the effects of cooperative learning and learner control on students' achievement, option...

The Effects of Cooperative Learning and Learner Control on Students' Achievement, Option Selections, and Attitudes

[] Chanchai Singhanayok Simon Hooper

We investigated the effects of studying alone or in cooperative-learning groups on the performance of high and low achievers, using either learner- or program-controlled computer-based instruction. A total of 92 sixth-grade students were classffied by Stanford Achievement Test scores and randomly assigned to group or individual treatments, stratified by achievement scores. Both high and low achievers in the cooperative treatment performed better and had more positive attitudes toward grouping than did students working individually, on both program-controlled and learner-controlled computer lessons. In addition, the cooperative- learning group exhibited sign~cantly greater improvement from immediate to delayed posttest than did the individual-learning group. For low achievers, the greatest improvement was in the program-controlled condition, and for the high achievers, in the learner-controlled condition. The learner-controlled cooperative- learning group, compared to the learner-controlled individual-learning group, chose to check its concept learning more often and spent more time interacting with the computer- based tutorial. These results suggest that cooperative learning provides beneficial effects, and imply a need for software designers to adapt computer-based instruction for cooperative learning to the d~erent learning styles of high- and low-achieving students.

[] Although the nature of content is a significant factor in the learning process (Stodolsky, 1988), students also need appropriate study, reading, and memory skills to learn effectively. The increasing use of the World Wide Web in education and the dramatic growth of information available to the learner illustrate the need for such skills: students must sift through volumi- nous irrelevant information to find the information they need. As a result, the ability to choose appropriate strategies becomes increasingly important. The present study investigated the impact of peer modeling of learning strategies on students' achievement and behavior during a learner-controlled computer-based lesson.

Learner Control

Learner control allows students to determine their progress through a lesson, and to choose learning activities that suit their personal prefer- ences and needs (Carrier, 1984). Allowing students to control decision making may produce more active learning: students often invest more mental effort when they control decision making. In addition, learner control can enhance independence and develop better study habits (Hooper, Temiyakam, & Williams, 1993). As a result, increasing learner control may improve instructional effectiveness (Reigeluth & Stein, 1983).

Learner control in computer-based instruction (CBI) can take many forms. At a micro level, learner-controlled instruction may allow learners to choose the difficulty level of the material (Fisher, Blackwell, Garcia, & Greene, 1975), to view elaborated or lean versions of content (Car-

ETR&D, Vol. 46, No. 2, 1998, pp. 17-33 ISSN 1042-1629 17

18 ETR&D, Vot 46, No. 2

tier, 1984; Carrier & Williams, 1988), or to review (Kinzie, Sullivan, & Berdel, 1988; Tobias, 1987). Several benefits may result from allowing learners to control these aspects of their instruction, including enhanced metacognition and improved decision making (O'Neil, 1973). To date, however, few studies have focused on cooperative learning groups that enable learners to work in computer-based learner-controlled environments.

Although much research supports the positive effects of learner control on learning, giving control to learners has not consistently improved achievement (Schloss, Sindelar, Cart- wright, & Smith, 1988; Snow, 1980; Steinberg, 1977). A large body of research suggests that students often perform poorly under learner-controlled conditions (Steinberg, 1989), and this effect is mediated by achievement (Carrier & Williams, 1988). High achievers appear to exer- cise effective learner control, but low achievers perform particularly poorly under such conditions (Hannafin, 1984). Clark (1982) hypothesized that a conflict exists between high- and low-achieving students' preferred methods of learning and achievement. High-achieving students prefer less directed, more self-determined methods; low-achieving students, on the other hand, prefer more structured, program-determined sequences. Younger or less-skilled learners often lack the knowledge to use learner control optimally, as well as how to monitor strategy use when given the opportunity to do so (Garhart & Hannafin, 1986; Ross & Rakow, 1981). Asa result, low-achieving students make choices that are inappropriate for effective learning (Tennyson & Rasch, 1988). A method is needed to encourage low-achieving students to use learner control effectively. Cooperative learning may be such a method, because high- achieving students may model effective learning strategies for their less able partners (Bandura, 1977). Pairing high- and low-achieving students in cooperative-learning dyads may increase the effectiveness of learner control among low- achieving students, and increase learning for all students.

C o o p e r a t i v e Learn ing

Cooperative learning involves working together to accomplish shared goals, using skills that benefit each group member (Johnson & Johnson, 1985). Cooperative learning encourages students to discuss, debate, disagree, and ulti- mately to teach one another. Achievement improves when a student learns information with the specific intent of teaching it to others, compared to when a student learns the information simply to take a test (Webb, 1982a). Explain- ing information to a partner appears to help students generate elaborations between new and existing information, presumably resulting in deeper processing of lesson content (Webb, 1982b). Receiving information from a partner is beneficial because of the increased access to help, as well as the opportunity to observe learning strategies used by partners.

Although cooperative learning can be viewed simply as a means to increase the cost- effectiveness of existing media, many research- ers have investigated the effects of cooperative learning on cognitive processing. For example, Spurlin, Dansereau, Larson, and Brooks (1984) found that individuals in cooperative learning groups used elaboration and metacognitive strategies more frequently and therefore achieved a higher level of learning than did individuals working competitively and individually. Tennyson and Rasch (1988) indicated that when students work cooperatively during learner-controlled lessons, they can present and advocate their ideas to others in the group, creat- ing an environment that helps students to elabo- rate and extend their contextual knowledge. In addition, Carrier and Sales (1987) observed that students working cooperatively appeared to motivate each other to seek elaborative feedback to their responses and to practice items during learner control. Hooper et al. (1993) reported that the students working cooperatively with a learner-controlled lesson supported each other's feelings and generated more ideas; students working alone were frustrated, took more time, and could not master the lesson. The cooperative learning groups also developed more positive attitudes toward grouping, supporting the idea that partners encourage each other to get

OPTION SELECTION IN COOPERATIVE GROUPS 19

involved in activities for mastering CBI. Hooper et al. also reported that when using a learner- controlled lesson, students in cooperative learning groups tended to support each other's feelings and had a greater diversity of ideas.

There is some reason to suspect that low- achieving students, who typically exhibit inef- fective learning behaviors when working by themselves under learner-controlled conditions, might benefit by working cooperatively with a higher-achieving student (Hooper & Hannafin, 1988). For example, Bandura (1977) suggested that low-achieving students may learn metacognitive skills more effectively in groups through modeling than when learning alone. Hooper et al. (1993) found that cooperative learning benefited both high- and low-achieving students. They suggested that high-achieving students may have gained from generating explanations for their less able partners; lower- achieving partners may have adopted more active roles during cooperative learning in learner-controlled settings than they typically do when learning alone. Although the isolated effects of cooperative learning and learner control on students of differing achievement levels are becoming better understood, the joint effects of these two instructional strategies remain unclear. By combining learner control and cooperative learning, the benefits of each may be enhanced.

In the present study, students were grouped heterogeneously by prior achievement, because prior knowledge has been shown to interact with one of the factors of primary interest- learner control. In this design, we were inter- ested in whether high and low achievers would demonstrate higher achievement in cooperative learning groups than when working alone. The effects of cooperative learning, learner control, and prior achievement were examined across immediate and delayed posttests. Attitudes toward the lesson and toward grouping were also assessed. Time on task and the number of options selected were recorded, and performance under learner-controlled/cooperative learning conditions was contrasted with that under learner-controlled/individual learning conditions. The following outcomes were hypothesized:

Research Hypothesis 1. Subjects working in the cooperative learning treatment will demonstrate higher posttest scores than will subjects in the individual treatment.

Research Hypothesis 2. Subjects in the learner- controlled/cooperative learning treatment will demonstrate higher posttest scores than will all other treatment groups.

Research Hypothesis 3. Subjects in the learner- controlled/heterogeneous cooperative learning pairs will select significantly more options than either high or low achievers in the learner-controlled/individual treatment.

Research Hypothesis 4. Subjects' attitudes toward the lesson and toward grouping in the cooperative learning treatment will be significantly higher than students' attitudes in the individual treatment.

METHOD

Subjects

A sample of 97 sixth-grade students from a pre- dominantly white suburban school participated in the study. Participation was voluntary, and only those who obtained parental consent were included. Five subjects were absent during the experiment, leaving a total of 92 participants. Students were classified as high or low achievers according to performance on the reading subscale of the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT).

As described in a later section, subjects were assigned to paired or individual treatment groups; pairing was accomplished using stratified-random sampling. The study included eight groups for analysis: high-achievement- learner-controlled-individual (n = 10); high- achievement-learner-controlled-paired (n -- 12); high-achievement-program-controlled-individual (n = 11); high-achievement-program-controlled-paired (n = 11); low-achievement- learner-controlled-individual (n = 13); low- achievement-learner-controlled-paired (n = 12); l °w ' ach i evemen t ' p r °g ram 'c °n t r ° l l ed ' i nd i " vidual (n = 12); low-achievement-program-controlled-paired (n = 11).

20 ETR&D. Vo146, No. 2

Mater ia ls

Standardized scores. Standardized achievement testing was administered at the beginning of the academic year. Because the experimental content was verbal (textual) in nature, reading scores were used to form the heterogeneous learning pairs. Reading scores have been found to predict performance in a learner-controlled task with scientific content (e.g., Kinzie, Sulli- van, & Berdel, 1988). The standardized reading scores of this sample were obtained from the SAT (mean = 48.01, range = 3 to 98, SD = 26.95). high achievers scored at or above the median, which fell at the 51st percentile, and low achievers scored below the median. The mean SAT score among the high achievers was 71.71 (SD =

12.69) and the range was from 51 to 98. The mean for the low achievers was 26.76 (SD =

14.91) and the range was from 3 to 49.

Computer-based tutorial. The design and development of the computer-based tutorial was modeled on materials that were used in another study on learner-control (Hooper & Temiyakarn, 1992). Ecology was selected for content because it was one of the sixth-grade curricular units in the elementary school where the study was conducted. Definitions and instances of ecological topics were excerpted from texts ranging in level from sixth-grade to college. These were paraphrased to accommo- date the text to the target population.

The topic selected was "Relationships Among Organisms," which included two types of relations: friendly and unfriendly. Six subtop- ics were identified for inclusion in the lesson: Mutualism, Commensalism, Competition, Para- sitism, Exploitation, and Predation. The objec- tives of the lesson were to classify and infer the relationships among the organisms. These objec- tives largely dictated the design of the tutorial. The design process followed guidelines presented by Allessi and Trollip (1985).

Flow charts of the two versions of the computer-based tutorial created for the study are presented in Figure 1 (learner-controlled version) and Figure 2 (program-controlled version). The lessons began by describing different kinds of relationships that exist among organisms and why learning about these relationships was

important. This was followed by instructions on how the lesson was structured and how to select, check, and review options. The goals of the lesson were briefly described in behavioral terms according to level of learning outcomes (Ga~nd, Briggs, & Wager, 1988). Students were told that upon completing the lesson, they should be able to identify, classify, generalize, and solve a problem correctly when given a sce- nario. The description of learner- and program- controlled versions is explained in detail in the experimental treatments section.

The authoring environment Hypercard (from Apple Computer, Inc.) was used to develop the lesson. The computer recorded students' identi- fication numbers, all the learner-control options made during the lesson and practice stages, dis- tracters selected during practice, and time taken to complete the lesson.

Posttest. The identical 25-item multiple-choice test was used for both the immediate and delayed post'tests. In the posttest items, examples of relationships among organisms were described, and students were asked to name and identify the type of relationship. The examples presented during the posttest were different from those encountered during the lesson, so that students were required to generalize from the knowledge acquired during the lesson. This test was used in previous research (Relan, 1992) and had been tested for reliability (a = .79). Sample posttest items are presented in Appen- dix A.

Attitude survey. The attitude survey, previously used in Hooper et al. (1993), contained six Likert-type items designed to assess attitudes toward the computer lesson and eight items to assess attitudes toward grouping. Subjects responded to both positively- and negatively- worded statements by marking their opinions on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). All subjects completed the attitude survey individually, regardless of grouping treatment. Data from the attitude subscales were analyzed and reported separately.

The purpose of the scale assessing attitudes toward the computer lesson was to determine students' liking for and perception of the instruction. The purpose of the scale assessing attitude toward grouping was to determine


Figure I [] Lesson flow for the learner-controlled version of the computer-based tutorial.

~ I n t r o d u c t i o n ~

Next Topic?

Next Question

Try

Incorrect

Elaborative Feedback

students' liking for working with a partner. Within each subscale, scores were averaged to produce subscale means. Scales were modified such that higher scores indicated liking and lower scores indicated disliking. Sample items from the attitude questionnaire are presented in Appendix B,

Experimental Treatments

Students were randomly assigned into one of four treatment groups, resulting from a crossing of two factors: Source of Control--program control or learner control; and Grouping--individual learning or cooperative learning. The four

22 Em&O. Vo146. No. 2

Figure 2 [] Lesson flow for the program-controlled version of the computer-based tutorial.

l Title {-.{b~Group#{-l~f_Introduction{.-lD~Pre~nr~tion~

I ~-~°~ui~ l _, t

[ . Y e s ) , v I ,Practice Question

L , I Elaborative

Fcedback {

different conditions were (a) learner-controlled/individual learning, Co) learner-controlled/cooperative learning, (c) program-controlled/individual learning, and (d) program- controlled/cooperative learning. In addition, subjects within the four groups were blocked by Achievement Level.

$ource afControl was embedded in the computer-based tutorial. The designer created two different versions to produce two sources of control: learner control and program control. In the learner-controlled version, students were asked if they would like to check their learning on each of the six concepts (Checking Option diamond,


Figure 1). The checking screen consisted of a brief factual question (using a true-false format) to promote interaction with the computer-based lesson. Students who answered a question incor- rectly were provided an opportunity to review the lesson (Review Option diamond, Figure 1). The presentation of each group of three concepts was followed by a practice session consisting of 13 multiple-choice questions requiring general- ization of learned material (Practice Question rectangle, Figure 1). Instances of different relationships were given, along with three dis- tracters and a correct answer. Following an incorrect answer, students could choose to see elaborative feedback on that concept, go back to answer the same question again, continue the lesson, or even quit the practice session (Feed- back Option diamond, Figure 1). Elaborative feedback was typically two to three sentences explaining why the answer was incorrect. Stu- dents choosing elaborative feedback were allowed to repeat the same practice question after the feedback. To summarize, the options analyzed in the present study included concept checking (after each concept), review (after answering a concept-checking question incor- rectly), number of practice questions answered, and elaborative feedback (following an incorrect practice question). Quitting the practice was also an option in the learner-controlled treatment. The number of options selected during the learner-controlled lesson was entirely up to the students.

In the program-controlled treatment, the lesson followed the same sequence as the learner- controlled treatment, except students were required to review concepts that they failed to master (Review rectangle, Figure 2). There were 13 practice questions following the presentation of each group of three concepts .(Practice Ques- tion rectangle, Figure 2). The practice questions comprised instances of different relationships along with four choice alternatives. Students were automatically presented with elaborative feedback following incorrect responses to embedded questions, and repeated the question until it was correct (Elaborative Feedback rectangle, Figure 2). However, following each attempt, the incorrect answers that had been made previously were highlighted. The corn-

puter program directed students to the correct feedback and to the next question as soon as the correct answer had been made. This was done to ensure that students in the program-control treatment were exposed to all the information. The amount of review, feedback, and practice the students were exposed to depended upon the students' correct or incorrect answers during the program-controlled lesson.

Thus, in the program-controlled version of the tutorial, every student was required to answer the concept-checking question after each of the six concepts, and required to review following incorrect concept-checking answers. In addition, every student in the program-controlled treatment was required to answer the 26 practice questions, and was exposed to elabora- Live feedback following an incorrect answer during the practice section.

Grouping. Two training sessions and two versions of the instructions for completing the computer-based tutorial were designed to be used in the cooperative learning and individual learning treatments. Students completed one of two training sessions a week before the experiment. Each training session lasted approximately 50 minutes and was completed in an intact class.

Cooperative learning treatment. Subjects in this treatment participated in cooperative training. The directions for cooperative learning were also included in the computer-based tutorial program. The directions of Hooper (1992) were used as a guideline. The purpose of the cooperative training session was to promote interdependence and individual accountability (Hooper & Hannafin, 1991) during cooperative learning. Cooperative learning training included several tasks. For example, students were required to construct a complete circle using pieces shared by members of the group. This task promoted interdependence and inspired groups to work toward common goals, two components of the cooperative-learning process (Johnson & Johnson, 1986). In another task, groups were required to correct grammati- cal errors in sentences provided to them. Upon completing the task, one member of the group was chosen by the instructor to explain the group's corrections. The students did not know

24 ETR&D. Vo146. NO. 2

who would be chosen, so that every student in a group had to be prepared to present the group's corrections. The purpose of this activity was to promote individual accountability, another important component of the cooperative-learning process. Between each task, feedback con- cerning the appropriateness and effectiveness of student behavior was provided by the cooperative training method (Johnson & Johnson, 1986). All students who completed the cooperative training were informed that they would work with a partner during the experiment. The cooperative-learning versions of the computer-based tutorials instructed the students to use cooperative-learning techniques when completing the tutorial. For example, students were instructed to come to a consensus before entering the group's answer, which is the "common goal" strategy of cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1986). In addition, the tutorial reminded students that they would be individually accountable for learning the material, that is, they would be completing the posttests separately.

Individual learning treatment. Subjects in this treatment participated in individual training. The computer-based tutorial did not include directions for cooperative learning but instead directed students to study individually at their own pace. In the individual training session, the experimenter posed a series of questions designed to increase students' awareness about effective methods of individual learning. These questions were: l) What are the advantages of working individually?, 2) How many students present here can think of an effective way of study alone?, 3) How can you make individual learning more effective?

Achievement Level. Initially, high- and low- achievers on the SAT were randomly assigned to cooperative or individual groups. Subjects were then stratified for the cooperative learning treatment. For each class, subjects in the cooperative treatment were ranked within achievement level. Partners were assigned by combIning students with identical ranks: The highest achiever was paired with the one who scored just below the median; the second highest was paired with the subject who had the second score below the median and so on, such that

the student just above the median was paired with the student who had the lowest score. In this way, there was always a difference between partners of at least 1.5 standard deviations in the SAT score, and heterogeneity among group members was established. This method was used to ensure a heterogeneous level of achievement. The individual-treatment group included a combination of high and low-achieving students.

The immediate posttest was administered on the same day, after the computer-based tutorial. One week following the experiment students completed the delayed posttest. Both posttests were completed individually. Three absentees completed the delayed posttest two days later.

Experimental Design and Analysis

The primary independent variables in the study were Source of Control (Learner Control and Program Control), Grouping (Cooperative Learning and Individual Learning), and Achievement Level (High and Low). A 2 x 2 × 2 × 2 (Source of Control x Grouping x Achieve- ment Level × Posttest Measures) repeated-measures design was used to analyze the data collected from immediate and delayed posttests. The effects of Source of Control and Grouping were examined by the blocking factor, Achieve- ment Level, and by the repeated posttest measures (Immediate and Delayed).

A randomized block, 2 × 2 x 2 (Source of Con- trol x Grouping x Achievement Level) multivar- iate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to assess scores on the two attitude measures (Toward Lesson and Toward Grouping). A completely randomized MANOVA was used to analyze the five performance measures embedded within the learner-controlled treatment (Time- on-Task, Concept Checking, Concept Review- ing, Elaborative Feedback, and Practice Items). The learner-controlled treatment consisted of three treatment groups: (a) Individual learning/low achieving; (b) Individual learning/high achieving; and (c) Cooperative learning/stratified-pair groups.

Analyses were performed on all dependent measures of interest using Statistical Package for

OPTION SELECTION ;N COOPERATIVE GROUPS 25

the Social Sciences (SPSS) 4.0 for the Macintosh. The alpha level chosen for statistical significance was .05. Both descriptive and inferential analyses were performed on the data collected for the study. Follow-up comparisons were made using factorial analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and Tukey's HSD procedure (Tukey, 1953).

RESULTS

Intercorrelations and Scale Reliabilities

A preliminary correlational analysis was performed to examine the relationships among important variables in the study, namely, the immediate posttest, delayed PoSttest, SAT reading, and SAT total scores. The correlations were as follows: between the immediate and delayed posttests, 0.80; between SAT reading and delayed posttest, 0.58; between SAT reading and immediate posttest, 0.65; between SAT total and immediate posttest, 0.67; and between SAT total and delayed posttest, 0.64. All achievement variables were significantly correlated (p < .01); the two posttests were significantly correlated (p < .01) and were also highly related to both the reading subscale and overall Stanford Achieve- ment scores.

Measures of internal consistency indicate the degree to which the items comprising a test are intercorrelated and the extent to which the items measure the same characteristic. The mean and standard deviation of the immediate posttest were 10.03 and 3.93. The mean and standard deviation of the delayed posttest were 10.91 and 4.34. The internal-consistency reliability for the immediate and delayed posttests were .67 and .73, respectively, using Cronbach's coefficient ct. Such reliabilities are acceptable for investigator- constructed instruments, although not extreme- ly high.

Posttests

To analyze posttest scores, a completely crossed

design was used with two treatment factors, Grouping (Individual or Cooperative) and Source of Control (Learner or Program), one

blocking factor, Achievement level (High or Low), and one repeated measure (Immediate and Delayed posttests). A repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant difference between high and low achievers, F(1, 84) = 29.41, p < .0001. Specifically, high achievers scored higher on the posttests (M = 12.49, SD = 4.66) than did the low achievers (M = 8.13, SD = 2.49). There was also a significant main effect for grouping, F(1, 84) = 9.51, p = .0028. Students in cooperative-learning groups performed signifi- can@ better (M = 11.60, SD = 4.41) than did students learning individually (M -- 9.34, SD = 3.57). The main effect for source of control and all interactions among the three independent variables (i.e. not involving the posttest factor) were not significant. The means and standard deviations on the two posttests are listed in Table 1.

There was a significant main effect for the posttest measures, F(1, 84) = 9.87, p = .0023. Stu- dents scored higher on the delayed posttest (M = 10.90, SD = 4.35) than on the immediate posttest (M -- 10.03, SD = 3.93). Although the absolute difference between scores on the immediate and delayed posttests was small, it was statistically significant and appears to be mediated by other factors within the experimental design. Specific- ally, there was a significant Posttest x Grouping interaction, F(I, 84) -- 11.47, p = .0011, and a significant Posttest x Achievement x Source of Con- trol interaction, F(1, 84) = 4.97, p = .0285. No other interactions with the repeated measure were significant. Degrees of freedom were not adjusted for sphericity on the repeated-measures analyses, since Greenhouse-Geyser ~ = 1.00.

Follow-up analysis (using Tukey HSD) of the Posttest × Grouping interaction indicated that students in the cooperative-learning group scored higher on the delayed posttest (M = 12.48, SD = 4.46) than on the immediate posttest (M = 10.72, SD = 4.22, p < .0001). In addition, delayed

posttest scores were higher in the cooperative- learning group (M = 12.48, SD = 4.46) than among the individual learners (M = 9.33, SD = 3.64, p = .0004). No other follow-up comparisons were significant. This interaction is presented in Figure 3.

Follow-up analyses of the Posttest x Achieve-

26 ETRaD. Vol 46, No, 2

Table I [] Means and standard deviations of immediate and delayed posttest scores by

treatments within low and within high achievement level.

Immediate posttest Delayed posttest N Mean SD Mean 5D

Low Achievers

Learner Control Individual Cooperative Learning

Program Control Individual Cooperative Learning

High Achievers

Learner Control Individual Cooperative Learning

Program Control Individual Cooperative Learning

13 7.69 1.93 8,00 2.48 12 8.83 2.33 9.33 1.72

12 7.08 1.08 8.08 2.58 11 8.91 3.15 11.36 2.29

10 10.60 3.95 10.30 3.40 12 12.75 4.99 15.42 4.34

11 12.64 3.67 11.36 4.99 11 12.36 4.57 13.82 5.90

Figure 3 [] Mean scores on immediate and delayed posttests for cooperative- and

indlvidual-learning groups.

14

12

10 O O

03

- ' 8 ¢t)

¢/3

c -

6

4

2

0

O Immediate Posttest

• Delayed Posttest

I

Individual

Grouping

Cooperative Learning

OP~ON SELECTION iN COOPERATIVE GROUPS

Figure 4 [] Mean scores on immediate and delayed posttests for high and low achievers by

learner and program control.

27

1 4 -

12

¢ 10 o o

03

8 0~

u) o o. 6 ¢- ¢1

4

2

0

[] Immediate Posttest

[] Delayed Posttest

Learner Program Learner Program Control Control Control Control

Low Achievers High Achievers

ment x Source of Control interaction were conducted within high-achieving and within low- achieving groups separately. This interaction is presented in Figure 4. Comparisons revealed that low-achieving students in the program-control condition scored significantly higher (p ffi .0042) on the delayed posttest (M = 9.65, SD = 2.92) than on the immediate posttest (M = 7.96, S D = 2.44). None of the other follow-up comparisons was significant.

The finding that students' performance significantly improved during the one-week retention interval raised the question of which experimental conditions best facilitate improvement between immediate and delayed posttests. To test this, Bonferroni-corrected paired t-tests (corrected ot = .00625) were performed on each of the eight experimental groups, to assess change from immediate to delayed posttests.

Among the cooperative learning groups, only the low achievers in the program-control condition improved significantly from immediate (M ffi 8.91, SD = 3.15) to delayed (M ffi 11.36, S D =

2.29) posttest, t(10) = 3.69, p = .0042. Among the individual learners, none of the experimental groups exhibited significantly different scores during the one-week retention interval.

Option Selection

Analyses of time on task and options selected were limited to students in the learner-control treatment, because students in the program-control version of the task did not make choices about their learning. High and low achievers working individually were treated as separate groups, because the pattern of option selection

28 ETR&D. Vat 46. No. 2

Table 2 [ ] Means and standard deviations of time on task and options selected in learner-controlled treatment groups.

High Low Cooperative Achievers Achievers Groups

Mean SD Mean SO Mean SD

Time on task (minutes) 23.60 2.84 24.00 5.23 31.20 5.18 Checking Concept Learning 3.70 3.34 4,10 3.51 7.20 1.87 Review Each Concept 0.70 0.82 0.80 0.79 0.70 1.06 Elaborative Feedback 5.30 4.92 5.00 4,83 8.90 4.95 Practice Items 21.00 4.92 22.20 6.73 21.27 5.43

Note: Students were given a m a x i m u m of 50 minutes to complete the lesson; there were no maximal n u m b e r of t imes that s tudents could choose the options in the learner-controlled lesson.

in low achievers working individually versus working cooperatively was of primary interest. Thus, three groups were used in the analysis: individual low achievers, individual high achievers, and cooperative-learning groups. A MANOVA on the five performance indicators (Time-on-Task, Total Checking, Total Review,. Total Elaborative Feedback, and Total Practice) revealed a significant main effect for treatment group, Wilks' A = 0.458; F(10,80) = 3.82, p = .0003. Univariate analysis of dependent measures indicated significant group differences on two of the performance indicators, time-on-task, F(2,44) = 11.85, p < .0001, and the number of learning checks for each concept, F(2,44) = 4.41, p = .018. Table 2 reports the means and standard deviations for time-on-task and the four options tracked during the learner-controlled lesson.

Follow-up analysis (using Tukey HSD) revealed that the cooperative-learning groups (M = 31.20, SD = 5.18) spent significantly more time on the task than either high (M = 23.60, SD = 2.84) or low individual learners (M = 24.0, SD = 5.23). There was no difference between high and low individual-learning groups on mean time on task. The cooperative-learning pairs (M = 7.20, SD = 1.87) also checked their concept learning more than both the high-achieving (M = 3.70, 5D = 3.34) and low-achieving (M = 4.10, S D = 3.51) individual learners, although only the difference between high-achieving individual learners and cooperative-learning pairs was significant.

Affffude Measures

A randomized block design was used to analyze the attitude measures, with two treatment factors, Grouping (Individual or Cooperative) and Source of Control (Learner or Program), and one blocking factor, Achievement Level (High or Low). Table 3 reports the means and standard deviations for both subscales of the attitude survey. Overall MANOVA revealed a significant main effect only for grouping, Wilks' A = 0.435; F(2,83) = 53.89, p < .0001. No other main effects or interactions were significant. Univariate analysis showed that the group difference was significant for attitude toward grouping, F(1,84) = 109.79, p < .0001. Students in cooperative learning groups had significantly more positive attitudes toward grouping (M = 31.54, S D = 5.42) than did students working individually (M = 20.82, SD = 3.34). There were no significant differences for attitude toward the computer-based lesson among the three independent variables. Students in cooperative learning groups (M = 21.28) showed a tendency to have more positive attitudes toward the computer-based lesson than did the individual learning group (M = 19.66), but this difference was not significant, F(1, 84) = 3.53, p = .064.

DISCUSSION

Results showed that students in cooperative- learning groups had higher posttest achievement scores than did students in the individual

OPTION SELECTION IN COOPEI~ATIVE Gi~OUPS 29

Table 3 [ ] Means and standard deviations on att i tude test scores by t reatment

Attitude toward CBI Attitude toward grouping Mean SD Mean SD

Low Achievers Learner Control Individual Cooperative Learning Program Control Individual Cooperative Learning

18.83 2.69 19.33 2.27 19.63 5.50 31.27 4.50

20.18 3.74 21.82 3.49 20.67 4.12 32.00 4.15

High Achievers Learner Control Individual Cooperative Learning Program Control Individual Cooperative Learning

19.22 3.83 21.89 2.52 23.08 3.37 32.67 5.52

20.40 3.03 20.50 4.04 21.82 5.02 30.18 7.36

Note: The maximal score on the Attitude toward CBI scale was 30; the maximal score on the Attitude toward ~oupin 8 sctle was 40.

treatment. Also, the learner-controlled/cooperative learning group selected more options during the lesson, and spent more time interacting with the tutorial than did the high and low achievers in the learner-controlled/individual learning groups. Further, students working in cooperative-learning groups had better attitudes toward grouping than did students working alone. It is interesting to speculate that the greater posttest performance in the cooperative learning group may have been facilitated by more time spent learning and a greater number of options selected, as well as more positive attitudes during learning. This suggests a broad range of benefits to using cooperative learning groups, for both high and low achievers.

In addition to significantly higher posttest scores, there was a greater increase in performance from immediate to delayed posttest in the cooperative-learning group compared to the individual-learning group. This result is unusual in that memory typically deteriorates considerably over a period of a week. The phenomenon of increased memory over time is not a new one. It was first reported by BaUard (1913) and is referred to as hypermnesia (Erdelyi & Bec- ker, 1974). Although the phenomenon of hypernmesia is prevalent, the term hypemmesia

is a description and not an explanation. The reason that performance increases over time is not known (Kasper, 1983), but is thought to be related to elaborative or categorical encoding (e.g., Einstein & Hunt, 1980) or time on task (Tulving, 1967). The results of the present study support this notion. Students in cooperative learning groups spent more time on task and had greater increases in posttest performance than did students working alone. Elaboration (feedback) and categorization (relationships among organisms) were both used in the present study. In addition, there is an additive effect such that learning tasks requiring both elaborative and categorical encoding activities result in greater hypermnesia than either activity alone (e.g., Klein & Loftus, 1988).

A primary goal of the present study was to examine factors that help low-achieving students learn better, without harming the performance of high achievers. We hypothesized that students in cooperative-learning groups would have higher posttest scores than students working individually. This hypothesis was supported by the data. Both high and low achievers performed better in the cooperative-learning groups overall, across learner- and program- controlled conditions. In addition, the improve-

30 ETR&D, Vot &5. No. 2

ment in performance between immediate and delayed posttests was significantly greater among students in cooperative-learning groups. This finding confirms Slavin's (1991) findings in a synthesis of research on cooperative learning, that using heterogeneous learning groups can enhance learning among low achievers without undermining the outcomes of the high achievers.

Although cooperative learning enhanced performance for students overall, high- and low- achieving students appeared to perform differ- ently under learner-controlled conditions. We hypothesized that high-achieving students would model learning strategies for their low- achieving partners on the learner-controlled lesson, and thus that the learner-control cooperative-learning group would have higher posttest scores than all other groups. This hypothesis was not supported by the data. As expected, high-achieving students performed better under learner-control conditions. How- ever, performance of low-achieving students was significantly better when using the program-controlled lesson, compared to performance under learner-controlled conditions. This suggests that improvements between immediate and delayed posttests were greater when students used a version of the task that is thought to be their preferred mode of learning, that is, program control for low achievers and learner control for high achievers.

Previous research on learner control indicates that the less information students receive in the learner-control treatment, the less effective the treatment. Presumably, this is because students in the learner controlled treatment, low achievers especially, leave the lesson prematurely and are exposed to less of the instructional material. The current findings do not support the notion that low-achieving students left the lesson prematurely or were exposed to less of the lesson; their time-on-task and option selections were equal to those of the high achievers using the learner-control lesson, and their posttest performance measures were no different than those of low-achieving students who had received full treatment options in the program-control version. This suggests that the poorer performance of the low-achieving students was not attribut-

able to the learner control strategy, time on task, or the amount of information exposed to during the computer-based lesson.

In the stratified cooperative pairs, students spent more time interacting with the computer- based lesson than did students working alone. Cooperative learning lessons usually take more time to complete because group members are individually accountable. With individual accountability, both students' mastery of the assigned material is assessed, and each student is given feedback on his or her progress. The group members take turns entering their answers through the computer keyboard and are given feedback on how each member is pro- gressing so that the partners know when to help, advise, and encourage. This result is supported by several previous studies. For instance, Car- rier and Sales (1987) reported that when computer-based instruction provided learner control over different types of feedback, pairs chose to see more feedback than did individuals, and spent longer inspecting information on the computer screen. Pairs also spent more time on screens involving practice items, as they attempted to reach consensus. In other studies (Goetzfried & Hannafin, 1985; Johansen & Ten- nyson, 1983; Tennyson & Buttrey, 1980), shorter time was also linked to poorer performance, suggesting that on-task time is an important consideration in the effectiveness of learner control. The implication of these findings is that pat- terns of learner control may be influenced by collaboration. That is, partners may convince each other to see more elaborative feedback and to check their concept learning more often. Increases in the number of options selected and time-on-task during learner-controlled instruction is an important effect of cooperative learning in this study.

The cooperative learning group developed more positive attitudes toward grouping, supporting the idea that partners encourage each other to get involved in activities for mastering CBI (Johnson & Johnson, 1985). In another study, students rated cooperative learning almost a point higher on a 5-point scale than did students who worked alone (Hooper et al., 1993). The results of the present study are in accord with previous research, and suggest that

OPTION SELECTION iN COOPERATIVE GROUPS 31

better att i tudes may facilitate greater learning.

The results of this s tudy suggest that greater attention should be given to designing CBI for cooperative-learning groups. Cooperative- learning groups in the present s tudy demon- strated greater learning and better atti tudes toward the lesson than did students working individually. In addit ion, s tudents working with par tners improved significantly over the one- week retention interval, perhaps because they spent more time on task and checked their learning more frequently. CBI and interpersonal interaction promoted by cooperative learning can provide encouragement to stay on task to explore diverse ideas and procedures of learning for both low and high achievers. Future research should focus on the effective use of control strategies within cooperative groups to facilitate learning in both high and low achievers, while teaching successful learner-control skills to low achievers. []

Chanchai Singhanayok was with the Department of Educational Technology, Chiangmai University, Thailand, when this research was conducted, and is currently with Scientific Applications International Corp., Vienna, VA. E-mail: [email protected].

Simon Hooper is with the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Minnesota

REFERENCES

Allessi, S.M., & Trollip, S.R. (1985). Computer based instruction: Methods and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Ballard, P.B. (1913). Oblivescence and reminiscence. British Journal of Psychology Monograph Supplement, 1, No. 2.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Carrier, C.A. (1984). Do learners make good choices? A review of research on learner control in instruction. Instructional Innovator, 29(2), 15--17.

Carrier, C.A., & Sales, G. (1987). Pair versus individual work on the acquisition concepts in a computer- based instructional lesson. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14, 11-17.

Carrier, C.A., & Williams, M.D. (1988). A test of one learner control strategy with students of differing levels of task persistence. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 285-306.

Clark, R.E. (1982). Antagonism between achievement and enjoyment in ATI studies. Educational Psycholo-

gist, 17, 92-101. Einstein, G.O., & Hunt, R.R. (1980). Levels of process-

ing and organization: Additive effects of individual item and relational processing. Journal of Experimen- tal Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 588- 598.

Erdelyi, M.H., & Becker, J. (1974). Hypermnesia for pictures: Incremental memory for pictures but not words in multiple recall trials. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 159-171.

Fisher, M.D., Blackwell, L.R., Garcia, A.B., & Greene, J.C. (1975). Effects of student control and choice on engagement in a CAI arithmetic task in a low- income school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 776-783.

Gagn~, R., Briggs, L., & Wager, W. (1988). Principles of instructional design, 3rd Ed. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart, and Wilson.

Garhart, C., & Hannafin, M.J. (1986). The accuracy of cognitive monitoring during computer-based instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 13, 88-93.

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

Hannafin, M. (1984). Guidelines for using locus of instructional control in the design of computer- assisted instruction. Journal of lnstructional Develop- ment, 7(3), 6-10.

Hooper, S. (1992). Cooperative learning and computer- based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(3), 21-38.

Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M.J. (1988). Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous groups on the learning of progressively complex concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 413--424.

Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M.J. (1991). The effects of group composition on achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Develop- ment, 39(3), 27--40.

Hooper, S., & Temiyakarn, C. (1992). The effectiveness of learner control in cooperative-learning group on computer-based instruction. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, April 1992, San Francisco, CA.

Hooper, S., Temiyakarn, C., & Williams, M.D. (1993). The effects of cooperative learning and learner control on high- and average-ability students. Educa- tional Technology Research and Development, 41(2), 5-18.

Johansen, K.J., & Tennyson, R.D. (1983). Effect of adap- tive advisement on perception in learner-controlled computer-based instruction using a rule-learning task. Educational Communication and Technology Jour- nal, 31,226-236.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1985). Cooperative learning: One key to computer assisted learning. The

32 ETI~&D, Vo146. No. 2

Computing Teacher, 13(2), 11-15. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1986). Circles of learn-

ing: Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interac- tion Book Co.

Kasper, L.F. (1983). The effects of linking sentence and interactive picture mnemonics on the acquisition of Spanish nouns by middle school children. Human Learning, 2, 141-156.

Kinzie, M.B., Sullivan, H.J. & Berdel, K. (1988). Learner control, achievement in science, and computer- assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 299-303.

Klein, S.B., & Loftus, J. (1988). The nature of self-refer- ent encoding: The contributions of elaborative and organizational process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 5-11.

O'Neil, F. (1973). Learner control of instruction: Requirement and Potentials. Paper presented at ADCIS Conference, Ann Arbor, MI.

Reigeluth, C.M., & Stein, F.S. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theory and models (pp. 335-382). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaurn.

Relan, A. (1992), Motivational strategies in computer- based instruction: Some lessons from theories and models of motivation. In: Proceedings of the Conven- tion of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 613-624). Washington, DC: AECT Research and Theory Division.

Ross, S.M., & Rakow, E.A. (1981). Learner control versus program control as adaptation strategies for selection of instructional support of math rules. Jour- nal of Educational Psychology, 73, 745-753.

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

Slavin, R.E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 71-82.

Snow, R.E. (1980). Aptitude, learner control, and adap- tive instruction. Educational Psychologist, 15, 151-58.

Spurlin, J.E., Dansereau, D.F., Larson, C.O., & Brooks, L.W. (1984). Cooperative learning strategies in pro- gressing descriptive text: Effects of role and activity level of the learner. Cognition and Instruction, 1,451- 463.

Steinberg, E.R. (1977). Review of student control in computer-assisted inst-tuction, Journal of Computer- based Instruction, 3, 84-90.

Steinberg, E.R. (1989). Cognition and learner control: A literature review, 1977-1988. Journal of Computer- Based Instruction, 16, 117-124.

Stodolsky, S.S. (1988). The Subject Matters: Classroom Activity in Math and Social Studies. Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press.

Tennyson, R.D., & Buttrey, T. (1980). Advisement and management strategies as design variables in computer-assisted instruction. Educational Communica- tion and Technology Journal, 28,169--170.

Tennyson, R.D., & Rasch, M. (1988). Linking cognitive learning theory to instructional prescriptions. Instructional Science, 17, 369-385.

Tobias, S. (1987). Mandatory text review and interaction with student characteristics. Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, 79,154-161.

Tukey, J.W. (1953). The problem of multiple comparisons. Unpublished manuscript, Princeton University.

Tulving, E. (1967). The effects of presentation and recall of materials in free-recall learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 175-184.

Webb, N.M. (1982a). Group composition, group interaction, and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 475- 484.

Webb, N.M. (1982b). Student interaction and learning in small groups. Review of Educational Research, 52, 421-445.

OPTION SELECTION IN COOPEr~ATIVE GROUPS 33

Appendix A ~ Examples of posttest items.

1. Certain flies attack ants returning from termite nests with food. The fly will attack an ant carrying away a termite, making it drop the termite. The fly quickly eats the fallen termite. This is an example of a. Predation b. Competition c. Parasitism d. Exploitation

2. A biadderwort is a plant that has sticky hairs on flower like structures. Insects are attracted to this sticky substance, and are trapped when they sit on it. The sticky hairs fold on them, and digest the insects. This is an example of a. Parasitism b. Predation c. Commensalism d. [nterspecific competition

3. The osprey, a large fish-eating hawk, builds a permanent nest, usually on an old tree top, and year after year adds sticks to it. A foot or two under the nest, other birds- grackles, sparrows and wrens build their nests. These get protection from the hawk, and the hawk does not interfere. This is an example of a. Mutualisrn b. Parasitism c. Cornrnensalism d. Predation

Appendix B [ ] Examples of attitude questionnaire items.

Attitude toward grouping: 1. I am best when I study with a partner 2. I like working in small groups 3. It is easier to work alone than with a partner

Attitude toward lesson: 1. I enjoyed the computer lesson 2. The computer lesson was boring 3. I didn't understand the computer lesson

Scale:

I I Strongly Somewhat agree agree

I Somewhat disagree

I Strongly disagree

34 ~r~aD, Vo146, No. 2

A N N O U N C I N G ECT Foundation 1999

ETR&D YOUNG SCHOLAR AWARD • Award: $250 will be presented to the winner during the AECT National Con-

vention and INCITE '99 Exposition in Houston, Texas, February 10-14, 1999. The winner will also receive an additional $250 award and a registration waiver for presenting the paper at AECT the following year (2000).. Addition- ally, the winning paper will be published in Educational Technology Research and Development (ETR&D), the refereed scholarly research journal published by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT).

• For: The best paper discussing a theoretical construct that could guide research and / or development in educational technology.

• Eligibility: A n individual who does not hold a doctorate degree, or who received a doctorate not more than five (5) years prior to November 1, 1998. Co-authorship is acceptable provided that the Young Scholar applicant is the primary author.

• Guidelines: The paper must be an original unpublished work dealing with research and theory in educational technology. It must deal with a theoretical construct, analyses of related research, and original recommendations for future research and/or development. The paper may not be a report of a specific research study or development project. It must be 20-30 pages long, excluding references, and must conform to the Publications Manual of the American Psychological Association, 4th Ed, 1994.

• Deadline: Entries must be postmarked no later than October 23, 1998.

• Submission: Submit four copies of the manuscript to: Dr. Steven Ross Center for Research in Educational Policy 115 Brister Library The University of Memphis Memphis, TN 38152

• Selection: The selection of the winning paper will be the responsibility of the editor and editorial board of the Research Section of ETR&D. Only the best paper judged worthy of the award will win. An award will not be made if none of the entries are deemed worthy.

ECT Foundation: The ECT Foundation is the non-profit foundation of the Asso- ciation for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) and was established to carry out purposes and programs of AECT that are charitable and educational in nature. The ECT Foundation funds an extensive awards program that promotes scholarship and leadership in the field of educational communications and technology at both the graduate and undergraduate levels.

Because it is a non-profit organization, all donations to the ECT Foundation are tax-deductible and financial gifts to support its many programs are welcome. For additional information or to make a donation, write to ECT Foundation, c /o AECT, 1025 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 820, Washington, D.C. 20005.

OPTION SELECTION IN COOPERATIVE GRKZ)UPS 35

A N N O U N C I N G THE

YOUNG RESEARCHER AWARD

Award: $500 will be presented to the winner during the AECT National Convention and INCITE '99 Exposition in Houston, Texas, in February 1999. Additionally, the winning paper will receive special consideration for publication in Educational Tech- nology Research and Development (ETR&D).

For: The best paper reporting on a quantitative or qualitative study addressing a question related to educational technology.

Eligibility: An individual who does not hold a doctorate degree, or who received a doctorate not more than five (5) years prior to November 1, 1998. Co-authorship is acceptable provided that the Young Researcher applicant is the primary author.

Guidelines: The paper must be an original unpublished investiga- tion dealing with research educational technology. The paper must be a report of a specific research study. It must be 25-35 pages long, excluding references, and must conform to the Pub- lications Manual of the American Psychological Association, 4th Ed, 1994.

• Deadline: Entries must be postmarked no later than October 23, 1998.

Submission: Submit four copies of the manuscript to: Michael Hannafin University of Georgia 611 Aderhold Hall Athens, GA 30602

Selection: The selection of the winning paper will be the responsibility of the Young Researcher selection committee which was appointed by the board of the Research and Theory Division of AECT. Only research papers judged significant of the award will win. An award will not be made if none of the entries are deemed worthy.

36 ETR&D, Vo146. No. 2

New from AECTt Planning for Interactive Distance Education: A Handbook By Mary Herr ing and Sharon Smaldino

Pt'ann/n a 'or [nteractioe l)iatance

£ducation: 19 Hand6oo~

..q/~ron £ 8tr~M~ r./,,i~-8/tg dtCetaw~ I~,a

T his new handbook is designed to enhance distance education practice. It presents distance educators with a

variety of innovative uses for distance education. The information provided is intended to bridge the ideas of many about the multiple facets of distance education and their practical application in the distance classroom. It supports both students and teachers as they learn to effectively use distance-learning environments by combining the nuances of instructional method with technological tools.

Publfsbed by the Assocfatfon for Educatfonal Communfcattons and Technology 108 pages (1998) Spriralbound • ISBN0-89240-112-5

$30 / $25 for AECT Members

PLEASE SEND copy(ies) of Planning for Interactive Distance Education: A

Handbook @ $30.00 + $3.50 S&H

Name

rPRICE OF ONLY~

It, (PLUS s3~l

[ l xS t i tUdON i ~ i • L,. |

~d~,, r s25.oo c~, stoic, z~p EACH FOR AECT Pho.~ MEMBERS OCh~i. thc~ountofS 0 ~0. e.do~t ~o, S I k l (PLUS s 3 . ~ ° ~

Exp. dare _ _ Amount: Signature

Retom tM$ order form to AECr I~Micati~t Sties, !11~5 Vermont Ave., I ~ , Sto. 820, Washing- ton, DC 20005. Make ch~.ks payable to AEC'r. Cr~R otrd orders may be fax~l to 202..~47.7859. Allow 4 weeks for delivery.

the effects of cooperative learning and learner control on students' achievement, option...

Documents