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., & Dalton, D. W. (1993). Feedback and emerging
instructional technologies. In J. V. Dempsey and G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive instruction and
feedback (pp. 263-286). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.

Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., Hooper, S. R., Rieber, L. P., & Kini, A. S. (1996).
Research on and research with emerging technologies. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of
research for educational communications and technology (pp. 378-402). New York: Simon &
Schuster Macmillan.

Hannafin, R. D., & Sullivan, H. J. (1995). Learner control in full and lean CAI programs.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 19-30.

Hannum, W. (1988). Designing courseware to fit subject matter structure. In D. H.

Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware (pp. 275-296). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

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.

194
 Hardy, C. R. (1999). A discussion of the methodological appropriateness of research
presented in the AHRD proceedings: A strategic perspective for journey management. In P. K.
Kuchinke (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development Annual
Conference (pp. 880-887). Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development.

Harp, C., Satzinger, J., & Taylor, S. (1997). Many paths to learning software. Training &
Development, 81-84.

Harp, C. G., Taylor, S. C., & Satzinger, J. W. (1998). Computer training and individual
differences: When method matters. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9(3), 271-283.

Harrington, K. V., McElroy, J. C., & Morrow, P.C. (1990). Computer anxiety and
computer-based training: A laboratory experiment. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
6(3), 343-358.

Harris, J. E. (1994). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of feedback in computer-based

instruction for adults. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, East Texas State University, Texarkana,
Texas.

Harrison, A. W., & Rainer, Jr. R. K. (1992). The influence of individual differences on
skill in end-user computing. Journal of Management Information Systems, 9(1), 93-111.

Harrow, A. (1972). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain. A guide for developing

behavioral objectives. New York: McKay.

Hatcher, T. (1999). Reorienting the theoretical foundations of human resource

development: Building a sustainable profession and society. In P. K. Kuchinke (Ed.), Proceedings
of the Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Conference (pp. 202-208). Baton
Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development.

Hattie, J. (1990). The computer and control over learning. Education, 110(4), 414-417.

Hawk, P., McLeod, N. P., & Jonassen, D. H. (1985). Graphic organizers in texts,
courseware, and supplemental materials. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), The technology of text:
Principles for structuring, designing, and displaying text (Vol. 2, pp. 158-185). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.

Heller, R. S. (1990). The role of hypermedia in education: A look at the research issues.
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 22(4), 431-441.

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic
learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23-48.

195
 Heydebrand, W. V. (1983). Organization and praxis. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond
method: Strategies for social research (pp. 306-320). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Hicken, S., Sullivan, H. J., & Klein, J. D. (1992). Learner control modes and incentive
variations in computer-delivered instruction. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 40(4), 15-26.

Hignite, M. A., & Echternacht, L. J. (1992). Assessment of the relationships between the
computer attitudes and computer literacy levels of prospective educators. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 24(3), 381-391.

Hill, J. R., & Hannafin, M. J. (1997). Cognitive strategies and learning from the World
Wide Web. Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(4), 37-64.

Hill, T., Smith, N. D., & Mann, M. F. (1987). Role of efficacy expectations in predicting
the decision to use advanced technologies: The case of computers. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72(2), 307-313.

Hill, W. F. (1971). Learning: A survey of psychological interpretations (Rev. ed.).

Scranton: Chandler Publishing Company.

Ho, C. P., Savenye, W., & Haas, N. (1986). The effects of orienting objectives and review
of learning from interactive video. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 13(4), 126-129.

Hofstetter, F. T. (1985). Perspectives on a decade of computer-based instruction, 1974-84.

Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 12(1), 1-7.

Holden, A. M. (1995). The effects of metacognitive advice and control of sequence on

student achievement and attitude toward computer-assisted instruction and content. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Holton, E. F. (2002). The mandate for theory in human resource development. Human
Resource Development Review, 1(1), 3-8.

Holton, E. F. (2002). The theory and research we take for granted. Humam Resource
Development Review, 1(2), 143-144.

Honeyman, D. S., & White, W. J. (1987). Computer anxiety in educators learning to use
the computer: A preliminary report. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 20, 129-
138.

Hooper, S. (1992a). Cooperative learning and computer-based instruction. Educational

Technology Research and Development, 40(3), 21-38.

196
 Hooper, S. (1992b). The effects of peer interaction on learning during computer-based
mathematics instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 180-189.

Hooper, S. & Rieber, L. P. (1995). Teaching with technology. In A. Ornstein (Ed.),

Theory and practice of teaching (pp. 154-170). New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Hooper, S., Temiyakarn, C., & Williams, M. D. (1993). The effects of cooperative
learning and learner control on high-and average-ability students. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 41(2), 5-18.

Hooper, S., Ward, T. J., Hannafin, M. J., & Clark, H. T., III (1989). The effects of
aptitude composition on achievement during small group learning. Journal of Computer-Based
Instruction, 16(3), 102-109.

Howard, G. H., Murphy, C. M., & Thomas, G. N. (1987). Computer anxiety

considerations for design of introductory computer courses. Educational Research
Quarterly,11(4), 13-22.

Hunt, N. P., & Bohlin, R. M. (1993). Teacher education students’ attitudes toward using
computers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(4), 487-497.

Hythecker, V. I., Rocklin, T. R., Dansereau, D. F., & Lambiotte, J. G., Larson, C. O., &
O’Donnell, A. M. (1985). A computer-based learning strategy training module: Development and
evaluation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1(3), 275-283.

Igbaria, M., & Parasuraman, S. (1989). A path analytic study of individual characteristics,
computer anxiety and attitudes toward microcomputers. Journal of Management, 15(3), 373-388.

Imel, S. (1998). Technology and adult learning: Current perspectives. ERIC Digest No.
197. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. Columbus, OH.

Industry report 1999. (1999, October). Training, 36(10), 37-81.

Industry report 2000. (2000, October). Training, 37(10), 45-48.

Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in
definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255-278.

Janniro, M. J. (1993). Effects of computer-based instruction on student learning of

psychophysiological detection of deception test question formulation. Journal of Computer-Based
Instruction, 20(2), 58-62.

Jawahar, I. M. (2002). The influence of dispositional factors and situational constraints on

197
end user performance: A replication and extension. Journal of End User Computing, 14(4), 17-
37.

Jawahar, I. M., & Elango, B. (2001). The effect of attitudes, goal setting and self-efficacy
on end user performance. Journal of End User Computing, 13(2), 40.

Jawahar, I. M., Stone, T. H., & Cooper, W. H. (1992). Activating resources in

organizations. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Passmore (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change
and Development (pp. 153-196). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Jiang, M., & Ting, E. (1998). Course design, instruction, and students’ online behaviors:
A study of instructional variables and students perceptions of online learning. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and
research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, S. D., & Aragon, S. R. (2002). An instructional strategy framework for online
learning environments. In T. M Egan & S. A. Lynham (Eds.), Proceedings of the Academy of
Human Resource Development Annual Conference (41-1). Bowling Green, OH: Academy of
Human Resource Development.

Johnson, S., Aragon, S., Shaik, N., & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of
learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments.
Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11, 29-49.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (1985). Effects of cooperative,

competitive, and individualistic goal structures on computer-assisted instruction. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 77, 668-677.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (1986). Comparison of computer-

assisted cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. American Educational Research
Journal, 23, 382-392.

Jonassen, D. H. (1988). Integrating learning strategies into courseware to facilitate deeper

processing. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware
(pp.151-181). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jonassen, D. H. (1989). Hypertext/hypermedia. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational

Technology.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new

philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.

198
 Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking technology: Towards a constructivist design model.
Educational Technology, 34-37.

Jonassen, D. H., Wilson, B. G., Wang, S., & Grabinger, R. S. (1993). Constructivist uses
of expert systems to support learning. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(3), 86-94.

Jones, L. A., & Sorlie, W. E. (1976). Increasing medical student performance with an
interactive, computer-assisted appraisal system. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 2(3), 57-
62.

Jones, T. H., & Paolucci, R. (1999). Research framework and dimensions for evaluating
the effectiveness of educational technology systems on learning outcomes. Journal of Research
on Computing in Education, 32(1). 17-27.

Jones, W. P. (1994). Computer use and cognitive style. Journal of Research on

Computing in Education, 26(4), 514-522.

Jorde-Bloom, P. (1988). Self-efficacy expectations as a predictor of computer use: A look

at early childhood administrators. Computers in the Schools, 5, 45-63.

Kahle, L. R. (1980). Stimulus condition self-selection by males in the interaction of locus

of control and skill-chance situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 50-56.

Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler.

Karsten, R., & Roth, R. M. (1998). The relationship of computer experience and computer
self-efficacy to performance in introductory computer literacy courses. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 31(1), 14-24.

Kay, R. H. (1989). Gender differences in computer attitudes, literacy, locus of control and
commitment. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 21, 307-316.

Kay, R. H. (1989). A practical and theoretical approach to assessing computer attitudes:

The computer attitude measure (CAM). Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 21,
456-463.

Kay, R. H. (1990). The relation between locus of control and computer literacy. Journal
of Research on Computing in Education, 22, 464-474.

Kay, R. H. (1992). Understanding gender differences in computer attitudes, aptitude, and

use: An invitation to build theory. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(2), 159-
171.

199
 Kearsley, G. P. (1977). Some conceptual issues in computer-assisted instruction. Journal
of Computer-Based Instruction, 4(1), 8-16.

Kearsley, G. P., & Hillelsohn, M. J. (1982). Human factors considerations for computer-
based training. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 8(4), 74-84.

Kellar, J. M., & Suzuki, K. (1988). Use of the ARCS motivation model in courseware
design. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware (pp. 401-434).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kellenberger, D. W. (1996). Preservice teachers’ perceived computer self-efficacy based

on achievement and value beliefs within a motivational framework. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 29(2), 124-140.

Kemper, D., & Murphy, D. (1990). Alternative new directions for instructional design.
Educational Technology, 30(4), 42-47.

Kern, G. M., & Matta, K. F. (1988). The influence of personality on self-paced instruction.
Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15(3), 104-108.

Khalili, A., & Shashaani, L. (1994). The effectiveness of computer applications: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27(1), 48-61.

Kieras, D. E. (1982). A model of reader strategy for abstracting main ideas from simple
technical prose. Text, 2, 47-81.

Kim, B., Williams, R., & Dattilo, J. (2002). Students’ perception of interactive learning
modules. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 453-474.

Kinzie, M. B. (1990). Requirements and benefits of effective interactive instruction:

learner control, self-regulation, and continuing motivation. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 38(1), 5-21.

Kinzie, M. B., & Berdel, R. L. (1990). Design and use of hypermedia systems.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(3), 61-68.

Kinzie, M. B., Delcourt, M. A., & Powers, S. M. (1994). Computer technologies: Attitudes
and self-efficacy across undergraduate disciplines. Research in Higher Education, 35, 745-768.

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.

200
 Klein, J. D., & Pridemore, D. R. (1994). Effects of orienting activities and practice on
achievement, continuing motivation, and student behaviors in a cooperative learning environment.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(4), 41-54.

Klein, J. D., Knupfer, N. N., & Crooks, S. M. (1993). Differences in computer attitudes
and performance among re-entry and traditional college students. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 25(4), 498-505.

Kluwe, R. H. (1987). Executive decisions and regulation of problem solving. In F.

Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 31-64). Hillsdale:
NJ: Lawrence Erlabaum Associates.

Knowles, M. S. (1978). The adult learner: A neglected species (2nd ed.). Houston: Gulf
Publishing Company.

Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984.

Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult learner (5th ed.)
Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.

Kohn, A. (1993). Choices for children: why and how to let students decide. Phi Delta
Kappan, September, 9-20.

Koohang, A. A. (1987). A study of the attitudes of pre-service teachers toward the use of
computers. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 35(3), 145-149.

Koohang, A. A. (1989). A study of attitudes toward computers: Anxiety, confidence,

liking, and perception of usefulness. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 21, 137-
150.

Kopelman, R. E., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1990). The role of climate and culture in
productivity. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 290-318). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Koriat, A. (1994). Memory’s knowledge of its own knowledge: The accessibility account
of the feeling of knowing. In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing
about knowing (pp. 115-135). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kozma, R. B. (1991b). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61, 179-
211.

Kozma, R. B. (2000). Reflections on the state of educational technology research and

development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 5-15.

201
 Krahn, C. G., & Blanchaer, M. C. (1986). Using an advance organizer to improve
knowledge application by medical students in computer-based clinical simulations. Journal of
Computer-Based Instruction, 13(3), 71-74.

Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational

objectives: The classification of educational goals (Handbook II: Affective domain). White Plains,
NY: Longman.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1989). Control of feedback in computer-assisted

instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(4), 27-32.

Kulik, J. A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In E.

L. Baker & H. F. O’Neil, (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp.9-33).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kulik, C-L., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An

updated analysis. Computers and Human Behavior, 7, 75-94.

Kulik, C-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Shwalb, B. J. (1986). The effectiveness of computer-based
adult education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(2), 235-252.

Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C-L. C., & Cohen, P. A. (1980). Effectiveness of computer-based
college teaching: A meta-analysis of findings. Review of Educational Research, 50(4), 525-544.

Kumar, D. D., Helgeson, S. L., & White, A. L. (1994). Computer technology-cognitive

psychology interface and science performance assessment. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 42(4), 6-16.

Lahey, G. F., Crawford, A. J., & Hurlock, R. (1975). Use of an interactive general-
purpose computer terminal to simulate training equipment operation (NPRDC TR-75-19). San
Diego: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.

Land, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (1996). A conceptual framework for the development of
theories-in-action with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 44(3), 37-53.

Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Lawler, E. E. (1981). Pay and organization development. Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley.

202
 Lepper, M. R. (1985). Microcomputers in education: motivational and social issues.
American Psychologist, 44, 1-18.

Leso, T., & Peck, K. L. (1992). Computer anxiety and different types of computer
courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(4), 469-478.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers. New York:
Harper & Row, Publishers, Incorporated.

Lewis, L. H. (1988). Adults and computer anxiety: Fact or fiction? Lifelong Learning:
An Omnibus of Practice and Research, 11(8), 5-8, 12.

Lewis, L. H. (1990). Computer-enriched instruction. In M. W. Galbraith (Ed.), Adult

learning methods: A guide for effective instruction (pp. 303-328). Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger
Publishing Company.

Lewis, E., Stern, J., & Linn, M. (1993). The effects of computer simulations on
introductory thermodynamics understanding. Educational Technology, 33(1), 45-58.

Liao, Y-K. C. (1998). Effects of hypermedia versus traditional instruction on students’

achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(4), 341-359.

Lincoln, Y. S. (Ed.). (1985). Organizational theory and inquiry: The paradigm revolution.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Litchfield, B. C., Driscoll, M. P., & Dempsey, J. V. (1990). Presentation sequence and
example difficulty: Their effect on concept and rule learning in computer-based instruction.
Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 17(1), 35-40.

Liu, M., Reed, W. M., & Phillips, P. D. (1992). Teacher education students and
computers: Gender, major, prior computer experience, occurrence, and anxiety. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 24(4), 457-467.

Long, H. B. (1988). Self-directed learning reconsidered. In H. B. Long & Associates

(Eds.), Self-directed learning: Applications & theory (pp. 1-9). Athens, GA: Adult Education
Department, University of Georgia.

Long, H. B. (1989). Self-directed learning: Emerging theory and practice. In H. B. Long

& Associates (Eds.), Self-directed learning: Emerging theory & practice (pp. 1-11). Norman, OK:
Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education of the University
of Oklahoma.

Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning
with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 449-521.

203
 Lowe, J. S. (2002). Computer-based education: Is it a panacea? Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 34(2), 163-171.

Loyd, B. H., & Gressard, C. P. (1984). Reliability and factorial validity of computer
attitude scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44(2), 501-505.

Loyd, B. H., & Gressard, C. P. (1984). The effects of sex, age, and computer experience
on computer attitudes. AEDS Journal, 18(2), 67-77.

Loyd, B. H., & Gressard, C. P. (1986). Gender and amount of computer experience of
teachers in staff development programs: Effects on computer attitudes and perceptions of the
usefulness of computers. Association for Educational Data Systems Journal, 19, 302-311.

Lynham, S. A. (2000). Theory building in the human resource development profession.

Human Resource Development Quarterly,11(2), 159-178.

Lynham, S. A. (2002). Quantitative research and theory building: Dubin’s method.

Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 242-276.

Mager, R. F. (1964). Learner-controlled instruction: 1958-1964. Programmed Instruction,

4(2), 1, 8, 10-112.

Mahmood, M. A., & Medewitz, J. N. (1989). Assessing the effect of computer literacy on
subjects’ attitudes, values, and opinions toward information technology: An exploratory
longitudinal investigation using the linear structural relations (LISREL) model. Journal of
Computer-Based Instruction, 16(1), 20-28.

Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic
motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction:
cognitive and affective process analyses: Vol. 4. (pp. 223-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Marchionini, G. (1988). Hypermedia and learning: Freedom and chaos. Educational

Technology, 28(11), 8-12.

Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1994-95). Differences in computer use of practicing versus

preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27(2), 184-197.

Marcoulides, G. A. (1988). The relationship between computer anxiety and computer

achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4(2), 151-158.

Marcoulides, G. A. (1990). Improving learner performance with computer based

programs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6(2), 147-155.

204
 Marcoulides, G. A., Rosen, L., & Sears, D. (1985). The computer anxiety scale.
Dominguez Hills, CA: California State University.

Marshall, J. C., & Bannon, S. H. (1986). Computer attitudes and computer knowledge of
students and educators. Association for Educational Data Systems Journal,19, 270-286.

Marsick, V. J. (1990). Altering the paradigm for theory building and research in human
resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 1(1), 5-24.

Marsick, V. J. (1990). Responding to Professor Passmore’s response. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 1(1), 29-34.

Martinez, M. E. (1988). Computer competence: The first national assessment (Report).

Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Massoud, S. L. (1990). Factorial validity of a computer attitude scale. Journal of

Research on Computing in Education, 22, 290-299.

Massoud, S. L. (1991). Computer attitudes and computer knowledge of adult students.

Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(3), 269-291.

Mathieu, J. E., & Martineau, J. W. (1998). Individual and situation influences on training
motivation. In J. K. Ford, S. W. J. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas, & M. S. Teachout (Eds.),
Improving training effectiveness in organization (pp. 193-221). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Mathieu, J. E., Martineau, J. W., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1993). Individual and situational
influences on the development of self-efficacy: Implications for training effectiveness. Personnel
Psychology, 46, 125-147.

Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (1992). Influences of individual and
situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness. Academy of Management
Journal, 35, 828-847.

Maurer, M. M. (1983). Development and validation of a measure of computer anxiety.

Unpublished master’s thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Maurer, M. M., & Simonson, M. R. (1993-94). The reduction of computer anxiety: Its
relation to relaxation training, previous computer coursework, achievement, and need for
cognition. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 205-219.

Mayer, R. E. (1993). Problem-solving principles. In M. Fleming & W. H. Levie (Eds.),

Instructional message design: Principles from the behavioral and cognitive sciences (2nd ed., pp.
253-282), Hillsdale, NJ: Educational Technology.

205
 McCombs, B. L. (1981-82). Transitioning learning strategies research into practice: Focus
on the student in technical training. Journal of Instructional Development, 5(2), 10-17.

McDonald, B. A., & Crawford, A. M. (1983). Remote site training using microprocessors.
Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 10(3 & 4), 83-86.

McGrath, D. (1992). Hypertext, CAI, paper, or program control: Do learners benefit from
choices? Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24(4), 513-532.

McInerney, V., Marsh, H. W., & McInerney, D. M. (1998, April). The designing of CALM
(computer anxiety and learning measure): Validation of a multidimensional measure of anxiety
and cognitions relating to adult learning of computing skills using structural equation modeling.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Diego, CA.

McKnight, C., Dillon, A., & Richardson, J. (1996). User-centered design of

hypertext/hypermedia for education. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for
educational communications and technology (pp. 622-633). New York: Simon & Schuster
Macmillan.

Mehlhoff, C. E., & Sisler, G. (1989). Knowledge, commitment, and attitudes of home
economics faculty toward computers. Home Economic Research Journal, 17, 300-308.

Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive

guide
(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Merriam, S. B., & Simpson, E. (1995). A guide to research for educators and trainers of
adults. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing.

Merrill, M. D. (1975). Learner control: Beyond aptitude-treatment interactions. AV

Communications Review, 23, 217-226.

Meyer, B. J. F. (1977). The structure of prose: Effects on learning and memory and
implications for educational practice. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.),
Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 179-200). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Meyer, B. J. F. (1985). Signaling the structure of text. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), The

technology of text: Principles for structuring, designing, and displaying text (Vol. 2, pp. 64-89).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

206
 Mikulecky, L. (1982). Job literacy: The relationship between school preparation and
workplace actuality. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 400-419.

Milheim, W. D., & Martin, B. L. (1991). Theoretical bases for the use of learner control:
Three different perspectives. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18(3), 99-105.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data anlaysis: A sourcebook of new
methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Mills, H., & Dejoy, J. K. (1988). Applications of educational technology in a self-directed

learning program for adults. Lifelong Learning: An Omnibus of Practice and Research, 12(3), 22-
24.
Mitra, A., & Steffensmeier, T. (2000). Changes in student attitudes and student computer
use in a computer-enriched environment. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(3),
417-433.

Miura, I. T. (1987). The relationship of computer self-efficacy expectations to computer

interest and course enrollment in college. Sex Roles, 16, 303-311.

Montague, W. E., Wulfeck, W. H., & Ellis, J. A. (1983). Quality CBI depends on quality
instructional design and quality implementation. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 10(3 &
4), 90-93.

Moore, P., & Fitz, C. (1993). Gestalt theory and instructional design. Journal of
Technical Writing and Communication, 23(2), 137-157.

Morariu, J. (1988). Hypermedia in instruction and training: The power and the promise.
Educational Technology, 28(11), 17-20.

Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research. Academy of
Management Review, 5, 491-500.

Morrison, J. E., & Witmer, B. G. (1983). A comparative evaluation of computer-based

and print-based job performance aids. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 10(3 & 4), 73-75.

Mott, V. W. (1998). Professionalization and reflective theory building in HRD. In R. J.

Torraco (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Conference
(26-3). Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development.

Munro, A., Fehling, M. R., & Towne, D. M. (1985). Instruction intrusiveness in dynamic
simulation training. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 12(2), 50-53.

Murphy, C. A. (1988). Assessment of computer self-efficacy: Instrument development

and validation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 307 317)

207
 Navarro, P., & Shoemaker, J. (1999). The power of cyberlearning: An empirical test.
Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 11(1), 29-54.

Nelson, D. L. (1990). Individual adjustment to information-driven technologies: A critical

review. MIS Quarterly, 14(1), 79-98.

Nelson, W., & Palumbo, D. (1992). Learning, instruction, and hypermedia. Journal of
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1, 287-299.

Newby, T. J., & Alter, P. A. (1989). Task motivation: Learner selection of intrinsic versus
extrinsic orientations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 77-90.

Newkirk, R. L. (1973). A comparison of learner control and machine control strategies for
computer-assisted instruction. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 10, 82-91.

Niemiec, R., & Walberg, H. J. (1987). Comparative effects of computer-assisted

instruction: A synthesis of reviews. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3(1), 19-37.

Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In D. Gentner & A. L.

Stevens (Eds.), Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. R. (1973). A locus of control scale for children. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 148-154.

Oddi, L. (1986). Development and validation of an instrument to identify self-directed

continuing learners. Adult Education Quarterly, 36, 97-107.

Olivier, T. A., & Shapiro, F. (1993). Self-efficacy and computers. Journal of Computer-
Based Instruction, 20(3), 81-85.

Orey, M. A., & Nelson, W. A. (1993). Development principles for intelligent tutoring
systems: Integrating cognitive theory into the development of computer-based instruction.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 59-72.

Orlansky, J., & String, J. (1979). Cost-effectiveness of computer-based instruction in

military training (IDA Paper P-1375). Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analyses.

Ormrod, J. E. (2nd Ed.) (1995). Human Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,
Inc.

Orr, C., Allen, D., & Poindexter, S. (2001). The effect of individual differences on
computer attitudes: An empirical study. Journal of End User Computing, 13(2), 26-39.

208
 Overbaugh, R. C., & Reed, W. M. (1994-95). Effects of an introductory versus a content-
specific computer course on computer anxiety and stages of concern. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 27(2), 211-220.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York:
Basic Books.

Papert, S. (1981). Computer-based microworlds as incubators for powerful ideas. In R.

Taylor (Ed.), The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee (pp. 203-210). New York: Teacher’s
College Press.

Papert, S. (2nd Ed.) (1993). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New
York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer.
New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.

Park, I., & Hannafin, M. J. (1993). Empirically-based guidelines for the design of
interactive multimedia. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 63-85.

Passmore, D. L. (1997). Ways of seeing: Disciplinary bases of research in HRD. In R. A.

Swanson & E. F. Holton III (Eds.), Human resource development handbook: Linking research and
practice (pp. 199-214). San Fransciso: Berrett-Koehler.

Passmore, D. L., & McClernon, T. (1996). CBI adoption decision tools. In E. F. Holton,
III (Ed.), Proceeding of Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Conference (9-3).
Austin, TX: Academy of Human Resource Development.

Patterson, C. H. (1986). Theories of counseling and psychotherapy (4th ed.). New York:
Harper & Row Publishers.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental

functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167-182.

Perkins, R. F. (1995-96). Using hypermedia programs to administer tests: Effects on

anxiety and performance. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(2), 209-220.

Peters, L. H., & O’Connor, E. J. (1980). Situational constraints and work outcomes: The
influences of a frequently overlooked construct. Academy of Management Review, 5, 391-397.

Peters, L. H., O’Connor, E. J., & Eulberg, J. R. (1985). Situational constraints: Sources,

209
consequences, and future considerations. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in
personnel and human resources management (Vol. 3, pp. 79-114). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Phares, E. J. (1976). Locus of control in personality. Morristown, NJ: General Learning

Press.

Phares, E. J. (1980). Rotter’s social learning theory. In G. M. Gazda & R. J. Corsini

(Eds.), Theories of learning. Itasca, IL: Peacock, 1980.

Phipps, R. & Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary

research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. A Report from the Institute
for Higher Education Policy. Available: http://www.ihep.com/PUB.htm

Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evaluation from adolescent to adulthood. Human

Development, 16, 346-370.

Pintrich, P. R., Cross, D. R., Kozma, R. B., & McKeachie, W. J. (1986). Annual Review
of Psychology, 37, 611-651.

Pohlman, D. L., & Edwards, B. J. (1983). Desk top trainer: Transfer of training of an
aircrew procedural task. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 10(3 & 4), 62-65.

Pollock, J., & Sullivan, H. (1990). Practice mode and learner control in computer-based
instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 251-60.

Popham, W. J. (1969). Objectives and instruction. In W. J. Popham (Ed.), Instructional

Objectives (pp. 32-52). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Prawat, R. S., & Floden, R. E. (1994). Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views

of learning. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 37-48.

Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K., & King, W. R. (1993). Computer supported instruction
and student characteristics: An experimental study. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
9(3), 373-396.

Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E. S. (1988). Delusions about performance on multiple-choice

comprehension test. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 454-464.

Pridemore, D. R., & Klein, J. D. (1991). Control of feedback in computer-assisted

instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(4), 27-32.

Ratcliff, M. E. (2001). Self-directed learning and learner control sequencing: An

examination of the relationship between two instructional delivery systems and the acquisition

210
and application of subject matter for teacher candidates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Reder, L. M., Charney, D. H., & Morgan, K. I. (1986). The role of elaborations in
learning a skill from an instructional text. Memory and Cognition, 14, 64-78.

Reed, W. M., & Oughton, J. M. (1997). Computer experience and interval-based

hypermedia navigation. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(1), 38-52.

Reeves, T. D. (1993). Pseudoscience in CBI: The case of learner control research. Journal
of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(2), 39-46.

Reigeluth, C. M. (1979). TICCIT to the future: Advances in instructional theory for CAI.
Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 6(2), 40-46.

Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1983). Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of

their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reigeluth, C. M., & Schwartz, E. (1989). An instructional theory for the design of
computer-based simulations. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16(1), 1-10.

Reiser, R. A., & Gagné, R. M. (1982). Characteristics of media selection models. Review
of Educational Research, 52(4), 499-512.

Repman, J. (1993). Collaborative, computer-based learning: Cognitive and affective

outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9(2), 149-163.

Repman, J., Rooze, G., & Weller, H. (1991). Interaction of learner cognitive style with
components of hypermedia-based instruction. HyperNEXUS: Journal of Hypermedia and
Multimedia Studies, 2(1), 30-33.

Resnick, L. B. (1972). Open education: Some tasks for technology. Educational

Technology, 12(1), 70-76.

Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 18, 13-20.

Reynolds, P. D. (1971). A primer in theory construction. New York: Macmillan.

Rieber, L. P. (1990). Animation in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 38(1), 77-86.

Rieber, L. P., Boyce, M. J., & Assad, C. (1990). The effects of computer animation on
adult learning and retrieval tasks. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 17(2), 46-52.

211
 Rigney, J. W. (1978). Learning strategies: A theoretical perspective. In H. F. O’Neil, Jr.
(Ed.), Learning Strategies (pp. 165-205). New York: Academic Press.

Roe, M. H., & Aiken, R. M. (1976). A CAI simulation program for teaching IRI
techniques. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 2(1), 52-56.

Roger, J. M., & Cable, G. W. (1976). Illustrations, analogies and facilitative transfer in
prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 205-209.

Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to learn for the 80’s. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill
Publishing Company.

Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (1984). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rohner, D. J., & Simonsen, M. R. (1981). Development of an index of computer anxiety.

(ERIC Document No. 207487). Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association of
Educational Communications and Technology, Philadelphia, PA.

Romiszowski, A. J. (1981). Designing instructional systems. London: Kogan Page.

Ropp, M. M. (1999). Exploring individual characteristics associated with learning to use

computers in preservice teacher preparation. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,
31(4), 402-424.

Rosen, L. D., & Maguire, P. (1990). Myths and realities of computerphobia: A meta-
analysis. Anxiety Research, 3, 175-191.

Rosen, M. (1985). Breakfast at Spiro’s: Dramaturgy and dominance. Journal of

Management, 11(2), 31-48.

Ross, S. M. (1984). Matching the lesson to the student: Alternative adaptive designs for
individualized learning systems. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 11, 42-48.

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.

Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & O’Dell, J. K. (1989). Uses and effects of learner control
of context and instructional support in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 37(4), 29-39.

212
 Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & O’Dell, J. K. (1988). Obtaining more out of less text in
CBI: Effects of varied text density levels as a function of learner characteristics and control
strategy. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 36(3), 131-142.

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,
7, 745-753.

Rothkopf, E. Z., & Coke, E. U. (1968). Learning about added sentence fragments
following repeated inspection of written discourse. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 191-
199.

Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of

reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28.

Rotter, J. B. (1990). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A case history of a

variable. American Psychologist, 45(4), 489-493.

Ruona, W. E., & Lynham, S. A. (1999). Toward a philosophical framework for thought
and practice. In P. K. Kuchinke (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource
Development Annual Conference (pp. 209-216). Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human
Resource Development.

Ruona, W. E., Lynham, S. A., & Chermack, T. J. (2003). Insights on emerging trends and
the future of human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(3),
272-282.

Rushinek, A., Rushinek, S. F., & Stutz, J. (1981). The effects of computer assisted
instruction upon computer facility and instructor ratings. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction,
8(2), 43-46.

Ryan, S. (2001). Is online learning right for you. American Agent & Broker, 73(6), 54-
58.

Rysavy, S. D. M., & Sales, G. C. (1991). Cooperative learning in computer-based

instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(2), 70-79.

Sales, G. C. (1988). Designing feedback for CBI: Matching feedback to the learner and
learner outcomes. Computers in the Schools, 5(1/2), 225-239.

Sales, G. C. & Carrier, C. A. (1987). The effects of learning style and type of feedback on

213
achievement in a computer-based lesson. International Journal of Instructional Media, 14(3), 171-
185.

Sales, G. C., & Williams, M. D. (1988). The effect of adaptive control of feedback in
computer-based instruction. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 20, 97-111.

Salisbury, D. F. (1988). Effective drill and practice strategies. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),

Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware (pp. 103-124). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Salisbury, D. F. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications for designing drill and
practice programs for computers. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 17(1), 23-30.

Salisbury, D. F., Richards, B. F., & Klein, J. D. (1985). Designing practice: A review of
prescriptions and recommendations from instructional design theories. Journal of Instructional
Development, 8(4), 9-19.

Salomon, G. (1991). Transcending the qualitative-quantitative debate: The analytic and

systemic approaches to educational research. Educational Researcher, 20(6), 10-18.

Salomon, G. (1992). Effects with and of computers and the study of computer-based
learning environments. In E. DeCorte, M. C. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computer-
based learning environments and problem solving (pp. 249-263). Berlin, Germany: Springer-
Verlag.

Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1987). Skill may not be enough: The role of mindfulness
in learning and transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 623-637.

Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending
human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Research, 20(3), 2-9.

Santiago, R. S., & Okey, J. R. (1992). The effects of advisement and locus of control on
achievement in learner-controlled instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(2), 47-
53.

Schloss, P. J., Sindelar, P. T., Cartwright, G. P., & Smith, M. A. (1988). Learner control
over feedback as a variable in computer assisted instruction. Journal of Research on Computing
in Education, 21, 310-320.

Schloss, P. J., Wisniewski, L. A., & Cartwright, G. P. (1988). The differential effect of
learner control and feedback in college students’ performance on CAI modules. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 4(2), 141-150.

Schnackenberg, H. L., & Sullivan, H. J. (2000). Learner control over full and lean

214
computer-based instruction under differing ability levels. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 48(2), 19-35.

Schnackenberg, H. L., Sullivan, H. J., Leader, L. F., & Jones, E. E. K. (1998). Learner
preferences and achievement under differing amounts of learner practice. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 46(2), 5-15.

Schraw, G. (1998). On the development of adult metacognition. In M. C. Smith & T.

Pourchot (Eds.), Adult learning and development: Perspectives from educational psychology (pp.
89-106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacogntive theories. Educational Psychological

Review, 7(4), 351-371.

Schulman, A. H., & Sims, R. L. (1999). Learning in an online format versus an in-class
format: An experimental study. Technological Horizons In Education Journal, 26(11), 54-58.

Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children’s achievement: A

self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 93-106.

Schunk, D. H. (1984). Self-efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. Educational

Psychologist, 19, 48-58.

Schunk, D. H. (1985). Self-efficacy and classroom learning. Psychology in the Schools,

22, 208-223.

Schwartz, G., Yerushalmy, M., & Wilson, B. (Eds.). (1993). The geometric supposer:
What is it a case of? Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schwartz, H. A., & Haskell, R. J., Jr. (1966). A study of computer-assisted instruction in
industrial training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50(5), 360-363.

Schwartz, H. A., & Long, H. S. (1967). A study of remote industrial training via
computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(1), 11-16.

Sein, M. K., Bostrom, R. P., & Olfman, L. (1987). Training end users to computer:
Cognitive, motivational and social issues. INFO Journal, 25(3), 236-255.

Seyler, D. L. (1997). Factors affecting motivation to use computer-based training.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Seymour, S. L., Sullivan, H. J., Story, N. O., & Mosley, M. L. (1987). Microcomputers
and continuing motivation. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 35(1), 18-23.

215
 Shaw, D. S. (1992). Computer-aided instruction for adult professionals: A research report.
Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(2), 54-57.

Shlechter, T. M. (1990). The relative instructional efficiency of small group computer-

based training. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6(3), 329-341.

Shlechter, T. M. (1991). Promises, promises, promises: History and foundations of

computer-based training. In T. M. Shlechter (Ed.), Problems and Promises of Computer-Based
Training (pp.1-20). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Shlechter, T. M., Bessemer, D. W., & Kolosh, K. P. (1992). Computer-based simulation

systems and role-playing: An effective combination for fostering conditional knowledge. Journal
of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(4), 110-114.

Shute, V. J., & Gluck, K. A. (1996). Individual differences in patterns of spontaneous

online tool use. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(4), 329-355.

Simpson, E. (1972). The classification of educational objectives in the psychomotor

domain: The psychomotor domain (Vol. 3). Washington, DC: Gryphon House.

Sizemore, M. H., & Pontious, S. (1987). CAI promotes nursing student mastery of health
history taking. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14(2), 62-67.

Skavaril, R. V. (1974). Computer-based instruction of introductory statistics. Journal of

Computer-Based Instruction, 1(1), 32-40.

Slife, B. D., & Weaver, C. A., III. (1992). Depression, cognitive skill, and metacognitive
skill in problem solving. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 1-22.

Smeaton, A., & Keogh, G. (1999). An analysis of the use of virtual delivery of
undergraduate lectures. Computers and Education, 32, 83-94.

Smith, P. L., & Boyce, B. A. (1984). Instructional design considerations in the

development of computer-assisted instruction. Educational Technology, 24(7), 5-11.

Smith, R. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1993). Instructional design. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Snow, R. A. (1973). Theory construction for research on teaching. In R. Travers (Ed.),

Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Spear, G. E. (1988). Beyond the organizing circumstance: A search for methodology for
the study of self-directed learning. In H. B. Long & Associates (Eds.), Self-directed learning:

216
Application & theory (pp. 199-221). Athens, GA: Adult Education Department of the University
of Georgia.

Spear, G. E., & Mocker, D. W. (1984). The organizing circumstance: Environmental

determinants in self-directed learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 35(1), 1-10.

Spector, P. A. (1982). Behavior in organization as a function of employee’s locus of

control. Psychological Bulletin, 91(30), 482-497.

Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitive
flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. (Technical Report
No. 441). Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.

Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P., Jacobson, M., & Coulson, R. (1991). Cognitive flexibility,
constructivism, and hypertext: random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in
ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31(5), 24-33.

Steinberg, E. R. (1977). Review of student control in computer-assisted instruction.

Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 3(3), 84-90.

Steinberg, E. R. (1983). Problem complexity and the transfer of strategies in computer-

presented problems. American Educational Research Journal, 20(1), 13-28.

Steinberg, E. R. (1984). Teaching computers to teach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Steinberg, E. R. (1989). Cognition and learner control: A literature review, 1977-1988.

Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16(4), 117-121.

Steinberg, E. R. (1991). Computer-assisted instruction: A synthesis of theory, practice,

and technology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.

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(2), 169-187.

Stephenson, S. D. (1991). The effect of instructor-student interaction on achievement in

computer-based training (CBT) (AL-TP-1991-0002, pp 1-7). Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Human
Resources Directorate, Technical Training Research Division.

Stephenson, S. D. (1992). The effects of student-instructor interaction on achievement in

a dyad computer-based training environment (AL-TP-1992-0005, pp1-8). Brooks Air Force Base,
TX: Human Resources Directorate, Technical Training Research Division.

217
 Stephenson, S. D. (1992). The use of small groups in computer-based training: A review
with implications for distance learning (AL-TP-1992-0049, pp 1-21). Brooks Air Force Base, TX:
Human Resources Directorate, Technical Training Research Division.

Stephenson, S. D. (1992). The effects of student-instructor interaction and

paired/individual study on achievement in computer-based training (CBT). Journal of Computer-
Based Instruction, 19(1), 22-26.

Sticht, T. G. (1975). Reading for working: A functional literacy anthology. Alexandria,

VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

Sticht, T. G., & Hickey, D. T. (1991). Functional context theory, literacy, and electronics
training. In R. F. Dillon and J. W. Pellegrino (Eds.), Instruction: theoretical and applied
perspectives. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Stokes, M. T., Halcomb, C. G., & Slovacek, C. P. (1988). Delaying user responses to
computer-mediated test items enhances test performance. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction,
15(3), 99-103.

Stone, R. W., & Henry, J. W. (2003). The roles of computer self-efficacy and outcome
expectancy in influencing the computer end-user’s organizational commitment. Journal of End
User Computing, 15(1), 38-54.

Straka, G. A. (2000). Modeling a more-dimensional theory of self-directed learning. In G.

A. Straka (Ed.), Conceptions of self-directed learning: Theoretical and conceptional
considerations (pp. 171-190). Munster: Waxmann Verlag GmbH.

Strauss, H. J., & Zeigler, L. H. (1975). The Delphi technique and its uses in social science
research. Journal of Creative Behavior, 9(4), 253-259.

Suriya, C., & Wentling, T. L. (1999). Readiness of HRD instructors to engage in on-line
instruction. In K. P. Kuchinke (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource
Development Annual Conference(10-3). Baton Rouge: Academy of Human Resource
Development.

Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (Eds.). (1997). Human resource development handbook:
Linking research and practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Swigger, K. M. (1976). Automated flanders interaction analysis. Journal of Computer-

Based Instruction, 2(3), 63-66.

Takacs, J., Reed, W. M., Wells, J. G., & Dombrowski, L. A. (1999). The effects of online
multimedia project development, learning style, and prior computer experiences on teachers’

218
attitudes toward the internet and hypermedia. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,
31(4), 341-355.

Tennyson, R. D. (1990). Integrated instructional design theory: Advancements from

cognitive science and instructional technology. Educational Technology, 30(4), 9-15.

Tennyson, R. D., & Buttrey, T. (1980). Advisement and management strategies as design
variables in computer-assisted instruction. Educational Communications and Technology Journal,
28, 169-176.

Tennyson, R. D., Christensen, D. L., & Park, S. I. (1984). The Minnesota adaptive
instructional system: An intelligent CBI system. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 11(1), 2-
13.

Tennyson, R. D., & Foshay, W. R. (2000). Instructional systems development. In S.

Tobia & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Training & Retraining: A handbook for business, industry,
governement, and the military (pp. 111-147). New York: Macmillan Reference USA.

Tennyson, R. D., & Rothen, W. (1979). Management of computer-based instruction:

Design of an adaptive control strategy. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 5(3), 63-71.

Terborg, J. R. (1981). Interactional psychology and research on human behavior in

organizations. Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 569-576.

Tessmer, M. (1990). Environment analysis: A neglected stage of instructional design.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 55-64.

Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. F. (1990). A layers-of-necessity instructional development

model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(2), 77-85.

Thompson, A. D., Simonson, M. R., & Hargrave, C. P. (1993). Educational technology: A

review of the research. Washington, D. C.: Association for Educational Communications and
Technology.

Tobias, S. (1981). Adapting instruction to individual differences among students.

Educational Psychologist, 16, 111-120.

Tobias, S. (1982). When do instructional methods make a difference? Educational

Researcher, 11, 4-9.

Torraco, R. J. (1994). A theory of work analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Minnesota, St. Paul.

Torraco, R. J. (1997). Theory-building research methods. In R. A. Swanson & E. F.

219
Holton III (Eds.), Human resource development research handbook: Linking research and practice
(pp. 114-137). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Torraco, R. J. (2000). A theory of knowledge management. Advances in Developing

Human Resources, 5, 38-62.

Torraco, R. J. (2002). Cognitive demands of new technologies and the implications for
learning theory. Human Resource Development Review, 1(4), 439-467.

Tough, A. M. (1967). Learning with a teacher. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education.

Tough, A. M. (1979). The adult’s learning project: A fresh approach to theory and
practice in adult learning (2nd ed.). Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Tremblay, N. A. (2000). Autodidactism: An exemplary model of self-directed learning.

In G. A. Straka (Ed.), Conceptions of self-directed learning: Theoretical and conceptional
consideration (pp. 207-220). Munster: Waxmann Verlag GmbH.

Trollip, S. R. (1979). The evaluation of a complex computer-based flight procedures

trainer. Human Factors, 21(1), 47-54.

Tsai, S-Y. W., & Pohl, N. F. (1977). Student achievement in computer programming:
Lecture vs. computer-aided instruction. Journal of Experimental Education, 46(2), 66-70.

Turnipseed, D. L., & Burns, O. M. (1991). Contemporary attitudes toward computers: An

explanation of behavior. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(4), 611-625.

Turoff, M. (1970). The design of a policy Delphi. Journal of Technological Forecasting

and Social Change, 2, 149-171.

Ullmer, E. J. (1994). Media and learning: Are there two kinds of truth? Educational
Technology Research and Development, 42(1), 21-32.

Van de Berg, S., & Watt, J. H. (1991). Effects of educational setting on student responses
to structured hypertext. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18(4), 118-124.

Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. Academy of

Management Review, 14(4), 486-489.

Van Dyke, B. F., & Newton, J. M. (1972). Computer-assisted instruction: Performance

and attitudes. The Journal of Educational Research, 65(7), 291-293.

Violato, C., Marini, A., & Hunter, W. (1989). A confirmatory factor analysis of a four-

220
factor model of attitudes towards computers: A study of preservice teachers. Journal of Research
on Computing in Education, 21, 199-213.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Wager, W. (1986). Comparative analysis of television tutorial and CAI for the teaching of
typing skills to radio-teletypewriter operators. Educational Communication and Technology
Journal, 34(2), 97-104.

Wager, W., & Gagné, R. M. (1988). Designing computer-aided instruction. In D. H.

Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware (pp. 35-60). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Watson, W. E., & Behnke, R. R. (1991). Application of expectancy theory and user
observations in identifying factors which affect human performance on computer projects.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(3), 363-376.

Weaver, W. T. (1971). The Delphi forecasting method. Phi Delta Kappan, 52(5), 267-
271.

Wells, R., & Hagman, J. D. ((1989). Training procedures for enhancing reserve
component learning, retention, and transfer. (Technical Report 860) Alexandria, Virginia: U. S.
Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Wesley, B. E., Krockover, G. H., & Hicks, C. R. (1985). Locus of control and acquisition
of computer literacy. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 12(1), 12-16.

Wetzel, C. D. (1993). Generative aspects of the computer-based educational software

system (CBESS). Instructional Science, 21, 269-293.

White, A. L., & Smith, D. D. (1974). A study of the effects of varying student
responsibility for instructional decisions in a CAI course. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction,
1(1), 13-21.

White, B. (1993). Thinker Tools: causal models, conceptual change, and science
education. Cognition and Instruction, 10(1), 1-100.

White, J. A., Troutman, A. P., & Stone, D. E. (1991). Effects of three levels of corrective
feedback and two cognitive levels of tasks on performance in computer-directed mathematics
instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18(4), 130-134.

Whiteside, M. F., Lang, N. P., & Whiteside, J. A. (1989). Medical students’ attitudes
toward the use of microcomputers as instructional tools. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction,
16(3), 90-94.

221
 Williams, S. W. (2000). Towards a Framework for Teaching and Learning in an Online
Environment: A review of the literature. In K. P. Kuchinke (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of
Human Resource Development Annual Conference (1-2). Baton Rouge: Academy of Human
Resource Development.

Wisher, R. A., & Champagne, M. V. (2000). Distance learning and training: An

evaluation perspective. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher, (Eds.), Training & Retraining: A handbook
for business, industry, government, and the military (pp. 385-409). New York: Macmillan
Reference USA.

Wiswell, A. K., & Ward, S. (1997). Combining constructivism and andragogy in

computer software training. In R. J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource
Development Annual Conference (206-213). Baton Rouge: Academy of Human Resource
Development.

Wittrock, M. C. (1974) Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11,

87-95.

Wittrock, M. C. (1978). The cognitive movement in instruction. Educational

Psychologist, 13, 15-29.

Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational

Psychologist, 24, 345-376.

Wlodowski, R. J. (1985). Enhancing adult motivation to learn. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A.(1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory

mechanisms and complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,
407-415.

Wu, Y-K., & Morgan, M. (1989). Computer use, computer attitudes, and gender:
Differential implications of micro and mainframe usage among college students. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 21, 214-228.

Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Yuen, S. C-Y. (1988). How vocational teachers perceive microcomputers in vocational

education. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 20, 375-383.

Zechmeister, E. B., & McKillip, J. (1972). Recall of place on the page. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 63, 446-453.

Zhang, Y., & Espinoza, S. (1998). Relationships among computer self-efficacy, attitudes

222
toward computers, and desirability of learning computing skills. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 30(4), 420-436.

223
APPENDIX

224
 APPENDIX A
CONSTRUCT ANALYSIS TABLE

225
 CONSTRUCT ANALYSIS TABLE

Construct Analysis Table

Attitude Toward Computers

Learning Environment

Individual Differences

Learner Motivation
Computer Efficacy
Computer Anxiety

Locus of Control

Group Learning
Learning Styles

Outcomes
Feedback
Aptitude
Article #

Practice
Control
Gender
Date Authors Students Others
1 1993 Premkumar, Ramamurthy, King Graduates 1 1 1 1 1 1 support system
2 1993 Carlson & Wright Undergraduates 1 speech anxiety
3 1989 Gray Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 sequence control
4 1985 Cambre & Cook Undergraduates 1 review of studies
5 1991 Massoud Adults 1 1 1 1 age
6 1990 Marcoulides Undergraduates 1 1
7 1990 Harrington, Mc Elroy, & Morrow Undergraduates 1 1 self-directed

8 1990 Shlechter Adults 1 1 1 procedural learning task

9 1985 Allen & Merrill 1 1 learning strategies
10 1990 Kinzie 1 1 1 self-directed
11 1985 Hythecker, Rocklin, et al. Undergraduates 1 1
12 1985 Collet & Shiffler Graduates 1 1 1
13 1988 Schloss, Wisneiewski, & Cartwright U&G 1 1 1 1 1
14 1988 Marcoulides Undergraduates 1 1 experience
15 1986 Steinberg, Baskin, & Hofer Undergraduates 1 1
16 1992 Leso & Peck Undergraduates 1
17 1991 Watson & Behnke Undergraduates 1 1
18 1999 Schulman & Sims Undergraduates 1
19 1977 Tsai & Pohl Undergraduates 1
20 1967 Schwartz & Long Adults 1 1 time
21 1966 Schwartz & Haskell Adults 1 time
22 1976 Swigger Undergraduates 1 time
23 1976 Roe & Aiken Undergraduates 1 1
24 1974 Skavaril U&G 1 1 time
25 1979 Trollip Adults 1 1
26 1978 Crawford & Crawford Adults 1 1
27 1992 Shaw Adults 1 1 1 1 1 1
28 1984 Davis & Mount Adults 1
29 1983 Dossett & Hulvershorn Adults 1 1 time
30 1992 Stephenson 1 1 1 1 small groups
social aspects of team
31 1992 Stephenson Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 partner
32 1991 Stephenson Undergraduates 1 1 instructor interaction

33 1985 Belland, Taylor, Canelos, & Dwyer Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 pacing, graphics & text
34 1987 Koohang Undergraduates 1 1 1 computer experience
low-density & high-
35 1988 Ross, Morrison & O'Dell Undergraduates 1 1 1 density text

36 1986 Wager Adults 1 1 compared to television

37 2000 Schnackenberg & Sullivan Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 1 text, time
38 1991 Pridemore & Klein Undergraduates 1 1 1 1
situated learning
39 2000 Herrington & Oliver Adults 1 environment
40 1982 Bonner
41 1984 Clark 1 1 1 1 1 transfer of learning
42 1984 Hannafin 1 1 learning task
43 1981 McCombs Adults 1 1 1
perceived utility &
44 1997 Barab, Bowdish, & Lawless Undergraduates 1 interest
45 1997 Hill & Hannafin Adults 1 learner strategies
46 1998 Schnackenberg, Sullivan, Leader & Jones Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 1 1 full and lean programs
47 1972 Van Dyke Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 time
48 1982 Reiser & Gagné 1 1 1 media attributes

Students:
All - Adults, Graduates, Undergradutes
B - Both Graduates Undergraduates
G - Graduates
Ret. - Retirees
U - Undergraduates
226
 CONSTRUCT ANALYSIS TABLE

Construct Analysis Table

Attitude Toward Computers

Learning Environment

Individual Differences

Learner Motivation
Computer Efficacy
Computer Anxiety

Locus of Control

Group Learning
Learning Styles

Outcomes
Feedback
Aptitude
Article #

Practice
Control
Gender
Date Authors Students Others
review of literature -
49 1998 Doillon & Gabbard 1 1 1 1 1 1 hypermedia
problem solving in
50 1983 Steinberg U&Adults 1 1 unfamiliar context

evaluation of computer
51 1986 Batte, Fiske & Taylor Undergraduates 1 1 literacy course
computer knowledge &
52 1986 Marshall & Bannon All 1 1 age
53 1986 Loyd & Gressard Adults 1 1 1 computer experience

level of experience helps

54 1987 Honeyman & White Adults 1 1 1 to reduce anxiety
low & high achieving
55 1988 Schloss, Sindelar, Cartwright & Smith Undergraduates 1 1 1 performance

experience, availability,
56 1988 Yuen Adults 1 community type, level
57 1988 Sales & Williams Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 1

experience(computer
58 1989 Kay U&G 1 1 1 literacy) & commitment

59 1989 Byrd & Koohang Undergraduates 1 usefulness of computers

computer literacy &
60 1989 Kay U&G 1 1 experience

experience & usefulness

61 1989 Koohang Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 of computers

62 1989 Violato, Marini & Hunter Undergraduates 1 1 1 usefulness of computers

amount of use &
63 1989 Wu & Morgan Undergraduates 1 1 perception of benefit

factor validity of
64 1990 Massoud Adults 1 1 1 1 computer attitude scale
cognitive ability &
65 1990 Arthur & Hart Adults 1 computer familiarity
66 1990 Kay Adults 1 computer literacy
67 1992 Davidson, Savenye & Orr Undergraduates 1 1 1

computers in education
68 1992 Hignite & Echternacht Undergraduates 1 1 & as a tool for teachers
69 1992 Liu, Reed & Phillips Undergraduates 1 1 1 experience
70 1992 McGrath Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 time, hypertext
71 1991 Baack, Brown & Brown U & Ret. 1 experience/use
72 1991 Turnipseed & Burns B & Adults 1 future role in society
73 1995 Freitag & Sullivan Adults 1 1 1 1 full and lean programs
74 1994 Ullmer

experience & perception

of increased
75 1994 Ertmer, Evenbeck, Cennano & Lehman Undergraduates 1 1 competency, time
hypermedia & cognitive
76 1994 Kumar, Helgeson & White psychology
77 1994 Klein & Pridemore Graduate 1 1 behavior for TV
Students:
All - Adults, Graduates, Undergradutes
B - Both Graduates Undergraduates
G - Graduates
Ret. - Retirees
U - Undergraduates
227
 CONSTRUCT ANALYSIS TABLE

Construct Analysis Table

Attitude Toward Computers

Learning Environment

Individual Differences

Learner Motivation
Computer Efficacy
Computer Anxiety

Locus of Control

Group Learning
Learning Styles

Outcomes
Feedback
Aptitude
Article #

Practice
Control
Gender
Date Authors Students Others
78 1993 Orey & Nelson 1
open-ended learning,
79 1996 Land & Hannafin self-directed
80 1996 Crooks, Klein, Jones & Dwyer Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 1 full & lean text
81 1996 Kellenberger Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 motivation theory
82 1995-96 Perkins U&G 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 computerized testing
intrinsic vs. extrinsic
83 1989 Newby & Alter Undergraduates 1 1 1 reward
84 1989 Ross, Morrison & O'Dell Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 1 instructional support
full & lean programs,
85 1992 Hicken, Sullivan & Klein Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 1 time

evaluating effectiveness
of technology on
86 1999 Jones & Paolucci learning & achievement
87 2000 Mitra & Steffensmeier Undergraduates 1 1 networked campus

self-directedness,
88 1991 Barrett Adults 1 graphic & text interface
89 1998 Karsten & Roth Undergraduates 1 1 experience

experience & stages of

90 1999 Takacs, Reed, Wells & Dombrowski Adults 1 concern, hypermedia
coping strategies &
proficiency self-
91 1999 Ropp Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 assessment

experience & linear and

non-linear navigation,
92 1997 Reed & Oughton Graduate 1 1 1 hypermedia

commitment of learning
93 1998 Zhang & Espenoza Undergraduates 1 1 computer skills

mode of testing - paper

94 1992 Baird & Silvern Undergraduates 1 1 & pencil or computer
95 1992 Campbell Undergraduates 1 1 1 experience, usefulness
96 1993 Hunt & Bohlin Adults & U 1 1 experience
re-entry compared to
97 1993 Klein, Knupfer & Crooks Adults & U 1 1 traditional
98 1993 Delclos & Hartman Undergraduates 1
participation, attitude
99 1993-94 Croy, Cook & Green Undergraduates 1 1 1 toward instructor
experience & relaxation
100 1993-94 Maurer & Simonson Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 exercises
101 1993-94 Fogarty & Goldwater Undergraduates 1 1 1 expert system

computer use &

102 1994 Jones U&G 1 1 cognitive style (MBTI)

103 1994 Ahern & Repman Undergraduates 1 small group discussion

104 1980 Avner, Moore & Smith Undergraduates 1

Students:
All - Adults, Graduates, Undergradutes
B - Both Graduates Undergraduates
G - Graduates
Ret. - Retirees
U - Undergraduates
228
 CONSTRUCT ANALYSIS TABLE

Construct Analysis Table

Attitude Toward Computers

Learning Environment

Individual Differences

Learner Motivation
Computer Efficacy
Computer Anxiety

Locus of Control

Group Learning
Learning Styles

Outcomes
Feedback
Aptitude
Article #

Practice
Control
Gender
Date Authors Students Others
age, preceived
relevance,
innovativeness,
105 1994-95 Marcinkiewicz Adults & U 1 1 1 1 experience
stages of concern;
general vs course
106 1994-95 Overbaugh & Reed Graduate 1 1 specific

107 1995 Astlertner & Keller 1 1 motivation theory model

time, instructional
108 1982 Federico Adults 1 1 1 modules
breadth/depth of menus,
109 1988 Gray Undergraduates 1 1 1 retention

110 1987 Gray Undergraduates 1 1 1 linear vs branching (flip)

111 1974 White & Smith Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 1 modules and audiovideo

112 1976 Jones & Sorlie Undergraduates 1 1 1
113 1977 Kearsley conceptual issues
114 1977 Dixon & Judd Undergraduates 1 1 1
programmed instruction
115 1979 Forsythe & Freed Undergraduates 1 1 & lecture
116 1979 Berkowitz & Szabo Undergraduates 1 1 1 database & problems
117 1983 Conklin Undergraduates 1 1
118 1983 Federico Adults 1 1 1 1 mastery learning
119 1983 Pohlman & Edwards Adults & U 1 task number, graphics
experience, task,
120 1983 Morrison & Witmer Adults 1 1 1 branching
long-term retention,
121 1983 McDonald & Crawford Adults 1 video & graphics
122 1989 Reigeluth & Schwartz 1 1
computer literacy,
values, & phases of
123 1989 Mahmood & Medewitz Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 1 learning
124 1989 Whiteside, Lang & Whiteside Undergraduates 1 1 value of CBI
heterogeneous &
homogeneous based on
125 1989 Hooper, Ward, Hannafin & Clark Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 1 aptitude
reading ability & study
126 1989 Grabe, Petros & Sawler Undergraduates 1 1 1 skills
inclusive & adaptive
127 1990 Litchfield, Driscoll & Dempsey Undergraduates 1 sequencing, time

learner goals rather than

128 1990 Duin Undergraduates 1 1 1 system or concepts
129 1992 Kay 1 1 1 experience and use

cognitive and behavioral

130 1991 Hannafin & Carney Undergraduates 1 1 review strategies

attribution &
131 1991 Milheim & Martin 1 1 1 information processing
132 1991 van den Berg & Watt Undergraduates 1 1 1 hypertext system
two levels of task
133 1991 White, Troutman & Stone Undergraduates 1 1 performance

Students:
All - Adults, Graduates, Undergradutes
B - Both Graduates Undergraduates
G - Graduates
Ret. - Retirees
U - Undergraduates
229
 CONSTRUCT ANALYSIS TABLE

Construct Analysis Table

Attitude Toward Computers

Learning Environment

Individual Differences

Learner Motivation
Computer Efficacy
Computer Anxiety

Locus of Control

Group Learning
Learning Styles

Outcomes
Feedback
Aptitude
Article #

Practice
Control
Gender
Date Authors Students Others
message design, time,
134 1992 Carlson & Grabowski Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 embedded directions
135 1992 Billings & Cobb Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 GPA
136 1992 Stephenson Undergraduates 1 1 1
137 1992 Santiago & Okey Undergraduates 1 1 1 advisement

138 1993 Janniro Adults 1 screen design strategies

139 1985 Wesley, Krockover & Hicks Undergraduates 1 1 computer literacy
intrusive & less-
intrusive feedback&
140 1985 Munro, Fehling & Towne Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 dynamic skill, text
141 1981 Gaynor Undergraduates 1 1
142 1987 Sizemore & Pontious Undergraduates 1 1 1
personality types, self-
143 1988 Kern & Matta Undergraduates 1 1 1 directed
pedagogical design of
presentational &
144 2000 Cook interactive
outcome
expectancy/organization
145 2003 Stone & Henry Adults 1 al commitment
goal setting &
situational constraint
146 2002 Jawahar Undergraduates 1 1 1 variables
perceptions of
interactive learning
147 2002 Kim, Williams & Dattilo Undergraduates 1 1 modules
perceived importance of
148 2002 Christensen Adults 1 1 CBI
minorities, access, & use
149 2002 Chisholm, Carey & Hernandez U&G 1 of computers
experience, age,
150 2001 Orr, Allen & Poindexter Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 personality type

behavior of trainer that

151 2002 Compeau Adults 1 effects end user training
152 2001 Jawahar & Elango Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 goal setting
153 1990 Rieber, Boyce & Assad Undergraduates 1 1 time, animation
154 1990 Tessmer framework
155 1990 Tessmer & Wedman framework
156 1985 Salisbury, Richards & Klein framework
157 1991 Aspillaga Undergraduates 1 screen design
158 1982 Kearsley & Hillelsohn framework
meta-analysis/multiple-
159 1993 Clariana 1 try feedback
literature
160 1990 Rieber review/animation
161 1993 Jonassen, Wilson, Wang & Grabinger framework
162 1985 Hofstetter overview
response time to test
163 1988 Stokes, Halcomb & Slovacek Undergraduates 1 questions
meta-
analysis/cooperative
164 1991 Rysavy & Sales 1 learning
165 1979 Reigeluth framework
166 1992 Guthrie & McPherson Undergraduates 1 1 1
Students:
All - Adults, Graduates, Undergradutes
B - Both Graduates Undergraduates
G - Graduates
Ret. - Retirees
U - Undergraduates
230
 CONSTRUCT ANALYSIS TABLE

Construct Analysis Table

Attitude Toward Computers

Learning Environment

Individual Differences

Learner Motivation
Computer Efficacy
Computer Anxiety

Locus of Control

Group Learning
Learning Styles

Outcomes
Feedback
Aptitude
Article #

Practice
Control
Gender
Date Authors Students Others
167 1985 Burger Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 1

168 1986 Garhart & Hannafin Undergraduates 1 inference understanding

169 1981 Rushinek, Rushinek & Stutz Undergraduates 1 1 rating of instructor
inductive & deductive
170 1991 Carlson Undergraduates 1 1 1 instructional design
171 1988 Allred & Locatis
172 1993 Olivier & Shapiro
173 1979 Tennyson & Rothen 1
174 1993 Reeves 1
175 2000 Yildirim U & Adults 1 1 1
176 1993 Beard skill transfer

mean latency, display

177 1979 Dennis Undergraduates rate & memory support
178 1981 Boettcher, Alderson & Saccucci Undergraduates 1 1 1 1
179 1990 Salisbury 1 literature review
180 1992 Shlechter & Bessemer Adults 1 1
literature
review/instructional
181 1983 Montague, Wulfeck & Ellis design
182 2001 Lou, Abrami & d'Apollonia 1 meta-analysis
183 1990 Kinzie & Berdel 1 1
literature review of
hypermedia-based
184 1996 Ayersman instruction
185 1995-96 Ayersman & Reed Undergraduates 1 1 1 1
self-directed, learner
186 1995 Bowman, Grupe & Simkin Undergraduates 1 1 1 1 satisfaction

187 1997 Bratton-Jeffery Adults 1 1 metacognitive strategies

188 1994 Brock & Sulsky Undergraduates 1 1

time, self-directedness,
189 2001 Ratcliff Undergraduates 1 1 ACT scores

organization
commitment, supervisor
190 1997 Seyler Adults 1 1 1 support, peer support

191 1993 Grabinger U&G 1 1 screen design strategies

192 1993 Park & Hannafin
193 1991 Cowen Adults 1 1
194 1994 Harris 1 meta-analysis
Total 12 67 24 23 14 23 27 13 20 38 98 15 26 15 31

Students:
All - Adults, Graduates, Undergradutes
B - Both Graduates Undergraduates
G - Graduates
Ret. - Retirees
U - Undergraduates
231
 APPENDIX B
SCHOLARLY EVALUATION FORMS

232
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

Evaluator: Dr. David Ayersman

Title: Director, Instructional Technology Resource Center

Organization: West Virginia University

Field of Research: Individual differences, attitude toward computers, computer anxiety,

performance

1. Please rate and comment on the importance of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Patterson (1986) defines importance
as “a quality or aspect of having great worth or significance.” It should have
some relevance to life and be applicable to more than a limited restricted
situation.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
1 Importance/Significance X

Comments: I managed to read Chapters 3 and 4 you sent as well as the evaluation
document. To be honest I don’t actually see a theory yet. Do I? Is there something that I
am missing? Maybe I am alone in my expectations but I read and read and I was building
toward a momentum, here is my theory based on all the information. Maybe she is
holding out waiting until she talks with everyone or something. Perhaps some kind of
summary that would tie it all together. How would you convey this theory to someone?
The document was 56 pages. And what would you say the purpose of the theory is?

It is obvious that you have put a lot of effort into this and I think you will end up doing
pretty well with everything. I also think your choice of methodology has not allow you a
simple solution to getting this completed but has presented you with quite a few
challenges contacting people, collecting data and then sort of analyzing all of that will be
quite a task for you to do.

To some extend the importance will be best commented after it has been derived. Testing
it, proving it and then the importance will become self-evident.

233
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

2. Please rate and comment on the preciseness and clarity of “A Theory of

Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Preciseness and clarity have
to do with how clear and understandable the theory is. “A theory should be
understandable, internally consistent, and free from ambiguities” (Patterson,
1986, p. xx). The easy of developing the hypotheses is another way of testing for
clarity.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
2 Precision and Clarity X

Comments: It is very thorough based on what I have seen. Turning that into something
that is clear and precise as I said earlier it might be good to summarize much of the
information. You might want to begin or end with a summary at some point in your
document that brings it all together. That would make it much clearer for me and for
others. I think that it would help clarify it for any reader. I would rate it a 3 without the
summary.

3. Please rate and comment on the parsimony or simplicity of “A Theory of

Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Parsimony means that a
theory contains a minimum of complexity, is economically constructed with a
limited number of concepts, and contains few assumptions.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
3 Parsimony or Simplicity X

Comments: I think it is difficult to limit the number of concepts simply because there are
so many variables involved. You are kind of at odds with yourself when you try to boil it
all down to one thing and you just can’t, that there are so many different parts to it. I
would say you have done a very effective job of that and would rate it a 4. But certainly
that is not unrelated to the previous comment that the summary would sort of help
simplify that and make it more parsimonious.

234
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

4. Please rate and comment on the comprehensiveness of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” A theory is comprehensive if it
completely covers the area of interest and includes all known data in the field.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
4 Comprehensiveness x

Comments: The one question that I would have would be the definitions that your
research articles had for CBI. To what extend did they agree or the way they defined it.
As we know there are many different shapes and forms of CBI and sometimes-comparing
apples to oranges, really. The way that we define that has a lot to do with how many
assumptions we can make based on summarizing the research. The other end of that
though would be the variables that you identified that were related to it. I think very
comprehensive with that part of it.

I want you to be aware that this is all based on an assumption that the other part is in
common and that might not be a good assumption. The CBI aspect of things is what I am
talking about. If I am teaching my students to read with this program that I created and
my manuscript is published and someone else is teaching geography with some
completely different computer application, to what extend can we compare those two
things? I mean all the other stuff is in common but it is the actual definition of CBI,
which seems to be the place of uncertainty.

It is almost like you are hitting all around it but the actual thing itself. I mean one person
could be exploring the effectiveness of online discussion with student for dialogue and
the way that they do that could be very, very different from the way that someone else is
looking at how well this tutorial works for learning math skills. Those two things are
both CBI to some extent. And yet they are very, very different. And so lumping them all
together is making a very big assumption and we all need to be aware of that. Define
CBI as honestly as you can. All the studies that you have researched, you need to cover
the gambit and say that the way that I have defined it ranges from this to that. In a way
that you just did a few minutes ago verbally you could qualify that definition by saying
that to some extent that it is not as important because of all these other variables that
seem to be related no matter what kind of instruction it is. That all these things are
related. Provide some explanation of scope of what was used for CBI in the research that
you did. It is a little ambiguous without that.

235
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

5. Please rate and comment on the operationality of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” A theory should be capable of being
reduced to procedures for testing its propositions or predictions. Key concepts
must be operationally defined with enough precise to be measurable. Patterson
(1986) points out that not all concepts of a theory need to be operationalized;
concepts may be used to indicate relationships and organization among concepts.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
5 Operationality X

Comments: I think you did a very good job of identifying fundamental research on each
of the key issues that you mention and you did show some of the relationships among
them. And people that read you theory can go to those sources for additional information
if they need it, for definitions and clarity and things like that.

6. Please rate and comment on the potential of the empirical validity that could be
derived by converting the propositions developed for “A Theory of Effective
Computer-Based Instruction for Adults” into empirical indicators. The
empirical indicators are translated into hypotheses, which are confirmed or
disconfirmed by empirical research.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
6 Empirical Validity X

Comments: All this is really in the future. It will be difficult to predict but my guess is
that because your definition of this theory includes so many different variables that you
find very little research that encompasses all of them. Mentioned in your review of
research, typically it is one or two factors that people look at. And if you come up with 6
or 7 it is unlikely that they are going to look at all of those when they do research. Even
if they try to control for 4 or 5 of them, they still have to measure things. And so I doubt
that you’re going to really have a lot of research that is comprehensive enough to address
each of those. Empirical validity is something that is difficult to prove. Ideally is one
thing and practically is another in rating this category. At this point it is just a prediction
of reality and I would rate it kind of low. But ideally, if you could write the recipe and
then follow it and then you could come up with a high empirical validity. The question is
whether or not they will follow the recipe.

236
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

7. Please rate and comment on the fruitfulness of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” The capacity of a theory to lead to
predictions that can be tested and in turn leads to the development of new
knowledge is referred to as its fruitfulness. The hypotheses or predictions are
based on the theory’s propositions. The propositions contribute to the
fruitfulness of the theory and are tested through empirical research.

Rating criteria(see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
7 Fruitfulness X

Comments: One way that it could do that is by being so comprehensive that you have
addressed multiply variables or include them in their research they will be able to see
interaction, isolated and specific. To that extent, yes you can produce new knowledge.
Certainly, over and over again you are going to hope to prove or disprove knowledge
among the interactions of variables is an area that seems likely.

8. Please rate and comment on the practicality of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” A theory is practical if it is useful to
researchers and practitioners in organizing their thinking and practice by
providing a conceptual framework for practice. A theory allows the practitioner
to move beyond the empirical level of trial-and-error application of techniques
to the rational application of principles.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
8 Practicality X

Comments: I think it is going to be useful as a guide. That already makes it practical to

people. Hey look, I’m interested in theory and I want to do some research, they would at
least be aware of your theory that might provide the way for them to design their study.
But whether or not they completely adhere, it might be a little impractical because it
would be quite time consuming to be that thorough. The rigor would be incredible and so
it is a very high standard. The ideal standard that I doubt many people would really
reach. It serves to be a good guide.

237
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

9. Please comment on any other aspect of “A Theory of Effective Computer-Based

Instruction for Adults” that has not been previously addressed.

I would be interested in a final copy when you are done. Certainly very exciting and
hope that you see it through. You have chosen a pretty difficult task here and hats off to
you for that.

238
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

Evaluator: Dr. Sharon Confessore

Title: Assistant Professor

Organization: The George Washington University

Field of Research: Self-Directed Learning

1. Please rate and comment on the importance of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Patterson (1986) defines importance
as “a quality or aspect of having great worth or significance.” It should have
some relevance to life and be applicable to more than a limited restricted
situation.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
1 Importance/Significance X

Comments: I think while we got lots of stuff around CBI for adults it is not collected in
one place. And that what it does is it begins to get a framework around how we think
about this topic.

2. Please rate and comment on the preciseness and clarity of “A Theory of

Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Preciseness and clarity have
to do with how clear and understandable the theory is. “A theory should be
understandable, internally consistent, and free from ambiguities” (Patterson,
1986, p. xx). The easy of developing the hypotheses is another way of testing for
clarity.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
2 Precision and Clarity X

Comments: My only comment is that the diagram in the document, it is fine but it was a
little bit difficult to follow in terms of your verbiage. I am not sure that it is a problem

239
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

with the theory as much as how you have written your chapter. So for the standpoint of
what you got here is precise and clear, the answer is yes. It was easy to follow and easy
to understand, what it was you were telling me to do. It provides a clear set of objectives.
It provides a beginning framework with places to start asking good questions for research
purposes. For that stand point I think it is fine.

3. Please rate and comment on the parsimony or simplicity of “A Theory of

Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Parsimony means that a
theory contains a minimum of complexity, is economically constructed with a
limited number of concepts, and contains few assumptions.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
3 Parsimony or Simplicity X

Comments: It seems that what you have here is a good start, but the relationships sort of
folds together where you may have a challenge with the parsimony is around the screen
design and practice strategy stuff in the box. When you look at your chart you don’t have
any relationship built between any of your process stuff with regard to that box. What
that did is that your connection between you self-directedness and your screen design that
didn’t get noticed. For instance, if I think about screen design and what it looks like in
easy of operation and all that stuff. And I think about work on learner autonomy around
what enhances or inhibits the likelihood of a person continuing to engage in a project.
Part of that has to do with are they sorting getting value for their time invested? Screen
design isn’t a good design, then they won’t persist with the CBI. They will go on to
something else. So it is possible that there might be a connection between self-
directedness and screen design and practice strategy. Now, that sort of bangs up against
your parsimony issue. I don’t know how you are going to resolve that. But my job is not
to do that, my job is just to point it out.

240
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

4. Please rate and comment on the comprehensiveness of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” A theory is comprehensive if it
completely covers the area of interest and includes all known data in the field.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
4 Comprehensiveness X

Comments: I would give this one a 3, possibly a 2. Particularly in with regard to the self-
directed and there are two pieces to this. One was I was very surprised not to see in your
work any work by Huey B. Long. Particularly around the piece that he did in the late 80s
and early 90s where he looked at self-directedness and instruction across two pieces.
One was degree or amount of structure in the instruction and the need of the learner to be
--- What he did was using a horizontal and vertical axis he built a model and came up
with four conditions. He talked about the fact that if you have a student with low self-
directed in an environment with high learning structure then you have a learning match.
If you have a student that has a low need for structure in a largely unstructured
environment you have a match. But if you have a combination of a student that needs
high structure in an environment that is not structured, then it will be a failure in the
reverse. So that, particularly in this study that is something that you would want to talk a
little bit about.

There were actually two articles that were done. All of this work was published in a
series of meetings that came out of the International Symposium on Self-Directed
Learning. The books were all published through the University of Oklahoma. The very
first on was done in 1989 and published through the University of Georgia. Then Huey
went on to Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Press picked up the publication. They are
relatively hard to get a hold of. The best places to check actually would be to email
University of Oklahoma, Department of Educational Leadership. They may be able to
tell you about the books. Huey has retired to Florida. If you can not locate them, give
me a call and I will try to locate my copies.

The other piece about the self-directedness is and I don’t know how you are going to
handle it and it something you need to have a conversation with your major advisor. The
challenge you have with the term self-directedness is this, when you look across the
literature in self-directedness it sort of divides itself into three basic chucks or frames.
The first chuck is around the work that Cyril Houle did and then Alan Tough followed up
with the adult learning project. So Houle’s work on The Inquiring Mind is certainly a
seminal case and then the adult learning project that Tough did set a stage for thinking
about self-directed learning as learning projects. How do people complete learning
projects? Learning as a classroom structure without the physical environment of the

241
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

classroom. That work started in 1961 with Inquiring Mind and ran all the way through
middle to late 1970 with the adult learning project being a 1979 publication. We jump
into the 1980s and it was still pretty involved but it started to wane for sort of the second
phase of work on self-directedness. And that is the subject Guglielmino kicked off with
her dissertation and it was around defining self-directedness. What does it mean to be
self-directed? That is where she came up with the self-directed readiness instrument she
calls Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS). When you look at the work in
that period, it talks about self-directedness and all that other stuff. Two pieces of work
that pop up in that work, one is done by George Spear & Don Mocker in Adult Education
Quarterly. There were two articles. One was done by Spear & Mocker called “The
Organizing Circumstance”, which I think played directly on your theory because they
talk about the condition of the environment and how people organize their own self
learning. And the one that follows that is “Beyond the Organizing Circumstance”. And
that would be another one you would want to read. You go through a whole period of
how do you define these learners, what do these learners look like, and a little bit of how
do you translate this into practical application in classrooms, in college situations, in
business and industry and that is where you bang into Gerald Grow’s work. Then about
1993 there is a whole set of work around self-directedness that shifts defining self-
directedness to more of the language of learner autonomy. It shows up in three places
mostly. One is stuff that was done by Philippe Carré. It is kind of a European piece.
Another piece of work was by Gerald Straka, and another contingent in Canada with
Nicole Tremblay and Ron Fouchaux, and actually it was Bill Cox’s dissertation on what
are the conditions and situations of people who engaged in self-directed learning kind of
stuff. There was a whole bunch of work done here in the U.S. around learner autonomy;
the problem with that stuff is that it never got published. It appears again in these
symposiums, my husband; Gary Confessore did work around learner autonomy. The
reason I am going through all of this is because you are operationally defining self-
directed learning as locus of control, metacognitive skills, and motivation to learn. And
that stuff needs to be mainlined back to the literature on self-directedness that gets you to
those things. Actually, what I think you are going to find is that your metacognitive skills
are probably not going to appear or if it does appear it will be very little around your
metacognitive skills. Your self-directedness construct is going to need some more work
to substantiate these three pieces that you chose. The place that you may find some work
on metacognitive skills will be George Spear’s work, Spear & Mocker’s work. So that is
why for comprehensiveness of your theory I gave you a 3.

242
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

5. Please rate and comment on the operationality of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” A theory should be capable of being
reduced to procedures for testing its propositions or predictions. Key concepts
must be operationally defined with enough precise to be measurable. Patterson
(1986) points out that not all concepts of a theory need to be operationalized;
concepts may be used to indicate relationships and organization among concepts.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
5 Operationality X

Comments: This is a 3 and actually bears back to #4. I think you operational definitions
within the context of self-directedness related to locus of control, metacognitive skills,
and motivation to learn have to be done with a bit more precision. The definitions you
use are from educational literature at large. They have that other context in there.

6. Please rate and comment on the potential of the empirical validity that could be
derived by converting the propositions developed for “A Theory of Effective
Computer-Based Instruction for Adults” into empirical indicators. The
empirical indicators are translated into hypotheses, which are confirmed or
disconfirmed by empirical research.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
6 Empirical Validity 4

Comments: I think there are all kinds of potential for turning this stuff into questions.

243
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

7. Please rate and comment on the fruitfulness of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” The capacity of a theory to lead to
predictions that can be tested and in turn leads to the development of new
knowledge is referred to as its fruitfulness. The hypotheses or predictions are
based on the theory’s propositions. The propositions contribute to the
fruitfulness of the theory and are tested through empirical research.

Rating criteria(see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
7 Fruitfulness X

Comments: There is lots of potential here for testing the propositions.

8. Please rate and comment on the practicality of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” A theory is practical if it is useful to
researchers and practitioners in organizing their thinking and practice by
providing a conceptual framework for practice. A theory allows the practitioner
to move beyond the empirical level of trial-and-error application of techniques
to the rational application of principles.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
8 Practicality X

Comments: I had a little bit of difficulty seeing the translation back. I was defining
practicality as. I’m thinking about the way dissertations got done at TW when I was
there. Basically, our practical connection back was how does this build your conceptual
framework so that you have transferability across the range of places. The answer to that
question is clearly there is transferability here. As I sat here looking at this I though that
this is interesting because we are in the middle of a massive training program and we are
going to include CBI. And I am looking at this thing and I am thinking that it is really
interesting as I think about my positions and where they are placed on all of this. The
factors that you have here are clearly the ones that we are asking about from a theoretical
perspective. So, I guess the answer is yes, the practicality of it is clearly there.

244
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

9. Please comment on any other aspect of “A Theory of Effective Computer-Based

Instruction for Adults” that has not been previously addressed.

All my comments are wrapped around the self-directedness piece. My overall sense of
what you have done here is that you have done a very good piece of work and very
interesting study. So I think it is a very good study.

245
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

Evaluator: Dr. Steven Crooks

Title: Assistant Professor

Organization: Texas Tech University

Field of Research: Graphic & Verbal information on the computer, message design

1. Please rate and comment on the importance of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Patterson (1986) defines importance
as “a quality or aspect of having great worth or significance.” It should have
some relevance to life and be applicable to more than a limited restricted
situation.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
1 Importance/Significance X

Comments: The theory has a lot of importance. Pretty ambitious undertaking that you
did pulling the material together that you did. Enjoyed reading the theory got some pretty
good ideas. Quite interesting. Felt like when you start getting at all the attribute
statements or interactions it gets pretty overwhelming and I think this is important and
needs to be done.

2. Please rate and comment on the preciseness and clarity of “A Theory of

Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Preciseness and clarity have
to do with how clear and understandable the theory is. “A theory should be
understandable, internally consistent, and free from ambiguities” (Patterson,
1986, p. xx). The easy of developing the hypotheses is another way of testing for
clarity.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
2 Precision and Clarity X

Comments: Gave it a high also. Felt it was quite clear. Only I had a question about and
maybe I missed it, with the purpose of theory primarily descriptive or prescriptive or
both. Were you trying to describe how and it clearly was there and also the other was

246
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

there. Maybe a little discussion of the final outcome of the theory would be helpful.
Reigeluth talks about two kinds of theory in instructional design, the first one being
descriptive, in other words describing the learning process itself and it would be up to the
practitioner to translate those descriptions into some kind of practical application of the
theory. A lot of instructional design theories are prescriptive. They prescribe what action
should be taken given a certain context situation. It seems like in your writing you had a
little bit of both and clearly you can’t have prescriptive theory unless it is based on some
kind of descriptive theory. I just thought a little more clarity in terms of what is the
purpose of the theory. It kind of related to the practicality below.

3. Please rate and comment on the parsimony or simplicity of “A Theory of

Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Parsimony means that a
theory contains a minimum of complexity, is economically constructed with a
limited number of concepts, and contains few assumptions.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
3 Parsimony or Simplicity X

Comments: It is a little bit of a dilemma. If you make something too parsimonious, you
have bitten off a pretty big domain. Lots of issues and so forth. The more parsimonious
you make it, you risk losing some explanatory value. It is kind of a catch 22. You want
to be informative and to inform practice, at the same time then you want it to be simple. I
am not so sure that that is bad to have a moderate rating. Difficult challenge especially
when you have a broad field that you are trying to cover.

247
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

4. Please rate and comment on the comprehensiveness of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” A theory is comprehensive if it
completely covers the area of interest and includes all known data in the field.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
4 Comprehensiveness X

Comments:
I though it was quite comprehensive. Covered a lot of aspects. You pulled together a lot
of pieces that I have seen in the literature in a comprehensive way. I thought that was
one of the key things.

5. Please rate and comment on the operationality of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” A theory should be capable of being
reduced to procedures for testing its propositions or predictions. Key concepts
must be operationally defined with enough precise to be measurable. Patterson
(1986) points out that not all concepts of a theory need to be operationalized;
concepts may be used to indicate relationships and organization among concepts.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
5 Operationality X

Comments: There are a lot of potential prescriptions that can come out of this theory
relating to learner control, program vs. learner control, also screen design, the type of
learning outcome and how all of these things could inform practitioners. To the extent
that the research is done properly and so forth. And the other side of the coin also, it
informs research cause now people have some real practical variables to look at. I was
thinking as I was going though that my students probably ought to read this to generate
ideas for research. You have all kinds of attribute treatments issues to look at: self-
efficacy, locus of control, motivation, metacognition and how they interact with and you
prescribed some directions for which the research is pointing which I think is good.
Undoubtedly, there are other issues. It is really hard to put you hand on everything. I
ranked it high because I thought it very operational.

248
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

6. Please rate and comment on the potential of the empirical validity that could be
derived by converting the propositions developed for “A Theory of Effective
Computer-Based Instruction for Adults” into empirical indicators. The
empirical indicators are translated into hypotheses, which are confirmed or
disconfirmed by empirical research.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
6 Empirical Validity X

Comments: I see this directly related to #5. You have lot of studies generated from this
model that could be easily turned in to hypothesis. Be confirmed by research. I had a
hard time distinguishing between Question 6 and 7. I would rank it very high.

7. Please rate and comment on the fruitfulness of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” The capacity of a theory to lead to
predictions that can be tested and in turn leads to the development of new
knowledge is referred to as its fruitfulness. The hypotheses or predictions are
based on the theory’s propositions. The propositions contribute to the
fruitfulness of the theory and are tested through empirical research.

Rating criteria(see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
7 Fruitfulness X

Comments:
I would rank it very high. One of the limitations probably is that you never quite know
whether you have identified all the variables: locus of control, metacognitive skills,
motivation, self-directedness, and self-efficacy. Others variables will undoubtedly
emerge. It would definitely be fruitful because it will focus research efforts in this area to
be tested. And other issues will arise and they will be modified, and so forth.

249
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

8. Please rate and comment on the practicality of “A Theory of Computer-Based

Instruction for Adults.” A theory is practical if it is useful to researchers and
practitioners in organizing their thinking and practice by providing a conceptual
framework for practice. A theory allows the practitioner to move beyond the
empirical level of trial-and-error application of techniques to the rational
application of principles.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
8 Practicality X

Comments: I would actual like to have another diagram or two. Figure 2 is very good.
Figure 2 is very descriptive. It is an important part of your theory and it describes input,
processes, and output. To really inform practitioners, you have a lot of good material in
the narrative about which kinds of instructional control or support would be appropriate
for certain kinds of other personal variables. I think it would be interesting to see another
figure that would pull together some of theses prescriptions, in other words a practitioner
could pick it up and know quickly what to do in a given case. In other words if I have a
very low level of skill to be taught in Bloom’s Taxonomy, then the prescription would be
then to provide more program control than user or learner control, that sort of thing. Or
based on someone that has high external locus of control, then they would needs some
more external support in their instruction. Pull together more of the good narrative that
you have in a simple way. Somewhere put in another figure to provide prescriptions
would make it more practical. Having this to inform my practice. Not just at the
conceptual level but at the practical level.

9. Please comment on any other aspect of “A Theory of Computer-Based

Instruction for Adults” that has not been previously addressed.

One thing would be to clarify the parameters of CBI. There is a lot of computer
application that are more consistent with contemporary learning theories and I am
thinking of simulation, full based scenarios, open learning environments, things like that.
Is your theory focused more on the tutorial concept in other words CBI defined as a
tutorial concept where you have information presentation, practice, feedback, examples,
what we would call the traditional tutorial. It seems like lately, the last four or five years,
we have seen a lot of people calling other things CBI too, like simulations or ultimate
learning environments. I just did an advance instructional design class using Reigeluth’s
instructional design text and he talks about a number of different applications. Maybe
some clarification in terms of the parameters as to what you mean by CBI. I thought you
did a good job and look forward to seeing the final product.

250
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

Evaluator: Dr. Susan Gray

Title: Professor, Behavioral Sciences

Organization: New York Institute of Technology

Field of Research: latest research in this area was hypertext

1. Please rate and comment on the importance of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Patterson (1986) defines importance
as “a quality or aspect of having great worth or significance.” It should have
some relevance to life and be applicable to more than a limited restricted
situation.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
1 Importance/Significance X

Comments: Important to CBI but changes in technology limits the theory. Many
situations are now hybrid. Something very controllable as compared to Blackboard.
Some restrictedness to the situations.

2. Please rate and comment on the preciseness and clarity of “A Theory of

Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Preciseness and clarity have
to do with how clear and understandable the theory is. “A theory should be
understandable, internally consistent, and free from ambiguities” (Patterson,
1986, p. xx). The easy of developing the hypotheses is another way of testing for
clarity.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
2 Precision and Clarity X

Comments: Some of the components there seem to be some overlap. Clarify the
concepts so that they are more discrete. (Could not locate her notes concerning this
question).

251
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

3. Please rate and comment on the parsimony or simplicity of “A Theory of

Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Parsimony means that a
theory contains a minimum of complexity, is economically constructed with a
limited number of concepts, and contains few assumptions.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
3 Parsimony or Simplicity X

Comments: There were places were there were arrows that were missing. Expected
arrow between learning goal level and screen design. Also expected arrow between
instruction strategy and learning outcome.

4. Please rate and comment on the comprehensiveness of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” A theory is comprehensive if it
completely covers the area of interest and includes all known data in the field.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
4 Comprehensiveness X

Comments: Had broad coverage.

252
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

5. Please rate and comment on the operationality of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” A theory should be capable of being
reduced to procedures for testing its propositions or predictions. Key concepts
must be operationally defined with enough precise to be measurable. Patterson
(1986) points out that not all concepts of a theory need to be operationalized;
concepts may be used to indicate relationships and organization among concepts.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
5 Operationality X

Comments: Definitions were precise.

6. Please rate and comment on the potential of the empirical validity that could be
derived by converting the propositions developed for “A Theory of Effective
Computer-Based Instruction for Adults” into empirical indicators. The
empirical indicators are translated into hypotheses, which are confirmed or
disconfirmed by empirical research.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
6 Empirical Validity X

Comments: Page 90 is flow chart of relationships. Clarity will come when propositions
are developed. Hard to judge the way to set up without propositions. Is promising. Hard
to rate. Gave a 4 based on the promise of the propositions but doesn’t see it yet.

253
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

7. Please rate and comment on the fruitfulness of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” The capacity of a theory to lead to
predictions that can be tested and in turn leads to the development of new
knowledge is referred to as its fruitfulness. The hypotheses or predictions are
based on the theory’s propositions. The propositions contribute to the
fruitfulness of the theory and are tested through empirical research.

Rating criteria(see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
7 Fruitfulness x

Comments: Lays out in systematic way. Organized relationships previously developed in

literature. Potential fruitfulness. Gave a rating of 4 based on the promise of the
propositions.

8. Please rate and comment on the practicality of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” A theory is practical if it is useful to
researchers and practitioners in organizing their thinking and practice by
providing a conceptual framework for practice. A theory allows the practitioner
to move beyond the empirical level of trial-and-error application of techniques
to the rational application of principles.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
8 Practicality X

Comments: If practicality is organization. Organized the relationship as in conceptual

model. Highly practical.

9. Please comment on any other aspect of “A Theory of Effective Computer-Based

Instruction for Adults” that has not been previously addressed.

Found this very interesting and thought it had potential. Very different from the theory
building I have seen in my area of behavioral science.

254
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

Evaluator: Greg Kearsley

Title: Consultant

Organization: N/A

Field of Research: Online Learning/Teaching

1. Please rate and comment on the importance of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Patterson (1986) defines importance
as “a quality or aspect of having great worth or significance.” It should have
some relevance to life and be applicable to more than a limited restricted
situation.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
1 Importance/Significance X

Comments: The theory basically summarizes/synthesizes old research. While it’s useful
to have such a synthesis, it does really provide any major new explanations or predictions
about computer based learning.

255
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

2. Please rate and comment on the preciseness and clarity of “A Theory of

Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Preciseness and clarity have
to do with how clear and understandable the theory is. “A theory should be
understandable, internally consistent, and free from ambiguities” (Patterson,
1986, p. xx). The easy of developing the hypotheses is another way of testing for
clarity.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
2 Precision and Clarity X

Comments: Yes, it’s clear enough and seems consistent. I’m not sure about precision,
though. Seems like the many hypotheses made could be more specific in terms of their
implications for future design of CBI or its effectiveness. Figure 2 helps lay out the basic
ideas.

3. Please rate and comment on the parsimony or simplicity of “A Theory of

Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Parsimony means that a
theory contains a minimum of complexity, is economically constructed with a
limited number of concepts, and contains few assumptions.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
3 Parsimony or Simplicity X

Comments: I kept wondering in reading through the “Units” section, how much of the
literature mentioned was really relevant to the section and whether it would matter if it
was left out. Does each unit really make the theory stronger or more robust?

256
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

4. Please rate and comment on the comprehensiveness of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” A theory is comprehensive if it
completely covers the area of interest and includes all known data in the field.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
4 Comprehensiveness X

Comments: The construct analysis provides a basis for what should be covered in the
theory. However, I have some qualms about coverage in terms of reference sources (see
comments in section 9 below)

5. Please rate and comment on the operationality of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” A theory should be capable of being
reduced to procedures for testing its propositions or predictions. Key concepts
must be operationally defined with enough precise to be measurable. Patterson
(1986) points out that not all concepts of a theory need to be operationalized;
concepts may be used to indicate relationships and organization among concepts.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
5 Operationality X

Comments: I think that the hypotheses (laws) of the theory are stated in a form that they
could operationally be tested or applied easily. The system states section is potentially the
most valuable for organizational planning, but the implications of the states for the design
and delivery of CBI needs to be elaborated.

257
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

6. Please rate and comment on the potential of the empirical validity that could be
derived by converting the propositions developed for “A Theory of Effective
Computer-Based Instruction for Adults” into empirical indicators. The
empirical indicators are translated into hypotheses, which are confirmed or
disconfirmed by empirical research.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
6 Empirical Validity X

Comments: Because this is a metatheory, the validity of the hypothesis rests upon the
studies analyzed for the constructs. Who knows how good they are? At least when you do
a meta-analysis you get some measure of the variation.

7. Please rate and comment on the fruitfulness of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” The capacity of a theory to lead to
predictions that can be tested and in turn leads to the development of new
knowledge is referred to as its fruitfulness. The hypotheses or predictions are
based on the theory’s propositions. The propositions contribute to the
fruitfulness of the theory and are tested through empirical research.

Rating criteria(see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
7 Fruitfulness X

Comments:

Unless the hypotheses are put in a more operational form, I don’t see this work
stimulating any further research. It would be useful as a synthesis of classic CBI work,
but isn’t very relevant to current online learning research or practice.

258
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

8. Please rate and comment on the practicality of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” A theory is practical if it is useful to
researchers and practitioners in organizing their thinking and practice by
providing a conceptual framework for practice. A theory allows the practitioner
to move beyond the empirical level of trial-and-error application of techniques
to the rational application of principles.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
8 Practicality X

Comments:

The system states sections could be useful for organizational planning if the implications
of the different states for making decisions about design and delivery were explained.
Should take a look at the e-learning case studies published by Zane Berge – they describe
CBI in various states that might match up to your analysis.

9. Please comment on any other aspect of “A Theory of Effective Computer-Based

Instruction for Adults” that has not been previously addressed.

1. Your sources don’t include some online journals that are good sources of current
research about online learning such as J. Asynchronous Learning Networks
(http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/jaln.htm), International Journal on E-Learning –
(http://www.aace.org/pubs/ijel), or Technology Source (http://ts.mivu.org ). I mention this
because the majority of your citations seem to be older literature (pre-1995 and before the
web) which you would typically find in printed material. I think this is important because
it shapes the definition of CBI and constructs that you are analyzing.

2. Related to the previous comment, I think you have a bit of a scope problem. You have
defined CBI to include online, web-based learning. But you are mostly looking at older
literature that pre-dates the web and all the new ways it is now being used in
learning/training. Hence I would say that your theory primary covers “classic” CBI,
before 1995 and the advent of modern online learning. For example, a major thrust of
contemporary online learning is collaboration and social interaction, but this was not part
of classic CBI.

259
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

3. You define adults as learners over 18 years of age. But that would include undergrads
and they certainly don’t behave much like adult learners. The corpus of adult learning
theory was basically developed for working, post-college adults. What characterizes the
adult learner is having to balance work, family, and personal life with learning. So, I’d
recommend you define as post-undergrad, or at least 25 years old.

4. By basing your theory on constructs derived from other research, you are really
developing a meta-theory (2nd order theory). The data you examining is not from
subjects, but research studies. A meta-theory is different in nature from a theory in so far
as it tries to synthesize research findings rather than directly account for empirical results.

5. As you discuss the units of the theory, you often discuss general findings about
learning then draw some conclusions in the context of CBI, even though the findings
have nothing to do with CBI. It’s ok to speculate about the relationship of such findings
to CBI, but in most cases you assert the conclusion...which is faulty.

6. I don’t think you want to use the term “laws” for your hypothesized interactions – that
suggests that these are well validated principles (like the laws of mechanics or
thermodynamics). I’d suggest you call them what they are – hypotheses...or at least
“hypothesized laws”.

7. I was surprised not to see any mention of the work of Banathy or Reigeluth, two
prominent education system theorists in your system states work. Since this is potentially
the most valuable part of your theory, I would think that you want to take advantage of
past work in this area. Speaking of which, I assume that in the preceding chapters there is
some discussion of others who have proposed theoretical frameworks for CBI such as
Badrul Khan, Andy Gibbons & Peter Fairweather, or Roger Schank. I can’t imagine
developed a theoretical framework of CBI without some discussion of other theoretical
efforts.

260
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

Evaluator: Dr. George A. Marcoulides

Title: Professor

Organization: California State University, Fullerton

Field of Research: computer anxiety, student performance

1. Please rate and comment on the importance of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Patterson (1986) defines importance
as “a quality or aspect of having great worth or significance.” It should have
some relevance to life and be applicable to more than a limited restricted
situation.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
1 Importance/Significance X

Comments: The first question that I have is that in you definition of effective, your theory
of effective CBI it is not clear to me what you effect. So my question is as measured by
what? Effective anything, so I made an assumption there of what I consider to be
effective CBI. So I rate importance as very high with my own interpretation of effective
CBI for adults. If effective, one achieves some specified set of learning outcomes, I
guess. I am assuming that is what you are implying by your definition of effective. One
can still have a theory of CBI period without it being effective or ineffective. In other
words, the theory, I was somewhat confused of why the need of effective, it is simply a
theory of CBI for adults whether it is effective or not it is simply a by-product of whether
or not one achieves the particular learning outcomes. Clearly, I think it is very
important. You wouldn’t take away for this theory if you just talk about it as a theory of
CBI for adults.

261
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

2. Please rate and comment on the preciseness and clarity of “A Theory of

Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Preciseness and clarity have
to do with how clear and understandable the theory is. “A theory should be
understandable, internally consistent, and free from ambiguities” (Patterson,
1986, p. xx). The easy of developing the hypotheses is another way of testing for
clarity.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
2 Precision and Clarity X

Comments: NONE

3. Please rate and comment on the parsimony or simplicity of “A Theory of

Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Parsimony means that a
theory contains a minimum of complexity, is economically constructed with a
limited number of concepts, and contains few assumptions.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
3 Parsimony or Simplicity X

Comments: When I answer this one my comments also apply to #4.

262
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

4. Please rate and comment on the comprehensiveness of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” A theory is comprehensive if it
completely covers the area of interest and includes all known data in the field.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
4 Comprehensiveness X

Comments: My comments have to do with my belief that there is no theory that one can
put on paper that proposally model the richness of reality. So, you are bound to sort of
have some limitation, so comprehensiveness is again relative. I think within the
definition you have given me, whether it completely covers the area of interest, the
answer is no it does not completely cover the area of interest. It is a focus on the
particular aspect of reality. Is it close to simplicity? Yes it is simplistic because you can
actually make sense out of what is perhaps may be a very fuzzy presentation of reality.
Any time you try to dive into modeling reality, I think you are bound to exclude some
aspect of it. Is that a limitation of your theory, no I think it is a limitation of almost any
attempt to model reality. I don’t think you will ever be able to be fully comprehensive.

5. Please rate and comment on the operationality of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” A theory should be capable of being
reduced to procedures for testing its propositions or predictions. Key concepts
must be operationally defined with enough precise to be measurable. Patterson
(1986) points out that not all concepts of a theory need to be operationalized;
concepts may be used to indicate relationships and organization among concepts.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
5 Operationality X

Comments: Again it has to do more with specificity some of the aspects of the
components of the theory. Some of the aspects of the theory are not always amenable to
the direct operationalization. We think we know what we are talking about but it is not
always necessarily easy to tap into.

263
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

6. Please rate and comment on the potential of the empirical validity that could be
derived by converting the propositions developed for “A Theory of Effective
Computer-Based Instruction for Adults” into empirical indicators. The
empirical indicators are translated into hypotheses, which are confirmed or
disconfirmed by empirical research.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
6 Empirical Validity X

Comments: Basically you have an apriori proposed theory then once you have done that,
then ones ability to test the theory is very straight forward. All you need to do is to
ensure that you collect the appropriate data. I think empirical validation is a natural
follow up once an apriori proposed theory is placed on paper.

7. Please rate and comment on the fruitfulness of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” The capacity of a theory to lead to
predictions that can be tested and in turn leads to the development of new
knowledge is referred to as its fruitfulness. The hypotheses or predictions are
based on the theory’s propositions. The propositions contribute to the
fruitfulness of the theory and are tested through empirical research.

Rating criteria(see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
7 Fruitfulness X

Comments: I will clarify my response based on how clearly one can delineate learning
outcomes. Sometimes those learning outcomes are not as straight forward as those that
you used and would have a slightly lower rating. However, for those that you used I
would rate a 5.

264
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

8. Please rate and comment on the practicality of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” A theory is practical if it is useful to
researchers and practitioners in organizing their thinking and practice by
providing a conceptual framework for practice. A theory allows the practitioner
to move beyond the empirical level of trial-and-error application of techniques
to the rational application of principles.

Rating criteria (see attached criteria):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
8 Practicality X

Comments: Once in fact we have some theory and understanding of this purpose of CBI,
one can actual model training programs to improve, increase, or develop what ever these
learning outcomes are that one specifies. I think it is an extremely important theory to
have available and to have one that to date has not really comprehensively been put on
paper.

9. Please comment on any other aspect of “A Theory of Effective Computer-Based

Instruction for Adults” that has not been previously addressed.

The originality of the theory, I think clearly in the literature that I know of, no one has
ever really brought to fruition all the various aspects of the design and the various
processing steps that occurred. And so I see this as a very unique and comprehensive
attempt to look at CBI not only for adults. I know you talked about adults but I think all
CBI.

The natural extension of this would be to obtain specific measures of locus of control,
self-directedness, motivation and actually examine the direct magnitude of the effect so
that you can then walk in and say that people have this perspective in terms of level of
motivation to learn and this degree of self-efficacy given that there are so many scales of
self-efficacy out there it would not be difficult to do. To collect data and actually
determine the precise contribution of each of these aspects. So that you can create
approaches to establishing specific learning outcomes for various groups. If someone
walk in the door and you have a specific measure on their locus of control, or self-
efficacy or what ever aspect you are looking into then you can make adjustments to what
it is that can be done within the environment in order to ensure that everyone that leaves
the door with the same learning outcomes assuming that is the goal of the final program.
I think it is very exciting and there is a natural to it. The next important step would be
how different is this particular theory for adults and for others. Younger children and

265
 A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction For Adults
Scholarly Evaluation Form

what age would it change. Is it uniform across cultures, is it uniform, I can think of so
many subdivisions of the practicality of the theory and at the same time what I would call
external validity. By how much does this theory change depending on which group of
people we are looking at. Also, are there aspects you haven’t considered, for example
experience. Does that make a difference? If so, where does it fit into the general
framework? Those of us who are peripherally involved in the field will greatly benefit
from your dissertation and hopefully, in the years to come you will take it further.

266
 APPENDIX C
LIST OF ARTICLES USED FOR CONSTRUCT ANALYSIS
BY AUTHOR AND TITLE

267
 LIST OF ARTICLES USED FOR CONSTRUCT ANALYSIS BY AUTHOR AND TITLE

List of Articles Used for Construct Analysis by Author and Title

Article # Date Author Author Author Author Title of Article

103 1994 Ahern, T. C. Repman, J. The Effects of Technology on Online Education

9 1985 Allen, B. S. Merrill, M. D. System-Assigned Strategies and CBI

Research, Instructiona Design, and New

171 1988 Allred, K. F. Locatis, C. Technology
Empirical Relationships Between Cognitive
65 1990 Arthur, Winfred Hart, Darren Ability and Computer Familiarity
Screen Design: Location of Information and Its
157 1991 Aspillaga, M. Effects on Learning
A Model for Motivationally Adaptive Computer-
107 1995 Astlertner, H. Keller, J. M. Assisted Instruction
Active External Control: A Basis for Superiority
104 1980 Avner, Allen Moore, Carolyn Smith, Stanley of CBI
Reviewing the Research on Hypermedia-Based
184 1996 Ayersman, David J. Learning
Effects of Learning Styles, Programming, and
185 1995-96 Ayersman, David J. Reed, W. M. Gender on Computer Anxiety

Attitudes Toward Computers: Views of Older

71 1991 Baack, S. A. Brown, T. S. Brown, J. T. Adults Compared with Those of Young Adults
Computer Learning and Appropriate Testing: A
94 1992 Baird, W. E.. Silverin, S. B. First Step in Validity Assessment
Hypermedia Navigation: Profiles of Hypermedia
44 1997 Barab, S. A. Bowdish, B. E. Lawless, K. A. Users
Adult Self-Directed Learning, Personal Computer
Competency, and Learning Style: Models for
88 1991 Barrett, H. C. More Effective Learning
Assessing the Concept of Computer Literacy: A
51 1986 Batte, M. T. Fiske, J. R. Taylor, R. D. Case Evaluation in the College of Agriculture
Transfer of Computer Skills from Introductory
176 1993 Beard, Charles H. Computer
Is CoursesInstructional Program, Via
the Self-Paced
Microcomputer-Based Instruction, the Most
33 1985 Belland, J. C. Taylor, W. D. Canelos, J. Dwyer, F. Effective Method of Addressing Individual

Computer-Based Inquiry into Scientific Problem

116 1979 Berkowitz, M. S.. Szabo, M. Solvingof Learning Style Preferences, Attitude
Effects
and GPA on Learner Achievement Using
135 1992 Billings, D. M. Cobb, K. L. Computer
A Assisted
Comparison Interactive
of the Effects ofVideodisc
Computer-
Assisted Instrutiction Versus Printed Instruction
178 1981 Boettcher, E. G. Alderson, S. F. Saccucci, M. S. on Student Learning in the Cognitive Categories

40 1982 Bonner, J. SystematicEnd-User

Teaching Lesson Design for Adult
Applications Learners
with Computer-
Based Training: Theory and an Empirical
186 1995 Bowman, B. J. Grupe, F. H. Simkin, M. G. Investigation
An Information-Processing Model as a
Metacognitive Strategy: Its Effects on
Performance in a Military Computer-Based
187 1997 Bratton-Jeffery M. F. Training Environment
Attitudes Toward Computers: Construct
188 1994 Brock, D. B. Sulsky, L. M. Validation and Relations to Computer Use
Computer Assisted Instruction: Learning Style
167 1985 Burger, K. andProfessional
A Academic Achievement
Development Question: Is
Computer Experience Associated with Subjects'
59 1989 Byrd, D. M. Koohang, A. A. Attitudes Toward the Perceive Usefulness of

Computer Anxiety: Definition, Measurement, and

4 1985 Cambre, M. A.. Cook, D. L. Correlates in Computer Courses by College
Enrollment
Students: Computer Proficiency, Attitudes, and
95 1992 Campbell, N. J. Attributions

268
 LIST OF ARTICLES USED FOR CONSTRUCT ANALYSIS BY AUTHOR AND TITLE

List of Articles Used for Construct Analysis by Author and Title

Article # Date Author Author Author Author Title of Article

Learning Style and Program Design in Interactive

170 1991 Carlson, H. L. Multimedia
The Effects of Computer Self-Effficacy on
Direction-Following Behavior in Computer
134 1992 Carlson, R. D. Grabowski, B. L. Assisted Instruction
Computer Anxiety and Communication
Apprehension: Relationship and Introductory
2 1993 Carlson, R. E. Wright, D. G. College Course Effects

Information Technology Skills for a Pluralistic

149 2002 Chisholm, I. M. Carey, J. Hernandez, A. Society: Is the Playing Field Level?
Effects of Technology Integration Education on
148 2002 Christensen, R. the Attitudes of Teachers and Students

A Review of Multiple-Try Feedback in

159 1993 Clariana, Roy B. Traditional and Computer-Based Instruction
Research on Student Thought Processes During
41 1984 Clark, R. E. Computer-Based Instruction

A Computer Simulation Approach to Teaching

12 1985 Collet, L. S. Shiffler, N. L. Research and Evaluation Skills

The Role of Trainer Behavior in End User

151 2002 Compeau, D. Software Training
A Study of Computer-Assisted Instruction in
117 1983 Conklin, D. N. NursingProfessional
Online Education Communication: Pedagogy,
Instructional Design, and Student Preference in
144 2000 Cook, K. C. Internet-Based Distance Education
The Role of Feedback in Computer-Based
193 1991 Cowen, Michael Training
Simulation of Operational Equipment with a
Computer-Based Instructional System: A Low
26 1978 Crawford, A. M. Crawford, K. S. Cost Training Technology
Effects of Cooperative Learning and Learner-
80 1996 Crooks, S. M. Klein, J. D. Jones, E. E. K. Dwyer, H. Control Modes in Computer-Based Instruction

Human-Supplied Versus Computer-Supplied

99 1993-94 Croy, M. J. Cook, J. R. Green, M. G. Feedback: An Empirical and Pragmatic Study

How Do Learning Styles Relate to Performance

67 1992 Davidson, G. V. Savenye, W. C. Orr, K. B. in a ComputerofApplications
Effectiveness PerformanceCourse?
Appraisal Training
Using Computer Assisted Instruction and
28 1984 Davis, B. L. Mount, M. K. Behavior
The ImpactModeling
of an Interactive Multimedia System
on the Quality of Learning in Educational
98 1993 Delclos, V. R. Hartman, A. Psychology:
The Effect ofAn Exploratory
Display Study
Rate and Memory Support
on Correct Responses, Trials, Total Instructional
177 1979 Dennis, V. E. Time and Response
Hypermedia Latency in Technology:
as an Educational a Computer-Based
A
Review of the Quantitative Research Literature
49 1998 Dillon, A.. Gabbard, R. on Learner Comprehension, Control, and Style

A Comparison of Computer-Managed Instruction

114 1977 Dixon, P. N. Judd, W. A. and Lecture Mode for Teaching Basic Statistics

Increasing Technical Training Efficiency: Peer

29 1983 Dossett, D. L. Hulvershorn, P. Training via Computer-Assisted Instruction
Computer Documentation - Centering on the
128 1990 Duin, A. H. Learner Self-Efficacy for Computer
Enhancing
Technologies Through The Use of Positive
75 1994 Ertmer, P. A. Evenbeck, E. Cennano, K. S. Lehman, J. D. Classroom Differences
Individual Experiencesin Cognitive
Characteristics and Computer-Managed Mastery
108 1982 Federico, P-A. Learning

269
 LIST OF ARTICLES USED FOR CONSTRUCT ANALYSIS BY AUTHOR AND TITLE

List of Articles Used for Construct Analysis by Author and Title

Article # Date Author Author Author Author Title of Article

Changes in the Cognitive Components of

Achievement as Students Proceed Through
118 1983 Federico, P-A. Computer-Managed Instruction
Increasing Student Control Through an Expert
System: An Academic Accounting Innovation
101 1993-94 Fogarty , T. J. Goldwater, P. M. and Field Test
An Evaluation of Computer-Aided Instruction in
115 1979 Forsythe, A. B. Freed, J. R. an Introductory
Matching Biostatistics
Learner PreferenceCourse
to Amount of
Instruction: An Alternative Form of Learner
73 1995 Freitag, E. T. Sullivan, H. J. Control
The Accuracy of Cognitive Monitoring during
168 1986 Garhart, C. Hannafin, M. J. Computer-Based Instruction
The Effect of Feedback Delay on Retention of
141 1981 Gaynor, P. Computer-Based Matematical Material

An Evaluation of Computer-Assisted Study in

126 1989 Grabe, M. Petros, T. Sawler, B. Controlled and Free Access Settings

191 1993 Grabinger, R. Scott Computer Screen Designs: Viewer Judgments

The Effect of Locus of Control and Sequence
Control on Computerized Information Retrieval
3 1989 Gray, S. H. and Retention

Sequence Control Menus and CAI: A Follow-Up

109 1988 Gray, S. H. Study

The Effect of Sequence Control on Computer

110 1987 Gray, S. H. Assisted Learning
The Efficacy of a Customized Approach to
166 1992 Guthrie, B. M. McPherson, M. Computer
Effects Assisted Instruction
of Elaboration Strategies on Learning and
Depth of Processing During Computer-Based
130 1991 Hannafin, M. J. Carney, B. W. Instruction for Using Locus of Instructional
Guidelines
Control in the Design of Computer-Assisted
42 1984 Hannafin, M. J. Instruction
Computer Anxiety and Computer-Based
7 1990 Harrington, K. V. McElroy, J. C. Morrow, P. C. Training: A Laboratory Experiment

A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Feedback

194 1994 Harris, James E., Jr. in Computer-Based Instruction for Adults

An Instructional Design Framework for Authentic

39 2000 Herrington, J. Oliver, R. Learning Environments
Learner Control Modes and Incentive Variations
85 1992 Hicken, S. Sullivan, H. J. Klein, J. D. in Computer-Delivered
Assessment Instruction
of the Relationships Between the
Computer Attitudes and Computer Literacy
68 1992 Hignite, M. A. Echternacht, L. J. Levels of Prospective Educators
Cognitive Strategies and Learning from the
45 1997 Hill, J. R. Hannafin, M. J. World Wide Web

Perspectives on a Decade of Computer-Based

162 1985 Hofstetter, F. T. Instruction, 1974-84
Computer Anxiety in Educators Learning to Use
54 1987 Honeyman, D. S. White, W. J. the Computer: A Preliminary Report

The Effects of Aptitude Composition on

125 1989 Hooper, S. Ward, T. Hannafin, M. J. Clark, H. T. Achievement During Small Group Learning
Teacher Education Students' Attitudes Toward
96 1993 Hunt, N. P. Bohlin, R. M. Using Computers

270
 LIST OF ARTICLES USED FOR CONSTRUCT ANALYSIS BY AUTHOR AND TITLE

List of Articles Used for Construct Analysis by Author and Title

Article # Date Author Author Author Author Title of Article

A Computer-Based Learning Strategy Training

11 1985 Hythecker, V. I. Rocklin, T. R. Dansereau, D. F. Lambiotte, J. G. Module: Development and Evaluation
Effects of Computer-Based Instruction on Student
Learning of Psychophysiologica Detection of
138 1993 Janniro, M. J. Deception Test Question Formulation
The Influence of Dispositional Factors and
Situaltional Contraints on End User Performance:
146 2002 Jawahar, I. M. A Replication and Extension
The Effect of Attitudes, Goal Setting and Self-
152 2001 Jawahar, I. M. Elango, B. Efficacy on End User Performance

Constructivist Uses of Expert Systems to Support

161 1993 Jonassen, D. H. Wilson, B. G. Wang, S. Grabinger, R. S. Learning
Increasing Medical Student Performance with an
112 1976 Jones, L. A. Sorlie, W. E. Interactive,
Research Computer-Assisted
Framework Appraisal
and Dimensions for System
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Educational
86 1999 Jones, T. H. Paolucci, R. Technology Systems on Learning Outcomes

102 1994 Jones, W. P. Computer

The Use andofCognitive
Relationship ComputerStyle
Experience and
Computer Self-Efficacy to Performance in
89 1998 Karsten, R. Roth, R. M. Introductory Computer Literacy Courses

Gender Differences in Computer Attitudes,

58 1989 Kay, R. H. Literacy, Locus of Control and Commitment
A Practical and Theoretical Approach to
Assessing Computer Attitudes: The Computer
60 1989 Kay, R. H. Attitude Measure (CAM)

The Relation Between Locus of Control and

66 1990 Kay, R. H. Computer Literacy
Understanding Gender Differences in Computer
Attitudes, Aptitude, and Use: An Invitation to
129 1992 Kay, R. H. Build Theory

Some Conceptual Issues in Computer-Assisted

113 1977 Kearsley, G. P. Instruction

Human Factors Considerations for Computer-

158 1982 Kearsley, G. P. Hillelsohn, M. J. Based Training
Preservice Teachers' Perceived Computer Self-
Efficacy Based on Achievement and Value
81 1996 Kellenberger, D. W. Beliefs Within a Motivational Framework

The Influence of Personality on Self-Paced

143 1988 Kern, G. M. Matta, K. F. Instruction
Students' Perception of Interactive Learning
147 2002 Kim, B. Williams, R. Dattilo, J. Modules
Requirements and Benefits of Effective
Interactive Instruction: Learner Control, Self-
10 1990 Kinzie, M. B. Regulation, and Continuing Motivation

183 1990 Kinzie, M. B. Berdel, R. L. Design of

Effects andOrienting
Use of hypermedia systems
Activities and Practice on
Achievement, Continuing Motivation, and
Student Behaviors in a Cooperative Learning
77 1994 Klein , J. D. Pridemore, D. R. Environment
Differences in Computer Attitudes and
Performance Among Re-entry and Traditional
97 1993 Klein, J. D. Knupfer, N. N. Crooks, S. M. College Students

271
 LIST OF ARTICLES USED FOR CONSTRUCT ANALYSIS BY AUTHOR AND TITLE

List of Articles Used for Construct Analysis by Author and Title

Article # Date Author Author Author Author Title of Article

A Study of the Attitudes of Pre-Service Teachers
34 1987 Koohang, A. A. Toward the Use of Computers

A Study of Attitudes Toward Computers:

Anxiety, Confidence, Liking, and Perception of
61 1989 Koohang, A. A. Usefulness

Computer Technology-Cognitive Psychology

76 1994 Kumar, D. D. Helgeson. S. L. White, A. L. Interface and Science Performance Assessment
A Conceptual Framework for the Development of
Theories-in-Action with Open-Ended Learning
79 1996 Land, S. M. . Hannafin, M. J. Environments
Computer Anxiety and Different Types of
16 1992 Leso, T. Peck, K. L. Computer Courses
Presentation Sequence and Example Difficulty:
Their Effect on Concept and Rule Learning in
127 1990 Litchfield, B. C. Driscoll, M. P. Dempsey, J. V. Computer-Based
Teacher EducationInstruction
Students and Computers:
Gender, Major, Prior Computer Experience,
69 1992 Liu, M. Reed, W. M. Phillips, P. Occurrence, and Anxiety

Small Group and Individual Learning with

182 2001 Lou, Yiping Abrami, Philip C. d'Apollonia, S. Technology:
Gender A Meta-Analysis
and Amount of Computer Experience of
Teachers in Staff Development Programs: Effects
53 1986 Loyd, B. H. Gressard, C. P. on Computer
Assessing the Attitudes
Effect of and Perceptions
Computer of the
Literacy on
Subjects' Attitudes, Values, and Opinions Toward
Information Technology: An Exploratory
123 1989 Mahmood, M. A. Medewitz, J. N. Longitudinal Investigation Using the Linear
Differences in Computer Use of Practicing
105 1994-95 Marcinkiewicz, H. R. Versus Preservice Teachers
Improving Learner Performance with Computer
6 1990 Marcoulides, G. A. Based Programs

The Relationship Between Computer Anxiety and

14 1988 Marcoulides, G. A. Computer Achievement

Computer Attitudes and Computer Knowledge of

52 1986 Marshall, J. C. Bannon, S. H. Students and Educators
Computer Attitudes and Computer Knowledge of
5 1991 Massoud, S. L. Adult Students

64 1990 Massoud, S. L. Factorial

The Validity
Reduction of a Computer
of Computer Attitude
Anxiety: Scale
Its Relation
to Relaxation Training, Previous Computer
100 1993-94 Maurer, M. M. Simonson, M. R. Coursework, Achievement,
Transitioning and Need
Learning Strategies for Into
Research
Practice: Focus on the Student in Technical
43 1981 McCombs, B. L. Training

121 1983 McDonald, B. A. Crawford, A. M. Remote Site Training Using Microprocessors

Hypertext, CAI, Paper, or Program Control: Do

70 1992 McGrath, D. Learners Benefit From Choices?
Theoretical Bases for the Use of Learner Control:
131 1991 Milheim, W. D. Martin, B. L. Three Different
Changes Perspectives
in Student Attitudes and Student
Computer Use in a Computer-Enriched
87 2000 Mitra, A. Steffensmeier, T. Environment
Quality CBI Depends on Quality Instructional
181 1983 Montague, W. E. Wulfeck, W. H. Ellis, J. A. Design and Quality Implementation
A Comparative Evaluation of Computer-Based
120 1983 Morrison, J. E. Witmer, B. G. and Print-Based Job Performance Aids

272
 LIST OF ARTICLES USED FOR CONSTRUCT ANALYSIS BY AUTHOR AND TITLE

List of Articles Used for Construct Analysis by Author and Title

Article # Date Author Author Author Author Title of Article

Instruction Intrusiveness in Dynamic Simulation

140 1985 Munro, A. Fehling, M. R. Towne, D. M. Training
Task Motivation: Learner Selection of Intrinsic
83 1989 Newby, R. J. Alter, P. A. versus Extrinsic Orientations

172 1993 Olivier, R. A. Shapiro, F. Self-Efficacy

Development and Computers
Principles for Intelligent Tutoring
Systems: Integrating Cognitive Theory into the
78 1993 Orey, M. A. Nelson, W. A. Development of Computer-Based Instruction

The Effect of Individual Differences on Computer

150 2001 Orr, Claudia Allen, David Poindexter, Sandra Attitudes:
Effects AnIntroductory
of an Empirical Study
Versus a Content-
Specific Computer Course on Computer Anxiety
106 1994-95 Overbaugh, R. C. Reed, W. M. and States of Concern

Empirically-Based Guidelines for the Design of

192 1993 Park, I. Hannafin, M. J. Interactive Multimedia

Using Hypermedia Programs to Administer

82 1995-96 Perkins, R. F. Tests: Effects on Anxiety and Performance
Desk Top Trainer: Transfer of Training of an
119 1983 Pohlman, D. L. Edwards, B. J. Aircrew Procedural Task
Computer Supported Instruction and Student
1 1993 Premkumar, G. Ramamurthy, K. King, W. R. Characteristics: An Experimental Study

Control of Feedback in Computer-Assisted

38 1991 Pridemore, D. R. Klein, J. D. Instruction Learning and Learner Control
Self-Directed
Sequencing: An Examinationof the Relationship
Between Two Instructional Delivery Systems and
189 2001 Ratcliff, M. E. the Acquisition and Application of Subject Matter

Computer Experience and Interval-Based

92 1997 Reed, W. M. Oughton, J. M. Hypermedia Navigation

Pseudoscience in Computer-Based Instruction:

174 1993 Reeves, Thomas D. The Case of Learner Control Research

TICCIT to the Future: Advances in Instructional

165 1979 Reigeluth, C. M. Theory for CAI

An Instructional Theory for the Design of

122 1989 Reigeluth, C. M. . Schwartz, E. Computer-Based Simulations

48 1982 Reiser, R. A. Gagné, R. M. Characteristics of Media Selection Models

The effects of Computer Animation on Adult
153 1990 Rieber, L. P. Boyce, M. J. Assad, C. Learning and Retrieval Tasks

160 1990 Rieber, L. P. Animation in Computer-Based Instruction

A CAI Simulation Program for Teaching IRI
23 1976 Roe, M. H. Aiken, R. M. Techniques
Exploring Individual Characteristics Associated
with Learning to Use Computers in Preservice
91 1999 Ropp, M. M. Teacher Preparation
Uses and Effects of Learner Control of Context
and Instructional Support in Computer-Based
84 1989 Ross, S. M. Morrison, G. R. O'Dell, J. K. Instruction

273
 LIST OF ARTICLES USED FOR CONSTRUCT ANALYSIS BY AUTHOR AND TITLE

List of Articles Used for Construct Analysis by Author and Title

Article # Date Author Author Author Author Title of Article

Obtaining More Out of Less Text in CBI: Effects
of Varied Text Density Levels as a Function of
35 1988 Ross, S. M. Morrison, G. R. O'Dell, J. K. Learner Characteristics and Control Strategy

The Effects of Computer Assisted Instruction

169 1981 Rushinek, A. Rushinek, S. F. Stutz, J. Upon Computer Facility and InstructorRratings
Cooperative Learning in Computer-Based
164 1991 Rysavy, S. D. M. Sales, G. C. Instruction
The Effect of Adaptive Control of Feedback in
57 1988 Sales, G. C. Williams, M. D. Computer-Based
Designing Practice:Instruction
A Review of Prescriptions
and Recommendations from Instructional Design
156 1985 Salisbury, D. F. Richards, B. F. Klein, J. D. Theories Psychology and Its Implications for
Cognitive
Designing Drill and Practice Programs for
179 1990 Salisbury, D. F. Computers
The Effects of Advisement and Locus of Control
137 1992 Santiago, R. S. Okey, J. R. on Achievement
The in Learner-Controlled
Differential Effect Instruction
of Learner Control and
Feedback in College Students' Performance on
13 1988 Schloss, P. J. Wisneiewski, L. A. Cartwright, G. P. CAI Modules
Learner Control Over Feedback as a Variable in
55 1988 Schloss, P. J. Sindelar, P. T. Cartwright, G. P. Smith, M. A. Computer-Assisted Instruction
Learner Control Over Full and Lean Computer-
37 2000 Schnackenberg, H. L.Sullivan, H. J. Based Instruction Under Differing Ability Levels
Learner Preferences and Achievement Under
46 1998 Schnackenberg, H. L.Sullivan, H. J. Leader, L. F. Jones, E. E. K. Differing Amounts of Learner Practice

Learning in an Online Format versus and In-class

18 1999 Schulman, A. H. Sims, R. L. Format: An Experimental Study
A Study of Computer-Assisted Instruction in
21 1966 Schwartz, H. A. Haskell, R. J. Industrial Training
A Study of Remote Industrial Training via
20 1967 Schwartz, H. A. . Long, H. S. Computer-Assisted Instruction
Factors Affecting Motivation to Use Computer-
190 1997 Seyler, D. L. Based Training
Computer-Aided Instruction for Adult
27 1992 Shaw, D. S. Professionals: A Research Report
The Relative Instructional Efficiency of Small
8 1990 Shlechter, T. M. Group Computer-Based
Computer-Based Training
Simulation Systems and Role-
Playing: An Effective Combination for Fostering
180 1992 Shlechter, T. M. Bessemer, D. W. Kolosh, K. P. Conditional Knowledge
CAI Promotes Nuring Student Mastery of Health
142 1987 Sizemore, M. H. Pontious, S. History Taking
Computer-Based Instruction of Introductory
24 1974 Skavaril, R. V. Statistics
Organizational/Memory Tools: A technique For
15 1986 Steinberg, E. R. Baskin, A. B. Hofer, E. Improving Problem Solving Skills
Problem Complexity and the Transfer of
50 1983 Steinberg, E. R. Strategies
The Use ofinSmall
Computer-presented Problems
Groups in Computer-Based
Training: A Review with Implications for
30 1992 Stephenson, S. D. Distance
The Learning
Effects of Student-Instructor Interaction on
Achievement in a Dyad Computer-Based
31 1992 Stephenson, S. D. Training Environment
The Effect of Instructor-Student Interaction on
32 1991 Stephenson, S. D. Achievement
The Effects ofinStudent-Instructor
Computer-Based Interaction
Training and
Paired/Individual Study on Achievement in
136 1992 Stephenson, S. D. Computer-Based Training (CBI)
Delaying User Responses to Computer-Mediated
163 1988 Stokes, M. T. Halcomb, C. G. Slovacek, C. P. Test Items Ehnances Test Performance

The Roles of Computer Self-Efficacy and

Outcome Expectancy in Influening the Computer
145 2003 Stone, R. W. Henry, J. W. End-User's Organizational Commitment

274
 LIST OF ARTICLES USED FOR CONSTRUCT ANALYSIS BY AUTHOR AND TITLE

List of Articles Used for Construct Analysis by Author and Title

Article # Date Author Author Author Author Title of Article

22 1976 Swigger, K. M. Automated

The Effects Flanders
of OnlineInteraction
Multimedia Analysis
Project
Development, Learning Style, and Prior
90 1999 Takacs, J. Reed, W. M. Wells, J. G. Dombrowski, L. A.Computer Experiences on Teachers' Attitudes

Management of Computer-Based Instruction:

173 1979 Tennyson, R. D. Rothen, W. Design of an Adaptive Control Strategy
Environment Analysis: A Neglected Stage of
154 1990 Tessmer, Martin Instructional Design

A Layers-of-Necessity Instructional Development

155 1990 Tessmer, Martin Wedman, J. F. Model

The Evaluation of a Complex Computer-Based

25 1979 Trollip, S. R. Flight Procedures Trainer

Student Achievement in Computer Programming:

19 1977 Tsai, S-Y. W. Pohl, N. F. Lecture vs. Computer-Aided Instruction

Contemporary Attitudes Toward Computers: An

72 1991 Turnipseed, D. L. Burns, O. M. Explanation of Behavior
Media and Learning: Are There Two Kinds of
74 1994 Ullmer, E. J. Truth?
Effects of Educational Setting on Student
132 1991 van den Berg, S. Watt, J. H. Responses to Structured Hypertext
Computer-Assisted Instruction: Performance and
47 1972 Van Dyke, B. F. Newton, J. M. Attitudes
A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of a Four-Factor
Model of Attitudes Toward Computers: A Study
62 1989 Violato, Claudio Marini, Anthony Hunter, William of Preservice Analysis
Comparative Teachers of Television Tutorial and
CAI for the Teaching of Typing Skills to Radio-
36 1986 Wager, W. Teletypewriter Operators
Application of Expectancy Theory and User
Observations in Identifying Factors which Affect
17 1991 Watson, W. E. Behnke, R. R. Human Performance on Computer Project

Locus of Control and Acquisition of Computer

139 1985 Wesley, B. E. Krockover, G. H. Hicks, C. R. Liberacy
A Study of the Effects of Varying Student
Responsibility for Instructional Decisions in a
111 1974 White, A. L.. Smith, D. D. CAI Course

Effects of Three Levels of Corrective Feedback

and Two Cognitive Levels of Tasks on
Performance in Computer-Directed Mathematics
133 1991 White, J. A. Troutman, A. P. Stone, D. E. instruction
Medical Students' Attitudes Tward the Use of
124 1989 Whiteside, M. F. Lang, N. P. WhitesideJ. A. Microcomputers as Instructional Tools
Computer Use, Computer Attitudes, and Gender:
Differential Implications of Micro and
63 1989 Wu, Y-K. Morgan, M. Mainframe
Effects of anUsage AmongComputing
Educational College Students
Course on
Preservice and Inservice Teachers: A Discussion
175 2000 Yildirim, Soner and Analysis of Attitudes and Use
How Vocational Teachers Perceive
56 1988 Yuen, S. C-Y. Microcomputers in Vocational Education
Relationships Among Computer Self-Efficacy,
Attitudes Toward Computers, and Desirability of
93 1998 Zhang, Y. Espenoza, S. Learning Computing Skills

275
 APPENDIX D
EVALUATION PACKAGE

276
 INSTRUCTIONS FOR EVALUATION OF
“A THEORY OF EFFECTIVE COMPUTER-BASED INSTRUCTION FOR
ADULTS”

• Please read “A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults” found in

Chapter 4 beginning on page 89-136 and Criteria for Evaluating Theory found in the
attached documents.

• Also included is a set of questions with rating scale intended to serve as a guide for your
evaluation of “A Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Please
review these prior to the telephone interview. If you wish to respond in writing, please
send your response to me by email at [email protected] prior to the telephone interview.
If you wish to send responses to me by mail, the address is 395 College Hill Drive, Baton
Rouge, LA 70808.

• If you wish to write comments directly on “A Theory of Effective Computer-Based

Instruction for Adults” document please mail to the address above.

• A telephone interview time will be arranged prior to the week of November 10, 2003.

• All evaluations will be reviewed and serve as the basis for modifying “A Theory of
Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Once modifications are made, a copy
of the final theory will be mailed to you.

• If you have any questions, I can be reached by email at [email protected] during the day
and at (225) 767-6363 after 5:00 p.m. during the week and on weekends.

277
 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING THEORY

Without the empirical testing of a theory, theories cannot be evaluated as to their

correctness or validity. A theory may be good without being totally correct. However, a

good theory is more likely to be true than a poor one. Patterson’s eight criteria for evaluating

theory is appropriate for the evaluation of “A Theory of Computer-Based Instruction for

Adults” because:

• They were developed as criteria for evaluating theory in the behavioral sciences

• These criteria reflect a high degree of overlap among all the criteria from the six

sources reviewed (Torraco, 1994)

• These criteria best represent the attributes the author seeks in “A Theory of

Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.”

Patterson’s (1986, p. xx) eight criteria for evaluating theory are to be used in this study with

the following explanations:

1. Importance - a quality or aspect of having great worth or significance; acceptance by

competent professional may be indicative of importance. A theory should not be trivial

but should be significant. It should be applicable to more than a limited restricted

situation. It should have some relevance to life. Importance is very difficult to evaluate

since the criteria are vague or subjective. Acceptance by competent professionals or

recognition and persistence in the professional literature may be indicative of importance.

If theory meets other formal criteria, it is probably important.

2. Preciseness and Clarity - a state of being clear; hypotheses or predictions can easily be

developed from the theory. A theory should be understandable, internally consistent, and

278
 free from ambiguities. Clarity may be tested by the ease of relating the theory to data or

practice. The easy of developing the hypotheses is another way of testing clarity.

3. Parsimony or Simplicity - uncomplicated; minimal complexity and few assumptions.

Parsimony has long been accepted as a characteristic of a good theory. A good theory

contains a minimum of complexity and few assumptions. The phenomena of the world

and of nature are relatively simple in terms of basic principles. The law of parsimony

appears to be the most widely violated in theory construction because of the stage of

knowledge the theorist has reached, where diversity and complexity are more apparent

than are the underlying unity and consistency. Hall and Lindzey (1970) propose that

parsimony is important only after the criteria of comprehensiveness and verifiability have

been met.

4. Comprehensiveness - covering completely or broadly; covering the areas of interest

related to computer-based instruction and adults. A theory should be complete, covering

the area of interest and including all known data in the field. The area of interest can be

restricted.

5. Operationality - precise enough to be testable and measurable. A theory should be

capable of being reduced to procedures for testing its propositions or predictions. Its

concepts must be precise enough to be measurable. A lack of measurement to

operationalize a concept should not rule out the use of a concept that is essential for a

theory. The concept first should be defined and then a method of measurement chosen or

developed. Not all concepts of a theory need to be operational; concepts may be used to

indicate relationships and organization among concepts.

279
6. Empirical Validity or Verifiability - able to be confirmed or substantiated; experiments

and experience that confirm or disconfirm the theory generate new knowledge. A theory

must be supported by experience and experiments that confirm the theory. In addition to

its consistency with or ability to account for what is already known, it must generate new

knowledge. A theory that is disconfirmed by experiment may lead indirectly to new

knowledge by stimulating the development of a better theory.

7. Fruitfulness - predictions are made that can be tested that lead to the development of new

knowledge; development of new knowledge is considered fruitful. The capacity of a

theory to lead to predictions that can be tested, when in turn leads to the development of

new knowledge, has often been referred to as its fruitfulness. A theory can be fruitful

even if it is not capable of leading to specific predictions. It may provoke thinking and

the development of new ideas or theories because it leads to disbelief or resistance in

others.

8. Practicality - provides a conceptual framework for practice. The final criterion of a good

theory is its usefulness to practitioners in organizing their thinking and practice by

providing a conceptual framework for practice. A theory allows the practitioner to move

beyond the empirical level of trial-and-error application of techniques to the rational

application of principles. Practitioners too often think of theory as something that is

irrelevant to what they do, unrelated to practice or to real life. There is nothing as

practical as a good theory (Lewin, 1951).

280
 QUESTIONS FOR EVALUATING
“A THEORY OF EFFECTIVE COMPUTER-BASED INSTRUCTION
FOR ADULTS”

Do I have your permission to tape record this telephone interview to evaluate “A

Theory of Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults?”

1. Please rate and comment on the importance of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Patterson (1986) defines importance
as “a quality or aspect of having great worth or significance.” It should have
some relevance to life and be applicable to more than a limited restricted
situation.

2. Please rate and comment on the preciseness and clarity of “A Theory of

Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Preciseness and clarity have
to do with how clear and understandable the theory is. “A theory should be
understandable, internally consistent, and free from ambiguities” (Patterson,
1986, p. xx). The easy of developing the hypotheses is another way of testing for
clarity.

3. Please rate and comment on the parsimony or simplicity of “A Theory of

Effective Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” Parsimony means that a
theory contains a minimum of complexity, is economically constructed with a
limited number of concepts, and contains few assumptions.

4. Please rate and comment on the comprehensiveness of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” A theory is comprehensive if it
completely covers the area of interest and includes all known data in the field.

5. Please rate and comment on the operationality of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” A theory should be capable of being
reduced to procedures for testing its propositions or predictions. Key concepts
must be operationally defined with enough precise to be measurable. Patterson
(1986) points out that not all concepts of a theory need to be operationalized;
concepts may be used to indicate relationships and organization among concepts.

6. Please rate and comment on the potential of the empirical validity that could be
derived by converting the propositions developed for “A Theory of Effective
Computer-Based Instruction for Adults” into empirical indicators. The
empirical indicators are translated into hypotheses, which are confirmed or
disconfirmed by empirical research.

7. Please rate and comment on the fruitfulness of “A Theory of Effective

Computer-Based Instruction for Adults.” The capacity of a theory to lead to
predictions that can be tested and in turn leads to the development of new

281
 knowledge is referred to as its fruitfulness. The hypotheses or predictions are
based on the theory’s propositions. The propositions contribute to the
fruitfulness of the theory and are tested through empirical research.

8. Please rate and comment on the practicality of “A Theory of Computer-Based

Instruction for Adults.” A theory is practical if it is useful to researchers and
practitioners in organizing their thinking and practice by providing a conceptual
framework for practice. A theory allows the practitioner to move beyond the
empirical level of trail-and-error application of techniques to the rational
application of principles.

9. Please comment on any other aspect of “A Theory of Computer-Based

Instruction for Adults” that you wish to address.

The rating should be based on this scale.

Rating criteria (see attached Criteria for Evaluating Theory):

1 2 3 4 5
very low moderate high very
low high
1 Importance/Significance
2 Precision and Clarity
3 Parsimony or Simplicity
4 Comprehensiveness
5 Operationality
6 Empirical Validity
7 Fruitfulness
8 Practicality

282
 VITA

Janis Sue Lowe was born in Haynesville, Louisiana, and received her early

education in the public schools in Claiborne Parish, Louisiana. She graduated from

Haynesville High School in 1965. She was awarded a Bachelor of Science degree in

business education from Northwestern State University in 1970 and a Master of Business

Administration from University of Louisiana – Monroe in 1972.

She was employed as an accounting instructor at McNeese State University in

Lake Charles from 1972-1973. She married and moved to New Orleans where she

worked for New Orleans Public Service, Inc., from 1973-1977 as a tax accountant and a

research analyst. In 1978 she moved to Baton Rouge and was employed by Gulf States

Utilities Company from 1978-1992 as a customer service supervisor, rates and research

analyst, and community developer. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. and Gulf States

Utilities are companies of Entergy Corporation. In 1992 she was offered the opportunity

to become a public servant as Assistant Secretary for the Louisiana Department of

Economic Development where she served until 2001. In the 2001 she became a member

of the staff of the Research and Statistics Division of the Louisiana Department of

Louisiana where she is currently employed as a Labor Market Specialist Manager.

Her publications on high performance leadership competencies, andragogy, and

computer-based instruction can be found in Human Resource Development Review

(2000), Academy of Human Resource Development Conference Proceedings 2002, and

Journal of Research on Technology in Education (2001-2002), respectively.

283