COOPERATION AND THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY - … · PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, ......

P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM

PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0

COOPERATION AND THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY

David W. Johnson and Roger T. JohnsonUniversity of Minnesota

30.1 TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM

We live in an historical period in which knowledge is themost critical resource for social and economic developmentand people need to be able to participate in a networked,information-based society. Whereas previously people engagedin manufacturing-based work where they generally competedwith or worked independently of each other, now people en-gage in information- and technological-rich work where theywork in teams. People need to be able to work collaborativelyin designing, using, and maintaining the tools of technology.Technology and teamwork will continuously play a larger rolein most people’s lives. Children, adolescents, and young adultshave no choice but to develop and increase their technologi-cal and teamwork literacy. There is no better place for themto begin than in school. Learning in cooperative groups whileutilizing the tools of technology should occur at all grade levelsand in all subject areas.

Because the nature of technology used by a society influ-ences what the society is and becomes, individuals who do notbecome technologically literate will be left behind. Influencesof a technology include the nature of the medium, the waythe medium extends human senses, and the type of cognitiveprocessing required by the medium. Harold Adam Innis (1964,1972) proposed that media biased toward lasting a long time,such as stone hieroglyphics, lead to small, stable societies be-cause stone was difficult to edit and rewrite and was too heavyto distribute over great distances. In contrast, media biased to-ward traveling easily across distances, such as papyrus, enabledthe Romans to build and run a large empire. Marshall McLuhan(1964) believed that the way the media technology balancesthe senses creates its own form of thinking and communicatingand eventually alters the balance of human senses. He believedthat oral communication makes hearing dominant and thoughtsimultaneous and circular. Written communication makes sight

dominant and thought may be linear (one thing follows an-other), rational (cause and effect), and abstract. Electronic tech-nology tends to recreate the village on a global scale throughinstantaneous and simultaneous communication in which phys-ical distance between people becomes irrelevant. On a morenegative note, Neil Postman (1985) expressed fears that ourability to reason with rigor and self-discipline is being eroded asfewer people read systematically and more people watch andlisten to electronic media. Their thinking may become morereactive and impressionistic.

Given the pervasive and powerful effects media that tech-nologies can have on the nature of society and the thinkingand communicating of its members, there can be little doubtthat technology will increasingly be utilized in instructional sit-uations. In the past, however, teachers and schools have beenvery slow in adopting new technologies and very quick in dis-continuing their use (Cuban, 1986). There tends to be a cycle inwhich (a) the potential of a technology leads to fervent claimsand promises by advocates, (b) its utility is demonstrated byacademic research in a small set of classrooms rich with humanand technical support, (c) teachers who have little or no re-sources adopt the technology and are frustrated by their failureto make it work, and (d) the use of the new technology graduallydeclines. With the invention of motion pictures, for example,Thomas Edison predicted that films of great teachers would re-place live classroom teachers. When radio was invented theprediction was made that teachers would soon be obsolete be-cause all over the country students could sit and listen to greatminds lecture via the radio. Similar predictions were made whentelevision and computers were first invented.

The failure of schools to adopt available instructional tech-nologies and to maintain (let alone continuously improve) theiruse may be due at least in part to two barriers: (a) the individualassumption underlying most hardware and software develop-ment and (b) the failure to utilize cooperation learning as an in-herent part of using instructional technologies. The purpose of

785



786 • JOHNSON AND JOHNSON

this chapter is to clarify the interdependence between instruc-tional technologies and cooperation among students in usingthe technologies. To understand how cooperative learning maybe used with technologies, the nature of cooperative learningneeds to be defined, the theoretical foundations on which it isbased need to be clarified, the research validating its use needsto be reviewed, distinctions between cooperative learning andother types of instructional groups need to be make, and the ba-sic elements that make cooperation work must be defined. Atthat point, the interrelationships between cooperative learningand technology-supported instruction can be noted and theircomplementary strengths delineated. The future of technology-assisted cooperative learning can then be discussed.

30.2 THE INDIVIDUAL ASSUMPTION

Before the 1990s, most of the research on computer-supportedlearning was based on the single-learner assumption. Theindividual assumption is that instruction should be tailoredto each student’s personal aptitude, learning style, personalitycharacteristics, motivation, and needs. Computers were viewedas an important tool for individualizing learning experiences,especially for computer-assisted instruction programs based onprogrammed learning, but also for learning experiences derivedfrom constructivist principles (Crook, 1994). Many hardwareand software designers (as well as teachers) assumed that alltechnology-supported instruction should be structured individ-ualistically (one student to a computer) and computer programswere written accordingly.

The ability of designers to adapt instruction sequences tothe cognitive and affective needs of each learner, however, islimited by three factors.

1. Substantial variation exists in types of learning styles and per-sonality traits, and although many of them are sometimes cor-related with achievement, few have been shown to predictachievement consistently.

2. Little agreement exists on how to translate differences inlearning styles and personal traits into instructional prescrip-tions. The only design rule that is widely accepted is thatstudents should control the flow of information.

3. Creating algorithms to adapt instruction to individual needsand designing and producing multiple versions of lessons areboth time-consuming and expensive.

Thus, the potential for individualized instruction may be lim-ited due to the difficulties associated with identifying individualdifferences and translating them into instructional prescrip-tions. In addition, individualized instruction has several short-comings:

1. Individual work isolates students and working alone for longperiods may lower personal motivation by increasing bore-dom, frustration, anxiety, and the perception that learning isimpersonal.

2. Individual instruction limits the resources available to them-selves and the technology. The support and encouragement

of peers and the cognitive benefits associated with ex-plaining to peers and developing shared mental models arelost.

3. Individualized instruction greatly increases development andhardware costs. A workstation is required for each learner,which entails considerable hardware expense. Considerabledevelopment and software expenses are required, as thelessons have to be designed to personalize instruction andto adapt the instructional sequenced to individual process-ing requirements.

The difficulties associated with identifying and accommodat-ing individual needs severely limit designers’ ability to individ-ualize instruction. The shortcomings of individualized instruc-tion call into question the wisdom of designing individualizedprograms. Despite these problems, however, much of the in-structional software has been and is designed, developed, andmarketed for individual use.

This omission of social interaction in computer-based learn-ing experiences worried many educators in the 1980s (Baker,1985; Cuban, 1986; Hawkins, Sheingold, Gearhart, & Berger,1982; Isenberg, 1992). Given the limitations of the individualassumption, and its shortcomings, technology may be more pro-ductively used when it is used in combination with cooperationlearning. The spontaneous cooperation often reported aroundtechnology, in addition, both casts doubt on the individual as-sumption made by hardware and software designers and pointstoward the use of cooperative learning in technology-supportedinstruction (Dyer, 1994). To use cooperative learning, however,educators must understand its nature.

30.3 THE NATURE OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING

There are advantages to embedding technology-supported in-struction in cooperative learning. Cooperative learning maybe distinguished from traditional “direct transfer” models ofinstruction in which the instructor is assumed to be the dis-tributor of knowledge and skills. To understand technology-supported cooperative learning, you must understand the na-ture of cooperative learning, the theoretical foundations onwhich it is based, the research validating its use, the distinctionsbetween cooperative learning and other types of instructionalgroups, and the basic elements that make cooperation work(Fig. 30.1).

30.3.1 Cooperative Learning

Cooperation is working together to accomplish shared goals.Within cooperative activities individuals seek outcomes that arebeneficial to themselves and beneficial to all other group mem-bers. Cooperative learning is the instructional use of smallgroups so that students work together to maximize their ownand each other’s learning. In cooperative learning situationsthere is a positive interdependence among students’ goal at-tainments; students perceive that they can reach their learninggoals if and only if the other students in the learning group also



30. Cooperation and Technology • 787

Social InterdependenceCooperative Competitive Individualistic

Research: Why Use Cooperative LearningEffort To Achieve Positive Relationships Psychological Health

Five Basic ElementsPositive Inter-dependence

IndividualAccountability

PromotiveInteraction

Social Skills Group Processing

Cooperative LearningFormal Coop Learning Informal Coop Learning Coop Base Groups

Make Preinstructional Decisions Conduct Introductory FocusedDiscussion

Opening Class Meeting To CheckHomework, Ensure MembersUnderstand Academic Material,Complete Routine Tasks Such AsAttendance

Explain Task And CooperativeStructure

Conduct Intermittent PairDiscussions Every Ten Or FifteenMinutes

Ending Class Meeting To EnsureMembers Understand AcademicMaterial, Homework Assignment

Monitor Learning Groups AndIntervene To Improve Taskwork& Teamwork

Conduct Closure FocusedDiscussion

Members Help And Assist EachOther Learn In-Between Classes

Assess Student Learning And

Process Group Effectiveness

Conduct Semester Or Year Long

School Or Class Service Projects

Cooperative School

Teaching Teams Site-Based Decision Making Faculty Meetings

Constructive Conflict

Students Faculty

Academic Controversy Negotiating, Mediating Decision-Making

Controversy

Negotiating, Mediating

Civic Values

Work For MutualBenefit, CommonGood

Equality Of AllMembers

Trusting, CaringRelationships

View SituationsFrom AllPerspectives

UnconditionalWorth Of Self,Diverse Others

FIGURE 30.1. Cooperative learning.

reach their goals (Deutsch, 1962; D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson,1989).

Technology-supported cooperative learning existswhen the instructional use of technology is combined with theuse of cooperative learning groups. Cooperative learning is usu-ally contrasted with competitive learning (students workingto achieve goals that only a few can attain; students can succeedif and only if the other students in the class fail to obtain theirgoals) and individualistic learning (students working aloneon goals independent from the goals of others) (Deutsch, 1962;D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989).

30.3.2 Collaborative Learning

Cooperative learning is sometimes differentiated from collab-orative learning, which has its roots in the world of Sir JamesBritton (1990) and others in England in the 1970s. QuotingVygotsky (1978), Britton notes that just as the individual mindis derived from society, a student’s learning is derived from thecommunity of learners. Britton is quite critical of educators whowish to provide specific definitions of the teacher’s role. He rec-ommends placing students in groups and letting them gener-ate their own culture, community, and procedures for learning.




Britton believed in natural learning (learning something bymaking intuitive responses to whatever our efforts throw up)rather than training (the application of explanations, instruc-tions, or recipes for action). The source of learning is interper-sonal; learning is derived from dialogues and interactions withother students and sometimes the teacher. He viewed struc-ture provided by teachers as manipulation that creates training,not learning, and therefore teachers should assign students togroups, provide no guidelines or instructions, and stay out oftheir way until the class is over. As an educational procedure,therefore, collaborative learning has historically been much lessstructured and more student directed than cooperative learn-ing, with only vague directions given to teachers about its use.The vagueness in the role of the teacher and students resultsin a vagueness of definition of the nature of collaborative learn-ing. Although there is a clear definition of cooperative learning,there is considerable ambiguity about the meaning of collabora-tive learning. The two terms (cooperative learning and collab-orative learning) are, therefore, usually used as interchangeableand synonymous.

30.3.3 Types of Cooperative Learning

There are four types of cooperative learning that may be usedin combination with instructional technology: formal cooper-ative learning, informal cooperative learning, cooperative basegroups, and academic controversy.

Formal cooperative learning is students working to-gether, for one class period to several weeks, to achieve sharedlearning goals and complete jointly specific tasks and assign-ments (such as decision making or problem solving, complet-ing a curriculum unit, writing a report, conducting a surveyor experiment, reading a chapter or reference book, learningvocabulary, or answering questions at the end of a chapter;D. W. Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1998a, 1998b). Any courserequirement or assignment may be reformulated to be cooper-ative. In formal cooperative learning groups, teachers:

1. Make a number of preinstructional decisions. A teacherhas to decide on the objectives of the lesson (both academicand social skills objectives), the size of groups, the methodof assigning students to groups, the roles students will beassigned, the materials needed to conduct the lesson, andthe way the room will be arranged.

2. Explain the task and the positive interdependence. Ateacher clearly defines the assignment, teaches the requiredconcepts and strategies, specifies the positive interdepen-dence and individual accountability, gives the criteria for suc-cess, and explains the expected social skills to be engaged.

3. Monitor students’ learning and intervene within thegroups to provide task assistance or to increase stu-dents’ interpersonal and group skills. A teacher system-atically observes and collects data on each group as it works.When it is needed, the teacher intervenes to assist studentsin completing the task accurately and in working togethereffectively.

4. Evaluate students’ learning and help students processhow well their groups functioned. Students’ learningis carefully assessed and their performances are evaluated.Members of the learning groups then process how effectivelythey have been working together.

Informal cooperative learning consists of having stu-dents work together to achieve a joint learning goal in tem-porary, ad-hoc groups that last from a few minutes to one classperiod (D. W. Johnson et al., 1998b; D. W. Johnson, Johnson, &Smith, 1998). During a lecture, demonstration, or film they canbe used to focus student attention on the material to be learned,set a mood conducive to learning, help set expectations as towhat will be covered in a class session, ensure that studentscognitively process the material being taught, and provide clo-sure to an instructional session. Informal cooperative learninggroups are often organized so that students engage in 3- to 5-minfocused discussions before and after a lecture and 2- to 3-minturn-to-your-partner discussions interspersed every 15 minor so throughout a lecture.

Cooperative base groups are long-term, heterogeneouscooperative learning groups with stable membership (D. W.Johnson et al., 1998b; D. W. Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998).The purposes of the base group are to give the support, help,encouragement, and assistance each member needs to make aca-demic progress (attend class, complete all assignments, learn)and develop cognitively and socially in healthy ways. Basegroups meet daily in elementary school and twice a week insecondary school (or whenever the class meets).

The fourth type of cooperative learning is academic con-troversy, which exists when one student’s ideas, information,conclusions, theories, and opinions are incompatible with thoseof another, and the two seek to reach an agreement (D. W. John-son & R. Johnson,1979, 1995). Teachers structure academic con-troversies by choosing an important intellectual issue, assigningstudents to groups of four, dividing the group into two pairs, andassigning one pair the pro position and the other pair a con po-sition. Students then follow the five-step controversy procedureof (a) preparing the best case possible for their assigned posi-tion, (b) persuasively presenting the best case possible for theirposition to the opposing pair, (c) having an open discussion inwhich the two sides argue forcefully and persuasively for theirposition while subjecting the opposing position to critical anal-ysis, (d) reversing perspectives, and (e) dropping all advocacycoming to a consensus as to their best reasoned judgment aboutthe issue.

In all four types of cooperative learning, repetitive lessonscan be scripted so they become classroom routines. Cooper-ative learning scripts are standard cooperative proceduresfor conducting generic, repetitive lessons and managing class-room routines (D. W. Johnson et al., 1998a, 1998b). They areused to organize course routines and generic lessons that occurrepeatedly. Some examples are checking homework, prepar-ing for and reviewing a test, drill-reviewing facts and events,reading textbooks and reference materials, writing reports andessays, giving presentations, learning vocabulary, learning con-cepts, doing projects such as surveys, and problem solving. Allof these instructional activities may be done cooperatively and,




once planned and conducted several times, will become au-tomatic activities in the classroom. They may also be used incombination to form an overall lesson.

Cooperative learning is being used throughout preschools,elementary and secondary schools, colleges, and adult educa-tion programs because of its blend of theory, research, and prac-tice. It is being used throughout the world, that is, throughoutNorth America and Europe and in Central and South America,Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the Pacific Rim. Cooperativelearning’s popularity is based on its theoretical basis, which hasbeen validated by hundreds of research studies.

30.4 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONSOF COOPERATIVE LEARNING

Whereas computers have been used as educational tools sincethe 1970s, integrating the design and deployment of comput-ers with educational theory has been difficult and largely ab-sent. Technology-supported instruction, for example, needsto be integrated into the theories underlying the use of co-operative learning. There are at least three general theoret-ical perspectives that have guided research on cooperativelearning—cognitive-developmental, behavioral, and social in-terdependence. The cognitive developmental or construc-tivist perspective is based largely on the theories of Piaget andVygotsky. The work of Piaget and related theorists is based onthe premise that when individuals cooperate on the environ-ment, sociocognitive conflict occurs that creates cognitive dis-equilibrium, which in turn stimulates perspective-taking abilityand cognitive development. The work of Vygotsky and relatedtheorists is based on the premise that knowledge is social, con-structed from cooperative efforts to learn, understand, and solveproblems. The behavioral learning theory perspective fo-cuses on the impact of group reinforcers and rewards on learn-ing. Skinner focused on group contingencies, Bandura focusedon imitation, and Homans as well as Thibaut and Kelley focusedon the balance of rewards and costs in social exchange amonginterdependent individuals. While the cognitive-developmentaland behavioral theoretical orientations have their follow-ings, the theory dealing with cooperation that has gener-ated by far the most research is the social interdependencetheory.

Social interdependence exists when individuals sharecommon goals and each person’s success is affected by the ac-tions of the others (Deutsch, 1962; D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson,1989). It may be differentiated from social dependence (i.e.,the outcomes of one person, are affected by the actions of a sec-ond person, but not vice versa) and social independence (i.e.,individuals’ outcomes are unaffected by each other’s actions).There are two types of social interdependence: cooperative andcompetitive. The absence of social interdependence and depen-dence results in individualistic efforts.

Theorizing on social interdependence began in the early1900s, when one of the founders of the Gestalt School ofPsychology, Kurt Koffka, proposed that groups were dynamicwholes in which the interdependence among members could

vary. One of his colleagues, Kurt Lewin, refined Koffka’snotions in the 1920s and 1930s while stating that (a) the essenceof a group is the interdependence among members (created bycommon goals), which results in the group being a “dynamicwhole,” so that a change in the state of any member or sub-group changes the state of any other member or subgroup,and (b) an intrinsic state of tension within group membersmotivates movement toward the accomplishment of the de-sired common goals. In the late 1940s, one of Lewin’s graduatestudents, Morton Deutsch (1949, 1962), extended Lewin’s rea-soning about social interdependence and formulated a theoryof cooperation and competition. Deutsch conceptualized threetypes of social interdependence—positive, negative, and none.Deutsch’s basic premise was that the type of interdependencestructured in a situation determines how individuals interactwith each other, which in turn largely determines outcomes.Positive interdependence tends to result in promotive interac-tion, negative interdependence tends to result in oppositionalor contrient interaction, and no interdependence results in anabsence of interaction. Depending on whether individuals pro-mote or obstruct each other’s goal accomplishments, there issubstitutability, cathexis, and inducibility. The relationship be-tween the type of social interdependence and the interactionpattern it elicits is assumed to be bidirectional. Each may causethe other. Deutsch’s theory has served as a major conceptualstructure for the study of social interdependence since the late1940s.

30.5 RESEARCH ON SOCIALINTERDEPENDENCE

The research on social interdependence is notable for the sheeramount of work done, the long history of the work, the widevariety of dependent variables examined, the generalizabilityand external validity of the work, and the sophistication of theresearch reviews.

A great deal of research on social interdependence has beenconducted. In North America, the first study was published in1898. Between that time and 1989, over 550 experimental and100 correlational studies were conducted on social interdepen-dence (see D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989, for a completelisting of these studies). Hundreds of other studies have used so-cial interdependence as the dependent rather than the indepen-dent variable. In our own research program at the CooperativeLearning Center at the University of Minnesota since the late1960s we have conducted over 90 studies to refine our under-standing of how cooperation works. In terms of sheer quantityof research, social interdependence theory is one of the mostexamined aspects of human nature.

The research on social interdependence has been conductedin 11 historical decades. Research subjects have varied as to age,sex, economic class, ethnicity, nationality, and cultural back-ground. A wide variety of research tasks, ways of structuringsocial interdependence, and measures of the dependent vari-ables has been used. Many researchers with markedly differ-ent theoretical and practical orientations working in different




PositiveInterdependence

PositiveInterdependence

Pos

itive

Inte

rdep

ende

nce

Promotive Interaction

Promotive

Inte

ract

ion

Prom

otiveInteraction

Effortto

Achieve

PositiveRelationships

PsychologicalAdjustment,

Social Competence

FIGURE 30.2. Outcomes of cooperation. From Cooprationand Competition: Theory and Research, by D. W. Johnsonand R. Johnson, 1989 Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Reprinted by permission.

settings and even in different countries have conducted theresearch. The diversity of subjects, settings, age levels, andoperationalizations of social interdependence and the depen-dent variables give this work an external validity and a general-izability rarely found in the social sciences.

A wide variety of dependent variables has been examinedin the research on social interdependence. These numerous de-pendent variable may be subsumed within the broad categoriesof (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989) interaction pattern, effortto achieve, positive interpersonal relationships, and psycholog-ical health (Fig. 30.2).

30.5.1 Interaction Patterns

Two heads are better than one.—Heywood

Positive interdependence creates promotive interaction.Promotive interaction occurs as individuals encourage andfacilitate each other’s efforts to reach the group’s goals (suchas maximizing each member’s learning). Group members pro-mote each other’s success by (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson,1989):

1. Giving and receiving help and assistance. In cooperativegroups, members both give and receive work related andpersonal help and support. Hooper (1992a) found a positiveand significant correlation between achievement and helpingbehaviors.

2. Exchanging resources and information. Group members seekinformation and other resources from each other, compre-hend information accurately and without bias, and makeoptimal use of the information provided (e.g., Cosden &

English, 1987; Hawkins et al., 1982; Webb, Ender, & Lewis,1986). There are a number of beneficial results from (a) orallyexplaining, elaborating, and summarizing information and(b) teaching one’s knowledge to others. Yueh and Alessi(1988) found that a combination of group and individual re-wards resulted in increased peer teaching. Explaining andteaching increase the degree to which group members cog-nitively process and organize information, engage in higher-level reasoning, attain insights, and become personally com-mitted to achieving. Listening critically to the explanationsof groupmates provides the opportunity to utilize other’s re-sources.

3. Giving and receiving feedback on taskwork and teamworkbehaviors. In cooperative groups, members monitor eachother’s efforts, give immediate feedback on performance,and, when needed, give each other help and assistance. Car-rier and Sales (1987) found that students working in pairschose elaborative feedback more frequently than did thoseworking alone.

4. Challenging each other’s reasoning. Intellectual controversypromotes curiosity, motivation to learn, reconceptualizationof what one’s knows, higher-quality decision making, greaterinsight into the problem being considered, higher-level rea-soning, and cognitive development (D. W. Johnson & R. John-son, 1995). LOGO environments may especially engenderconflicts among ideas and subsequent negotiation and reso-lution of that conflict (Clements & Nastasi, 1985, 1988; Lehrer& Smith, 1986).

5. Advocating increased efforts to achieve. Encouragingothers to achieve increases one’s own commitmentto do so.

6. Mutually influencing each other’s reasoning and behavior.Group members actively seek to influence and be influencedby each other. If a member has a better way to complete thetask, groupmates usually quickly adopt it.

7. Engaging in the interpersonal and small group skills neededfor effective teamwork.

8. Processing how effectively group members are working to-gether and how the group’s effectiveness can be continuouslyimproved.

Negative interdependence typically results in oppositionalinteraction. Oppositional interaction occurs as individualsdiscourage and obstruct each other’s efforts to achieve. Indi-viduals focus both on increasing their own success and on pre-venting any one else from being more successful than they are.No interaction exists when individuals work independentlywithout any interaction or interchange with each other. Indi-viduals focus only on increasing their own success and ignoreas irrelevant the efforts of others.

Each of these interaction patterns affects outcomes differ-ently. The outcomes of social interdependence may be orga-nized into three major areas.

30.5.1.1 Effort to Achieve. Between 1898 and 1989, re-searchers conducted over 375 experimental studies on socialinterdependence and achievement (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson,




TABLE 30.1. Mean Effect Sizes for Impact of Social Interdependence on Dependent Variables

Condition Achievement Interpersonal attraction Social Support Self-Esteem

Total studiesCoop vs. comp 0.67 0.67 0.62 0.58Coop vs. ind 0.64 0.60 0.70 0.44Comp vs. ind 0.30 0.08 −0.13 −0.23

High-quality studiesCoop vs. comp 0.88 0.82 0.83 0.67Coop vs. ind 0.61 0.62 0.72 0.45Comp vs. ind 0.07 0.27 −0.13 −0.25

Mixed operationalizationsCoop vs. comp 0.40 0.46 0.45 0.33Coop vs. ind 0.42 0.36 0.02 0.22

Pure operationalizationsCoop vs. comp 0.71 0.79 0.73 0.74Coop vs. ind 0.65 0.66 0.77 0.51

Note: Coop, cooperation; comp, competition; ind, Individualistic. Form Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research, by D. W. Johnson and R. Johnson, 1989,Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Reprinted by permission.

1989). A metaanalysis of all studies indicates that cooperativelearning results in significantly higher achievement and reten-tion than do competitive and individualistic learning (see Table30.1). The more conceptual and complex the task, the moreproblem solving required, and the more creative the answersneed to be, the greater the superiority of cooperative over com-petitive and individualistic learning. When we examined onlythe methodological high-quality studies, the superiority of coop-erative over competitive or individualistic efforts was still pro-nounced.

Some cooperative procedures contained a mixture of coop-erative, competitive, and individualistic efforts, whereas oth-ers contained pure cooperation. The original jigsaw procedure(Aronson, 1978), for example, is a combination of resource in-terdependence and an individualistic reward structure. Teams–games–tournaments (DeVries & Edwards, 1974) and student–teams–achievement–divisions (Slavin, 1986) are mixtures ofcooperation and intergroup competition. Team-assisted instruc-tion (Slavin, Leavey, & Madden, 1982) is a mixture of individu-alistic and cooperative learning. When the results of “pure” and“mixed” operationalizations of cooperative learning were com-pared, the pure operationalizations produced higher achieve-ment.

Besides higher achievement and greater retention, co-operation, compared with competitive or individualistic ef-forts, tends to result in more (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson,1989):

1. Willingness to take on difficult tasks and persist, despite dif-ficulties, in working toward goal accomplishment.

2. Long-term retention of what is learned.3. Higher-level reasoning (critical thinking) and metacognitive

thought. Cooperative efforts promote a greater use of higher-level reasoning strategies and critical thinking than do com-petitive or individualistic efforts (effect sizes = 0.93 and 0.97,respectively). Even on writing assignments, students workingcooperatively show more higher-level thought.

4. Creative thinking (process gain). In cooperative groups,members more frequently generate new ideas, strategies, andsolutions that they would think of on their own.

5. Transfer of learning from one situation to another (group toindividual transfer). What individuals learn in a group today,they are able to do alone tomorrow.

6. Positive attitudes toward the tasks being completed (job satis-faction). Cooperative efforts result in more positive attitudestoward the tasks being completed and greater continuing mo-tivation to complete them. The positive attitudes extend tothe work experience and the organization as a whole.

7. Time on task. Cooperators spend more time on task than docompetitors (effect size = 0.76) or students working individ-ualistically (effect size = 1.17).

Kurt Lewin often stated, “I always found myself unable tothink as a single person.” Most efforts to achieve are a personalbut social process that requires individuals to cooperate and toconstruct shared understandings and knowledge. Both compet-itive and individualistic structures, by isolating individuals fromeach other, tend to depress achievement.

30.5.2 Positive Interpersonal Relationships

Heartpower is the strength of your corporation.—Vince Lombardi (famous coach of the Green Bay Packers)

Since 1940, over 180 studies have compared the impact ofcooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts on inter-personal attraction (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). Coop-erative efforts, compared with competitive and individualisticexperiences, promoted considerably more liking among indi-viduals (see Table 30.1). The effect sizes were higher for (a)high-quality studies and (b) studies using pure operationaliza-tions of cooperative learning than for studies using mixed oper-ationalizations. These positive feelings were found to extend tosuperiors in the organizational structure. Thus, individuals tend




to care more about each other and to be more committed toeach other’s success and well-being when they work togethercooperatively than when they compete to see who is best orwork independently from each other.

A major extension of social interdependence theory, is socialjudgment theory, which focuses on relationships among diverseindividuals (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). Cooperatorstend to like each other not only when they are homogeneous,but also when they differ in intellectual ability, handicappingconditions, ethnic membership, social class, culture, and gen-der. Individuals working cooperatively tend to value heterogene-ity and diversity more than do individuals working competitivelyor individualistically. The positive impact of heterogeneity re-sults from a process of acceptance that includes frequent andaccurate communication, accurate perspective taking, mutualinducibility (openness to influence), multidimensional viewsof each other, feelings of psychological acceptance and self-esteem, psychological success, and expectations of rewardingand productive future interaction.

Besides liking each other, cooperators give and receiveconsiderable social support, both personally and academically(D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson). Since the 1940s, over 106 studiescomparing the relative impact of cooperative, competitive, andindividualistic efforts on social support have been conducted.Social support may be aimed at enhancing another person’ssuccess (task-related social support) or at providing support ona more personal level (personal social support). Cooperativeexperience promoted greater task-oriented and personal socialsupport than did competitive (effect size = 0.62) or individu-alistic (effect size = 0.70) experiences. Social support tends topromote achievement and productivity, physical health, psycho-logical health, and successful coping with stress and adversity.

30.5.2.1 Psychological Health. Ashley Montagu was fondof saying, “With few exceptions, the solitary animal is, in anyspecies, an abnormal creature.” Karen Horney said, “The neu-rotic individual is someone who is inappropriately competitiveand, therefore, unable to cooperate with others.” Montagu andHorney recognized that the essence of psychological health isthe ability to develop and maintain cooperative relationships.Psychological health may be defined, therefore, as the abilityto develop, maintain, and appropriately modify interdependentrelationships with others to succeed in achieving goals (D. W.Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). To manage social interdepen-dence, individuals must correctly perceive whether interdepen-dence exists and whether it is positive or negative, be motivatedaccordingly, and act in ways consistent with normative expec-tations for appropriate behavior within the situation. The majorvariables related to psychological health studied by researchersinterested in social interdependence are psychological adjust-ment, self-esteem, perspective-taking ability, social skills, and avariety of related attitudes and values.

A number of studies have been conducted on the relation-ship between social interdependence and psychological health(D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). Working cooperatively withpeers and valuing cooperation results in greater psychologicalhealth than does competing with peers or working indepen-dently. Cooperativeness is positively related to a number of

indexes of psychological health, such as emotional maturity,well-adjusted social relations, strong personal identity, ability tocope with adversity, social competencies, and basic trust in andoptimism about people. Personal ego-strength, self-confidence,independence, and autonomy are all promoted by being in-volved in cooperative efforts. Individualistic attitudes tendto be related to a number of indices of psychological pathol-ogy such as emotional immaturity, social maladjustment, delin-quency, self-alienation, and self-rejection. Competitiveness isrelated to a mixture of healthy and unhealthy characteristics.Cooperative experiences are not a luxury; they are an absolutenecessity for healthy psychological development.

Interested researchers have examined the relationship be-tween social interdependence and self-esteem. Since the 1950sthere have been over 80 studies comparing the relative impactof cooperative, competitive, and individualistic experiences onself-esteem (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). Cooperativeexperiences promoted higher self-esteem than did competitive(effect size = 0.58) or individualistic (effect size = 0.44) experi-ences. Our research demonstrated that cooperative experiencestend to be related to beliefs that one is intrinsically worthwhile,others see one in positive ways, one’s attributes compare fa-vorably with those of one’s peers, and one is a capable, com-petent, and successful person. In cooperative efforts, students(a) realize that they are accurately known, accepted, and likedby one’s peers, (b) know that they have contributed to own,others, and group success, and (c) perceive themselves andothers in a differentiated and realistic way that allows for mul-tidimensional comparisons based on complementarity of ownand others’ abilities. Competitive experiences tend to be re-lated to conditional self-esteem based on whether one wins orloses. Individualistic experiences tend to be related to basic self-rejection.

Cooperative experiences tend to increase perspective-takingability (the ability to understand how a situation appears to otherpeople) while competitive and individualistic experiences tendto promote egocentrism (being unaware of other perspectivesother than your own [effect sizes of 0.61 and 0.44, respectively]D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). Individuals who are part of acooperative effort learn more social skills and become more so-cially competent than do persons competing or working individ-ualistically. Finally, it is through cooperative efforts that many ofthe attitudes and values essential to psychological health (suchas self-efficacy) and learned and adopted.

30.5.2.2 Everything Affects Everything Else. Deutsch’s(1985) crude law of social relations states that the character-istic processes and effects elicited by a given type of socialinterdependence also tends to elicit that type of social inter-dependence. Thus, positive interdependence elicits promotiveinteraction and promotive interaction tends to elicit positive in-terdependence. Deutsch’s law may also be applied to the threetypes of outcomes resulting from cooperative experiences. Themore individuals work together to achieve, the more caring andcommitted their relationships tend to be; the more individualscare about each other the harder they will work to achieve mu-tual goals. The more individuals work together to achieve, thegreater their psychological adjustment, self-esteem, and social




competence; the healthier psychologically individuals are, thebetter able to they are to work with others to achieve mutualgoals. The better individuals’ psychological health, the morecaring and committed their relationships tend to be; the morecaring and committed their relationships, the more healthy psy-chologically they tend to be. Because each outcome can inducethe others, you are likely to find them together. They are a pack-age, with each outcome a door into all three. Together theyinduce positive interdependence and promotive interaction.

The research outcomes noted occur only when the effortsare truly cooperative. Not all groups are cooperative groups.To be cooperative, five basic elements must be present in agroup.

30.6 THE BASIC ELEMENTS OF COOPERATION

30.6.1 Potential Group Performance

Not all groups are cooperative (D. W. Johnson & F. Johnson,2003). Placing people in the same room, seating them together,telling them they are a group, does not mean they will coop-erate effectively. Project groups, lab groups, committees, taskforces, departments, and councils are groups, but they are notnecessarily cooperative. Many groups are ineffective and someare even destructive. Almost everyone has been part of a groupthat has wasted time and produced poor work. Ineffective anddestructive groups are characterized by a number of dynamics(D. W. Johnson & F. Johnson) such as social loafing, free riding,group immaturity, uncritical and quick acceptance of members’dominant response, and group-think. Such hindering factors areeliminated by carefully structuring the five essential elementsof cooperation. Those elements are positive interdependence,individual and group accountability, promotive interaction, ap-propriate use of social skills, and group processing.

30.6.2 Positive Interdependence: We Instead of Me

All for one and one for all.—Alexander Dumas

The heart of cooperation is positive interdependence (seeD. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989, 1992a, 1992b). Positive in-terdependence exists when one perceives that one is linkedwith others in a way so that one cannot succeed unless theydo (and vice versa) and/or that one must coordinate one’s ef-forts with the efforts of others to complete a task (Deutsch,1962; D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). There are two majorcategories of interdependence: outcome interdependence andmeans interdependence (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson). Whenpersons are in a cooperative or competitive situation, they areoriented toward a desired outcome, end state, goal, or reward. Ifthere is no outcome interdependence (goal and reward interde-pendence), there is no cooperation or competition. In addition,the means through which the mutual goals or rewards are to beaccomplished specify the actions required on the part of groupmembers. Means interdependence includes resource, role, and

task interdependence (which are overlapping and not indepen-dent from each other).

The authors have conducted a series of studies investigat-ing the nature of positive interdependence and the relativepower of the different types of positive interdependence (Frank,1984; Hwong, Caswell, Johnson, & Johnson, 1993; D. W. John-son, Johnson, Stanne, & Garibaldi, 1990; Johnson, Johnson, Or-tiz, & Stanne, 1991; Lew, Mesch, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986a,1986b; Mesch, Lew, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986; Mesch, John-son, & Johnson, 1988). Our research indicates that positive in-terdependence provides the context within which promotiveinteraction takes place, group membership and interpersonalinteraction among students do not produce higher achieve-ment unless positive interdependence is clearly structured, thecombination of goal and reward interdependence increasesachievement over goal interdependence alone, and resourceinterdependence does not increase achievement unless goal in-terdependence is present also.

30.6.3 Individual Accountability/PersonalResponsibility

What children can do together today, they can do alone tomorrow.—Vygotsky (1978)

Using cooperative groups requires structuring group and in-dividual accountability. Group accountability exists when theoverall performance of the group is assessed and the results aregiven back to all group members to compare against a standardof performance. Individual accountability exists when theperformance of each individual member is assessed, the resultsgiven back to the individual and the group to compare againsta standard of performance, and the member is held responsi-ble by groupmates for contributing his or her fair share to thegroup’s success. On the basis of the feedback received, (a) ef-forts to learn and contribute to groupmates’ learning can berecognized and celebrated, (b) immediate remediation can takeplace by providing any needed assistance or encouragement,and (c) groups can reassign responsibilities to avoid any redun-dant efforts by members.

The purpose of cooperative groups is to make each mem-ber a stronger individual in his or her own right. Individual ac-countability is the key to ensuring that learning cooperatively infact strengthens all group members. There is a pattern to class-room learning. First, students learn knowledge, skills, strate-gies, or procedures in a cooperative group. Second, studentsapply the knowledge or perform the skill, strategy, or procedurealone to demonstrate their personal mastery of the material. Stu-dents learn it together and then perform it alone. Archer-Kath,Johnson, and Johnson (1994) found that individual feedback re-sulted in greater achievement and perceptions of cooperation,goal interdependence, and resource interdependence than didgroup feedback. Hooper, Ward, Hannafin and Clark (1989) foundthat cooperative technology-supported instruction resulted inhigher achievement when individual accountability was struc-tured than when it was not.




30.6.4 Promotive Interaction

In an industrial organization it’s the group effort that counts. There’sreally no room for stars in an industrial organization. You needtalented people, but they can’t do it alone. They have to havehelp.

—John F. Donnelly (President, Donnelly Mirrors)

Promotive interaction exists when individuals encourageand facilitate each other’s efforts to complete tasks in orderto reach the group’s goals. Through promoting each other’ssuccess, group members build both an academic and a per-sonal support system for each member. Promotive interactionis characterized by individuals providing each other with ef-ficient and effective help and assistance, exchanging neededresources such as information and materials and processing in-formation more efficiently and effectively, providing each otherwith feedback in order to improve subsequent performance,challenging each other’s conclusions and reasoning in order topromote higher-quality decision making and greater insight intothe problems being considered, advocating the exertion of ef-fort to achieve mutual goals, influencing each other’s efforts toachieve the group’s goals, acting in trusting and trustworthyways, being motivated to strive for mutual benefit, and havinga moderate level of arousal characterized by low anxiety andstress.

Traditionally, promotive interaction was viewed as beingface-to-face. Technology, through the use of local and wide areanetworks and mediating tools such as e-mail, electronic bul-letin boards, conferencing systems that can include live video,and specialized groupware, enables individuals to promote eachother success all across the world, in ways that were never possi-ble before. Such electronic communication is growing exponen-tially, but it does not always substitute for face-to-face interac-tion. Face-to-face communication has a richness that electroniccommunication may never match (Prusak & Cohen, 2001).There is evidence that up to 93% of people’s intent is con-veyed by facial expression and tone of voice, with the mostimportant channel being facial expression (Druckman, Rozelle,& Baxter, 1982; Meherabian, 1971). Harold Geneen, the formerhead of ITT, believed that his response to requests was differ-ent face-to-face than through electronic means. “In New York,I might read a request and say no. But in Europe, I couldsee that an answer to the same question might be yes. . . itbecame our policy to deal with problems on the spot, face-to-face” (cited in Trevino, Lengel, & Draft, 1987). A number ofbusinesses are building office facilities that maximize humaninteraction. The biggest complaint of students in a virtual highschool was that interactions with on-line students just did notmeasure up to face-to-face context (Allen, 2001). On the otherhand, Bonk and King (1998) suggest that promotive interac-tion in electronic environments has some advantages over livediscussion in terms of engagement in learning, depth of discus-sion, time on task, and the promotion of higher-order thinkingskills. Instructional programs, therefore, may be most effectivewhen they include multiple ways for students to promote eachother’s success, both electronically and face to face wheneverpossible.

30.6.5 Interpersonal and Small Group Skills

I will pay more for the ability to deal with people than any otherability under the sun.

—John D. Rockefeller

Using cooperative learning requires group members to mas-ter the small group and interpersonal skills they need to workeffectively with each other and function as part of a group.The greater the members’ teamwork skills, the higher will bethe quality and quantity of their learning. Cooperative learningis inherently more complex than competitive or individualis-tic learning because students have to engage simultaneously intaskwork and teamwork. To coordinate efforts to achieve mu-tual goals, students must (a) get to know and trust each other,(b) communicate accurately and unambiguously, (c) accept andsupport each other, and (c) resolve conflicts constructively(D. W. Johnson, 1991, 2003; D. W. Johnson & F. Johnson, 2003).

The more socially skillful students are, and the more atten-tion teachers pay to teaching and rewarding the use of socialskills, the higher the achievement that can be expected withincooperative learning groups. In their studies on the long-termimplementation of cooperative learning, Marvin Lew and DebraMesch (Lew et al., 1986a, 1986b; Mesch et al., 1986, 1988) inves-tigated the impact of a reward contingency for using social skillsas well as positive interdependence and a contingency for aca-demic achievement on performance within cooperative learn-ing groups. In the cooperative skills conditions students weretrained weekly in four social skills and each member of a cooper-ative group was given two bonus points toward the quiz grade ifall group members were observed by the teacher to demonstratethree of four cooperative skills. The results indicated that thecombination of positive interdependence, an academic contin-gency for high performance by all group members, and a socialskills contingency promoted the highest achievement. Archer-Kath et al. (1994) found that individual feedback was more effec-tive in teaching students social skills than was group feedback.Putnam, Rynders, Johnson, and Johnson (1989) demonstratedthat, when individuals were taught social skills, were observedby their superior, and were given individual feedback as to howfrequently they engaged in the skills, their relationships becamemore positive.

30.6.6 Group Processing

Take care of each other. Share your energies with the group. No onemust feel alone, cut off, for that is when you do not make it.

—Willi Unsoeld (renowned mountain climber)

Group processing occurs when members discuss howwell they are achieving their goals and maintaining effectiveworking relationships among members. Cooperative groupsneed to describe what member actions are helpful and unhelp-ful and make decisions about what behaviors to continue orchange. The purposes of group processing are to clarify andimprove the effectiveness of members in contributing to thecooperative efforts to achieve the group’s goals by (a) enabling




groups to improve continuously the quality of member’s work,(b) facilitating the learning of teamwork skills, (c) ensuring thatmembers receive feedback on their participation, and (d) en-abling groups to focus on group maintenance (D. W. Johnson,2003; D. W. Johnson et al., 1998a). Groups that process how ef-fectively members are working together tend to achieve higherthan do groups that do not process or individuals working alone,the combination of teacher and student processing resulted ingreater problem-solving success than did the other cooperativeconditions, and the combination of group and individual feed-back resulted in higher achievement (Archer-Kath et al., 1994;D. W. Johnson et al., 1990; Yager, Johnson, & Johnson, 1985).

Group processing leads to self-monitoring and self-efficacy.Discussing the observations of members’ actions results in(a) a heightened self-awareness of the effective and ineffectiveactions taken during the group meetings, (b) public commit-ment to increase the frequency of effective actions and decreasethe frequency of ineffective actions, and (c) an increased senseof having the ability to be more effective if appropriate effortis exerted (i.e., self-efficacy). Sarason and Potter (1983) exam-ined the impact of individual self-monitoring of thoughts onself-efficacy and successful performance and found that havingindividuals focus their attention on self-efficacious thoughts isrelated to greater task persistence and less cognitive interfer-ence. They concluded that the more that people are aware ofwhat they are experiencing, the more aware they will be of theirown role in determining their success. The greater the sense ofself- and joint efficacy promoted by group processing, the moreproductive and effective group members and the group as awhole become.

Effective processing focuses group members on positiverather than negative behaviors. Sarason and Potter (1983) foundthat when individuals monitored their stressful experiencesthey were more likely to perceive a program as having beenmore stressful than did those who did not, but when individu-als monitored their positive experiences they were more likelyto perceive the group experience as involving less psychologi-cal demands, were more attracted to the group and had greatermotivation to remain members, and felt less strained during theexperience and more prepared for future group experiences.When individuals are anxious about being successful and arethen told that they have failed, their performance tends to de-crease significantly, but when individuals anxious about beingsuccessful are told that they have succeeded, their performancetends to increase significantly (Turk & Sarason, 1983).

30.7 THE COOPERATIVE SCHOOL

The new electronic tools are radically changing the way peopleaccess and use information and, therefore, have profound im-plications for the educational process. Education, on the otherhand, is stuck with organizational patterns and professional tra-ditions that negate many of the advantages of the new technolo-gies. For technology to be fully utilized in schools, the organi-zational structure of the school has to change, as well as theorganizational structure of the classroom. To utilize the newtechnologies most effectively, schools need to change from a

mass-manufacturing organizational structure to a team-based,high-performance organizational structure. This new organiza-tional structure is created when cooperative learning is used themajority of the time in the classroom and cooperation is used tostructure faculty and staff work in (a) colleagial teaching teams,(b) school-based decision making, and (c) faculty meetings(D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1994).

Just as the heart of the classroom is cooperative learning,the heart of the school is colleagial teaching teams. Collea-gial teaching teams are small cooperative groups in whichmembers work to improve continuously each other’s (a) in-structional expertise and success in general and (b) expertise inusing cooperative learning in specific. Administrators may alsobe organized into colleagial support groups to increase theiradministrative expertise and success.

School-based decision making may be structuredthrough the use of two types of cooperative teams. A taskforce considers a school problem and proposes a solution tothe faculty as a whole. The faculty is then divided into ad hocdecision-making groups and considers whether to accept ormodify the proposal. The decisions made by the ad hoc groupsare summarized, and the entire faculty then decides on the ac-tion to be taken to solve the problem.

Faculty meetings represent a microcosm of what adminis-trators think the school should be. The clearest modeling of co-operative procedures in the school may be in faculty meetingsand other meetings structured by the school administration.All four types of cooperative learning (formal, informal, basegroups, and controversy) may be used in faculty meetings toincrease their productivity, build faculty cohesion, and improvethe faculty’s social competence.

Technological innovation lags in schools. A key obstacle tothe use of technology in schools is the limited support teach-ers have for integrating unfamiliar technologies into instruction.Just as students group together to learn cooperatively how touse new software or hardware, teachers need to group togetherto learn how to use the new technologies and then how to inte-grate them into the instruction. As long as each teacher works inisolation from his or her peers, the implementation of technol-ogy represents a personal decision on the part of each teacher,rather than an organizational change at the school and districtlevels. Many teachers are unfamiliar with the new technologiesand feel unable to master them. To implement technology fully,the organizational structure of the school has to change fromthe old mass-manufacturing organizational structure to a team-based, high-performance organizational structure where teamsof teachers can explore the new technologies, learn how to usethem, and implement them together.

30.8 COOPERATIVE LEARNING ANDTECHNOLOGY-SUPPORTED INSTRUCTION

To enhance learning, technology must promote cooperationamong students and create a shared experience. Crook (1996)has widely analyzed how computers can facilitate collaborativelearning in schools. He makes a distinction between:




1. Interacting around computers. The first perspective stressesthe use of computers as tools to facilitate face-to-face com-munication between student pairs or in a small group. Crook(1996, pp. 189–193) states that technology may serve to sup-port cooperation by providing students with points of sharedreference. He states that the traditional classroom does nothave enough available anchor points at which action and at-tention can be coordinated. The capabilities of computerscan be used as mediating tools that help students to focustheir attention on mutually shared objects.

2. Interacting through computers. This refers to the use of net-works. Local area networks (LAN) and wide area networks(WAN) and the global version of the latter (Internet) provideeducation with a variety of mediating tools for cooperation(email, electronic bulletin boards, conferencing systems, andspecialized groupware).

30.8.1 Interacting Around Computers

30.8.1.1 Single-User Programs Reapplied to Coopera-tive Learning. Many computer programs were developed totailor learning situations to individual students. Field experi-ments, however, indicate several advantages of the importanceof cooperation among students in using these programs (Crook,1994; Hawkins et al., 1982). The technical extension of the tra-dition LOGO (Papert, 1980) to legoLOGO, where Lego bricksrobots can be controlled by LOGO programs has been an espe-cially promising tool for creating cooperation among students(e.g., Eraut, 1995; Jarvela, 1996). Cooperative learning has beenpromoted by many different program types, such as databases,spreadsheets, math programs, programming languages, simu-lations, multimedia authoring tools, and so forth (Amigues &Agostinelli, 1992; Brush, 1997; Eraut, 1995; Lehtinen & Repo.1996).

30.8.1.2 Programs Developed To Promote Cooperation.For cooperation to take place, students must have a jointworkspace. One of the promises of the computer is to allowstudents to create shared spaces. Instead of sharing a black-board or a worktable, students can share a computer screen.Such groupware (aimed at supporting group rather than indi-vidual work) has expanded dramatically the past ten years. Nu-merous programs in a variety of subject areas have been devel-oped to externalize the problem-solving process by displayingthe student’s solution or learning paths on the screen, and theygenerally tend to be helpful for both individual reflection and co-operative problem solving (Lehtinen, Hamalainen, & Malkonen,1998). The ways in which technology and cooperative learninghave been integrated are so numerous that even a small fractioncannot be mentioned. Some of the more widely used methodsof computer-supported cooperative learning (CSCL) are CSILE,the Belvedere System, and CoVis.

CSILE (Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environ-ment) was originally developed in the late 1980s (Scardamalia,Bereiter, McLearn, Swallow, & Woodruff, 1989) and uses a net-work to help students build, articulate, explore, and struc-ture knowledge. The system contains tools for text and chart

processing and a communal database for producing, searching,classifying, and linking knowledge. The Belvedere system wasdeveloped by Lesgold, Weiner, and Suthers (1995) and it fo-cuses and prompts students’ cognitive activity by giving thema graphical language to express the steps of hypothesizing,data gathering, and weighing of information. CoVis (LearningThrough Collaborative Visualization Project) focuses on coop-erative project work in high-school science (Pea, Edelson, &Gomez, 1994), with advanced networking technologies, collab-orative software, and visualization tools to enable students andothers to work together in classrooms and across the countryat the same time (synchronously) or at different times (asyn-chronously). These and many other groupware systems are pro-viding new and powerful opportunities for cooperative learn-ing.

30.8.2 Cooperation Through Computers

There has been a rapid expansion of computer network tech-nology that allows students all over the world to create pow-erful shared spaces on the computer screen. The future oftechnology-supported cooperative learning may depend on thesoftware and hardware that creates workspaces that networkgroup members and groups throughout the world. Network-ing has had a strong influence on the tools and methods oftechnology-supported cooperative learning. In a network-basedenvironment, students and teachers can interact through thecomputer free of the limitations of time and place. The speedat which asynchronous and distance communication may becompleted opens new opportunities for cooperative learning.It makes more intensive cooperative possible with the out-of-school experts, brings students from different schools intocontact with each other, and creates powerful tools for jointwriting and knowledge sharing. There are, however, differentlevels at which the network environment supports coopera-tion. From a series of studies, Bonk and King (1995) concludedthat networks can (a) change the way students and instruc-tors interact, (b) enhance cooperative learning opportunities,(c) facilitate class discussion, and (d) move writing from solitaryto more active, social learning. The network tools include thefollowing.

1. Local Area Network-Based Client-Server Systems. There aremany software programs based on local area networks andclient–server architecture, such as CSILE, the Belvedere Sys-tem, and CoVis.

2. E-Mail for Cooperative Learning. E-mail is used to deliver in-formation to students, supervise students, and support na-tional and international communication between coopera-tive learning groups and schools located far away from eachother. With the help of mailing lists, groups of students canuse e-mail to share joint documents and comment on eachother’s work.

3. The Internet and World Wide Web and Cooperative Learn-ing. Internet-based conferencing systems and e-mail systemsare very similar. Computer conferencing has existed sincethe first computer networks but has only recently been




FIGURE 30.3. Outcomes of technology-supported cooperative learning.

implemented as part of cooperative learning. Web-basedcooperative learning is time independent and location inde-pendent, thus allowing a combination of synchronous andasynchronous discussions. It is similar to e-mail lists but,in addition, has user-control, document structures, shareddatabases, and interaction styles that make it especially effec-tive for cooperative work (Bates, 1995; Harasim et al., 1995;Malikowski, 1998). Creating and using shared databases is es-pecially helpful for network-based cooperative-learning sys-tems. On the World Wide Web, conferencing may require“threading” (the ability to sequentially read the messages thatmake up one discussion). Woolley (1995) listed about 150internet conferencing systems. It is now possible to havelive video of individuals and groups conferencing with eachother.

Adding technology to a lesson inherently increases the les-son’s complexity. When students participate in technology-supported instruction, they have the dual tasks of (a) learninghow to use the technology (i.e., the hardware and soft-ware required by the lesson) and (b) mastering the informa-tion, skills, procedures, and processes being presented withinthe technology. When cooperative learning groups are used,

students have the additional task of learning teamwork proce-dures and skills. Consequently, the initial use of technology-supported cooperative learning may take more time, but oncestudents and teachers master the new systems, the results willbe worth the effort. Technology-supported cooperative learn-ing tends to be cost effective way of teaching students how touse technology. In addition, increasing academic achievement,giving learners control over their learning, creating positive at-titudes toward technology-based instruction and cooperativelearning, promoting cognitive development, and increasing so-cial skills. Computers themselves promote cooperative interac-tion among learners. The composition of the group and thegender of the learners are factors that have been hypothesizedto affect the success of technology-supported cooperative learn-ing (see Fig. 30.3).

30.8.3 Achievement

30.8.3.1 Academic Achievement. Two large metaanalysison the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction concludedthat the use of technology markedly improved learning out-comes (e.g., Fletcher-Finn & Gravatt, 1995; Khalili & Shashaani,1994). These metaanalysis, however, did not differentiate among




teaching practices and the ways technology was implementedin classrooms. It is not possible, therefore, to draw any conclu-sions about the effectiveness of technology-supported cooper-ative learning from these metaanalysis.

We conducted several studies examining the use of cooper-ative, competitive, and individualistic learning activities at thecomputer (D. W. Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne, 1989; D. W. John-son et al., 1990; R. Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne, 1985, 1986;R. Johnson, Johnson, Stanne, Smizak, & Avon, 1987; Johnson,Johnson, Richards, 1986). The studies included eighth-grade stu-dents through college freshmen and lasted from 3 to 30 instruc-tional hr. The tasks were a computerized navigational and mapreading problem-solving task and word processing assignments.Computer-assisted cooperative learning, compared with com-petitive and individualistic efforts at the computer, promoted(a) a higher quantity of daily achievement, (b) a higher quality ofdaily achievement, (c) greater mastery of factual information, (d)greater ability to apply one’s factual knowledge in test questionsrequiring application of facts, (e) greater ability to use factual in-formation to answer problem-solving questions, and (f) greatersuccess in problem solving. Cooperation at the computer pro-moted greater motivation to persist on problem-solving tasks.Students in the cooperative condition were more successful inoperating computer programs. In terms of oral participation,students in the cooperative condition, compared with studentsin the competitive and individualistic conditions, made fewerstatements to the teacher and more to each other, made moretask-oriented statements and fewer social statements, and gen-erally engaged in more positive, task-oriented interaction witheach other (especially when the social skill responsibilities werespecified and group processing was conducted). Finally, thestudies provided evidence that females were perceived to beof higher status in the cooperative than in the competitive orindividualistic conditions.

In addition to our work, there are a number of studies thathave found that students using a combination of cooperativelearning and computer-based instruction learn better than dostudents using computer-based instruction while working in-dividualistically (Anderson, Mayes, & Kibby, 1995; Cockayne,1991; Cox & Berger, 1985; Dalton, 1990a, 1990b; Dalton, Han-nafin, & Hooper, 1987; Dees, 1991; Hooper, 1992b; Hooper,Temiyakarn, & Williams, 1993; Hythecker et al., 1985; Inkpen,Booth, Klawe, & Upitis, 1995; Lin, Wu, & Liu, 1999; Love, 1969;McInerney, McInerney, & Marsh, 1997; Mevarech, 1993; 1987;Mevarech, Silber, & Fine, 1991; Mevarech, Stern, & Levita, Okey& Majer, 1976; Postthast, 1995; Reglin, 1990; Repman, 1993;Rocklin et al., 1985; Shlecter, 1990; Stephenson, 1992; Under-wood, McCaffrey, 1990; Webb, 1984; Whitelock, Scanlon, Tay-lor, & O’Shea, 1995; Yeuh & Alessi, 1988). There are also anumber of studies that found no statistically significant differ-ences in achievement between subjects who worked in groupsand subjects who worked alone (Carrier & Sales, 1987; Cos-den & English, 1987; Hooper & Hannafin, 1988; Trowbridge &Durnin, 1984). No study has reported significantly greater learn-ing when students work alone. Many of these studies, however,are short-term experiments focused on a small number of stu-dents. Several experiments provide evidence that well-knownCSCL programs like CSIKE and Belvedere have proved to be

helpful for higher-order social interaction and, subsequently, forbetter learning in terms of deep understanding (Scardamalia,Bereiter, & Lamon, 1994; Suthers, 1998). What is still lacking isevidence that the same results could be found in normal class-rooms. There are CSCL projects like CoVis that are widely imple-mented (Pea, Edelson, & Gopmez, 1994), but there have beenfew well-controlled follow-up evaluations published.

Simon Hooper and his colleagues have conducted a series ofstudies on technology-supported cooperative learning involv-ing fifth through eighth-grade and college students (Dyer, 1993;Hooper, 1991; Hooper & Hannafin, 1988, 1991; Hooper et al.,1989; Huang, 1993; McDonald, 1993). They found that (a) co-operative group members achieved significantly higher than didstudents working under individualistic conditions, (b) coopera-tive learning groups in which individual accountability was care-fully structured achieved higher than did cooperative learninggroups in which no individual accountability was structured,(b) the achievement of low-ability students in heterogeneouscooperative groups was consistently higher than the achieve-ment of low-ability students in homogeneous groups, (c) therewas a positive and significant correlation between achievementand helping behaviors, and increases in achievement and coop-eration were significantly related within heterogeneous groups,and (d) cooperative (compared with individualistic) learningresulted in greater willingness to learn the material, options se-lection, time on task, perceived interdependence, and support-iveness for partners. Carlson and Falk (1989) and Noell and Car-nine (1989) found that students in cooperative groups performhigher than students working alone on learning tasks involv-ing interactive videodiscs. Adams, Carson, and Hamm (1990)suggest that cooperative learning can influence attention, mo-tivation, and achievement when students use the medium oftelevision.

Fletcher (1985), on the other hand, investigating cognitivefacilitation, found on a computer task calling for solving equa-tions in an earth spaceship game that individuals who weretold to verbalize their decisions did as well in problem-solvingperformance on the game as groups told to come to consen-sus (both of which had results superior to those of individualsworking silently). King (1989) asked groups of fourth gradersto reproduce a stimulus design using LOGO computer graphicsafter they had watched a videotape modeling of “think aloudproblem solving.” The groups were instructed to think aloud asthey performed their task. More successful groups asked moretask-related questions, spent more time on strategy, and reachedhigher levels of strategy elaboration than did groups who wereless successful on the task.

30.8.3.2 Learning How to Use Technology. Cooperativelearning may reduce hardware and software problems that in-terfere with achievement when students work alone (Hativa,1988). Students naturally form groups when learning how to usea new technology or software program (Becker, 1984). In his de-scription of the implementation of the Apple Classrooms of To-morrow, Dwyer (1994) notes that the cooperative, task-relatedinteraction among students was spontaneous and more exten-sive than in traditional classrooms, with students interactingwith one another while working at computers, spontaneously




helping each other, showing curiosity about each other’s activi-ties, wanting to share what they had just learned to do, workingtogether to build multimedia presentations about diverse topics,and combining their group’s work into whole class, interdisci-plinary projects.

When technology-supported lessons require new, complexprocedures (such as learner-controlled lessons), cooperativelearning tends to promote quicker and more thorough masteryof the procedures than competitive or individualistic learning.Trowbridge and Durnin (1984) found that students working ingroups of two or three seemed more likely to interpret pro-gram questions as the authors of the materials intended. Discus-sions of multiple interpretations tended to converge on the cor-rect interpretation. Hooper (1992a) reported that students werefrustrated and could not master the computer-assisted, learner-controlled lesson when they worked alone. Keeler and Anson(1995) used cooperative learning in a software application labcourse and found that both students’ performance and theirretention were significantly improved. Dyer (1993) comparedstructured cooperative pairs, unstructured cooperative pairs,and individuals working alone to solve computer-assisted mathproblem solving lessons. Structured cooperative pairs commu-nicated more frequently and used the computer more efficientlyand skillfully than did the unstructured cooperative pairs orthe students in the individualistic condition. McDonald (1993)found that students in the learner-controlled/cooperative learn-ing condition selected more options during the lesson and spentmore time interacting with the tutorial than did the learner-controlled/individual learning condition. Hooper et al. (1993)found that cooperative learning established a mutually support-ive learning environment among group members in which bothcognitive difficulties and navigational disorientation were over-come in using the computer to complete a symbolic-reasoningtask. Students studying alone had greater difficulty reading andunderstanding lesson directions, used the help option more of-ten, and required more attempts to master embedded quizzesthan did students in cooperative learning groups. In learninghow to use computers, Webb (1984) and Webb et al. (1986)found that in cooperative groups, explaining how to do com-puter programming was not related to skill in doing so andreceiving explanations influenced only the learning of basiccommands (not the interpretation of programs or the abilityto generate programs). Generally, this evidence indicates thatstudents will learn how to use hardware and software morequickly and effectively when they learn in cooperative groupsrather than alone. When teachers wish to introduce new tech-nology and new software programs of some complexity, theywill be well advised to use cooperative learning.

30.8.4 Cognitive and Social Development

30.8.4.1 Cognitive Development: Cooperation and Con-troversy. Social-cognitive theory posits that cognitive devel-opment is facilitated by (Bearison, 1982; D. W. Johnson &R. Johnson, 1979, 1995; Perret-Clermont, 1980) (a) individualsworking cooperatively with peers on tasks that require coor-dination of actions or thoughts, (b) cooperators contradicting

and challenging each other’s intuitively derived concepts andpoints of view (i.e., engaging in academic controversy), therebycreating cognitive conflict within and among group members,and (c) the successful and equitable (members contributingapproximately equally) resolution of those conflicts (learnershave to go beyond mere disagreement to benefit from cogni-tive conflict; [Bearison, Magzament, & Filardi, 1986; Damon &Killen, 1982). To create the conditions under which cognitivedevelopment takes place, students must work cooperatively,challenge each other’s points of view, and resolve the resultingcognitive conflicts. Clements and Nastasi conducted a series ofstudies on the occurrence of cooperation and controversy intechnology-supported instruction (Battista & Clements, 1986;Clements & Nastasi, 1985, 1988; Nastasi & Clements, 1992; Nas-tasi, Clements, & Battista, 1990). They have found that bothLOGO and CAI/CBI-W computer environments promoted con-siderable cooperative work and conflict (both social and cogni-tive). The LOGO environment (compared to CAI/CBI-W com-puter and traditional classroom tasks environments) promoted(a) more peer interaction focused on learning and problemsolving, (b) self-directed problem solving (i.e., learners solveproblems they themselves have posed) in which there is mu-tual “ownership” of the problem, (c) more frequent occurrenceand resolution of cognitive conflicts, (d) greater developmentof executive-level problem-solving skills (planning, monitoring,decision making), higher-level reasoning, and cognitive devel-opment. The development of higher-level cognitive processesseemed to be facilitated by the resolution of cognitive conflictthat arises out of cooperating. They also found that the LOGO(compared with the CAI) computer environment resulted inmore learner satisfaction and expressions of pleasure at the dis-covery of new information and their work, variables reflectiveof intrinsic and competence motivation.

More recently, Bell (2001) has developed a software pro-gram to create arguments to be used in discussions with otherstudents (the SenseMaker argumentation tool). It is designed tosupport a rhetorical construction of arguments by individualsby connecting evidence dots with claim frames. The intent is toteach students the nature of scientific inquiry by coordinatingemerging evidence with an existing set of theories. The use ofSenseMaker to develop arguments to be used in an academiccontroversy could significantly advance students’ level of rea-soning and learing.

30.8.4.2 Learner Control. Combining cooperative learningand technology-supported instruction results in students hav-ing more control over their learning. Hooper and his associates(Hooper, 1992a; Hooper et al., 1993) note that three forms oflesson control are used in the design of technology-based in-struction: learner, program, and adaptive control. Learner con-trol involves delegating instructional decisions to learners sothat they can determine what help they need, what difficultylevel or content density of material they wish to study, in whatsequence they wish to learn the material, and how much theywant to learn. Learner-controlled environments include simu-lations, hypermedia, and online databases. Program or linearcontrol prescribes an identical instructional sequence for all stu-dents regardless of interest or need. Adaptive control modifies




lesson features according to student aptitude (e.g., Snow, 1980),prior performance (e.g., Tobias, 1987), or ongoing lesson needs(e.g., Tennyson, Christensen, & Park, 1984). Linear or programcontrol may impose an inappropriate lesson sequence on learn-ers and thereby lower their motivation, and adaptive instructionmay foster learner dependence (Hannafin & Rieber, 1989). Aslearner control increases so does (a) instructional effectivenessand efficiency (Reigeluth & Stein, 1983) and (b) learner inde-pendence, efficiency, mental effort, and motivation (Federico,1980; Salomon, 1983, 1985; Steinberg, 1984).

Technology-supported cooperative learning tends to in-crease the effectiveness of learner control. When students workalone, in isolation from their peers, they tend not to controlthe learning situation productively, making ineffective instruc-tional decisions and leaving instruction prematurely (Carrier,1984; Hannafin, 1984; Milheim & Martin, 1991; Steinberg, 1977,1989). Students working cooperatively tend to motivate eachother to seek elaborative feedback to their responses to prac-tice items during learning control and to seek a greater vari-ety of feedback types more frequently than did those workingalone (Carrier & Sales, 1987). Cooperative pairs spent longertimes inspecting information on the computer screen as theydiscussed which level of feedback they needed and the answersto practice items. Students in the learner-controlled/cooperativelearning condition selected more options during the lesson, andspent more time interacting with the tutorial, than did studentsin the learner-controlled/individual learning condition (McDon-ald, 1993). Hooper et al. (1993) found that students in theprogram-control conditions attempted more than four times asmany examples and nearly twice as many practice questions asdid the students in the learner-control conditions. The LOGOcomputer environment tends to promote more actual learnercontrol over the task structure and the making of rules to gov-ern it than does the CAI computer environment (Battista &Clements, 1986; Clements & Nastasi, 1985, 1988; Nastasi et al.,1990). Learner control seems to be most effective when priorknowledge is high or when students possess well-developedmetacognitive abilities (Garhart & Hannafin, 1986). What thesestudies imply is that cooperative learning is an important vari-able in improving the effectiveness of learner controlled envi-ronments.

30.8.4.3 Increasing Social Competencies. If students areto work effectively in cooperative groups they must have theteamwork skills to do so. To examine the importance of socialskills training on the productiveness of cooperative groups, itis possible to compare studies that have included cooperativeskills training and those that have not. Numerous studies ontechnology-supported cooperative learning have demonstratedpositive effects on the amount and quality of social interaction(e.g., Amigues & Agostinelli, 1992; Crook, 1994; Davis & Hut-tenlocher, 1995; Fishman & Gomez, 1997; McConnell, 1994;Rysavy & Sales, 1991). A number of studies have found thatwhen teamwork procedures and skills are present, cooperativelearning results in higher achievement in technology-supportedinstructional lessons than individualistic learning (Hooper &Hannafin, 1991; Hooper & Hannafin, 1988, 1991; R. Johnsonet al., 1985, 1986; Susman, 1998). In studies where teamwork

procedures and skills were not emphasized, reliable differencesin achievement in cooperative and individualistic technology-assisted instruction tend not to be found (Mevarech et al., 1987;Hooper et al., 1989; Susman, 1998; Underwood & McCaffrey,1990).

Software designers may be able to facilitate the developmentuse of the interpersonal and small group skills required for team-work in several ways.

1. Before students engage in the actual instruction, they mightfirst be required to complete a tutorial activity designed tointroduce or refresh their understanding of cooperative skills.This could include a discussion of each member’s role andits value in determining the overall group success.

2. Teachers’ guides could suggest roles to assign to each groupmember to perform in the group (keyboarder, recorder,checker for understanding, encourager of participation).

3. Time for group processing to analyze and discuss how effec-tively they are working together and how they might worktogether more effectively in the future could be provided.Software could be designed to include pauses during whichgroup members are directed to focus on their progress, dis-cuss the records they are keeping, or reflect on improvementsor changes they might make to increase performance.

4. The software could periodically remind students to monitortheir own performance and to assist in optimizing group per-formance.

5. Yeuh and Alessi (1988) suggest that group reward is cru-cial to provide a group goal motivating everyone to workwell together and individual accountability is needed to cre-ate a feelings of fairness among group members. Tangibleprizes are recognition for individual successes and for groupachievement offers motivation to succeed on both levels.One computer-generated reward would be a printout of col-lective characters, coupons, or certificates that are assignedpoints or a relative value or are valued based on the num-ber accumulated. These items could be displayed by studentswhere they would be acknowledged by the teacher and otherclassmates.

30.8.5 Attitudes

30.8.5.1 Attitudes Toward Technology-Based Instruc-tion. Students are more likely to learn from and to usetechnology-based instruction in the future when their self-efficacy toward technology and attitudes about technology-based instruction are positive. Sutton (1991) found that studentsdeveloped more positive attitudes toward the computer-basedinstructional lesson and learning with a computer when theyworked in cooperative learning groups than when they workedindividually (Hooper et al., 1993; Huang, 1993; McDonald,1993). Students tend to enjoy using the computer to engagein cooperative activities.

30.8.5.2 Attitudes Toward Cooperative Learning.Mevarech et al. (1985) found that students who learned inpairs were more positive in their attitudes toward cooperative




learning than were students who worked individually withthe computer. Evaluations obtained by Rocklin et al. (1985)from students involved in computer-based cooperative learningwere more positive toward cooperative learning and howit affected them personally than were subjects who workedindividually. Hooper et al. (1993) found that students workingin cooperative pairs developed more positive attitudes towardcooperative learning than did students working alone, thatis, students rated cooperative learning in a computer-assistedlesson almost a point higher on a 5-point scale than did studentswho worked alone. A number of studies found that studentsin the structured cooperative learning conditions developedmore positive attitudes toward working cooperatively thandid students in the unstructured cooperative learning or theindividualistic learning condition (Dyer, 1993; Hooper et al.,1993; Huang, 1993; McDonald, 1993).

30.8.5.3 Preference for Using Technology Coopera-tively. There is a natural partnership between technology andcooperation. The introduction of computers into classroomstends to increase cooperative behavior and task-oriented ver-bal interaction (Chernick & White, 1981, 1983; Hawkins et al.,1982; Levin & Kareev, 1980; Rubin, 1983; Webb, 1984). Indi-viduals prefer to work cooperatively at the computer (Hawkinset al., 1982; Levin & Kareev, 1980; Muller & Perlmutter, 1985).Students are more likely to seek each other out at the computerthan they normally would for other schoolwork. Even whenstudents play electronic games they prefer to have partners andassociates. Working at a computer cooperatively with classmatesseems to be more fun and enjoyable as well as more effectivefor most students.

30.8.6 Individual Differences

30.8.6.1 Group Composition. A factor hypothesized to af-fect the success of technology-supported cooperative learningis whether members of cooperative groups are homogeneous orheterogeneous. There is considerable disagreement as to whichis the most effective composition. Advocates of heterogeneousgrouping point out that (a) students are more likely to gainsophistication and preparation for life in a heterogeneous soci-ety by working cooperatively with classmates from diverse cul-tures, attitudes, and perspectives, (b) high-achieving studentsbenefit from the cognitive restructuring that occurs when pro-viding in-depth explanations to peers, and (c) less academicallysuccessful students benefit from the extra attention, alternativeknowledge representations, and modeling that more academi-cally successful students provide (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson,1989; Webb, 1989). Students in heterogeneous ability groupstend to learn more than students in homogeneous ability groups(Yager, Johnson, & Johnson, 1985; Yager, Johnson, Johnson, &Snider, 1986). Beane and Lemke (1971) found that high abil-ity students benefited more from heterogeneous than homoge-neous grouping. The academic discussion and peer interactionin heterogeneous (compared with homogeneous) groups pro-mote the discovery of more effective reasoning strategies (John-son & Johnson, 1979; Berndt, Perry, & Miller, 1988).

Proponents of homogeneous ability grouping, however, statethat heterogeneous ability grouping may fail to challenge high-ability students (Willis, 1990) and that less academically success-ful students benefit at the expense of their more successful part-ners (Mills & Durden, 1992; Robinson, 1990). Many of the mostcarefully conducted studies aimed are resolving this contro-versy have been focused on ability grouping in technologically-assisted instruction. In a week-long study on the learning ofLOGO, Webb (1984) investigated whether the higher-ability stu-dents in cooperative groups of three would try to monopolizethe computer. She found that (a) student ability did not relateto contact time with the computer and (b) student success inprogramming was predicted by different profiles of abilities andby group process variables such as verbal interaction. Yeuh andAlessi (1988) used group ability composition as one of theirtreatments for students utilizing the computer to learn three top-ics in algebra. They formed groups of medium-ability studentsand groups of mixed-ability students and found that group com-position had no significant effect on achievement. Hooper andHannafin (1988), in a study with 40 eighth-grade students, foundthat on a computer task low ability students working with high-ability partners achieved higher than did low ability studentsstudying in homogeneous groups or alone, without loweringthe achievement of high-ability students. In a subsequent studyinvolving 125 sixth- and seventh-grade students, Hooper andHannafin (1991) randomly assigned students to homogeneousor heterogeneous pairs, and pairs to cooperative or individual-istic conditions. High-ability students interacted equally acrosstreatments, but low-ability students interacted 30% more whenplaced in heterogeneous pairs. Students in the heterogeneousgroups achieved and cooperated significantly more than did stu-dents in the homogeneous pairs (or the individualistic condi-tion).

Simsek and Hooper (1992) compared the effects of cooper-ative and individual learning on student performance and atti-tudes during interactive videodisc instruction. Thirty fifth- andsixth-grade students were classified as high or low ability andrandomly assigned to cooperative or individual treatments. Stu-dents completed a level II interactive video disc science lesson.The achievement, attitudes, and time on task of high- and low-ability students working alone or in cooperative groups werecompared. Results indicated that both high- and low-ability stu-dents performed better on the posttest when they learned incooperative groups than did their counterparts who learnedalone. Students who worked individually spent less time ontask. Members of cooperative groups developed more positiveattitudes toward instruction, teamwork, and peers than did stu-dents studying alone.

Simsek and Tsai (1992) compared the effects of homoge-neous versus heterogeneous ability grouping on performanceand attitudes of students working cooperatively during interac-tive videodisc instruction. After two cooperative training ses-sions, 80 fourth- through sixth-grade students, classified as highand low ability, were randomly assigned to treatments. Stu-dents completed a level II interactive video disc science les-son. The amount of instructional time for each group was alsorecorded. Homogeneous low-ability groups scored significantlylower than the other three groups, while the difference in




achievement of high-ability students in homogeneous versusheterogeneous groups was not statistically significant. Homo-geneous low-ability groups consistently used the least amountof time. Low-ability students in heterogeneous groups had signif-icantly more positive attitudes than did their high-ability group-mates.

Hooper (1992b) compared individual and cooperative learn-ing in an investigation of the effects of ability groupingon achievement, instructional efficacy, and discourse duringcomputer-based mathematics instruction. A total of 115 fifth-and sixth-grade students were classified as having high oraverage ability and were randomly assigned to group or indi-vidual treatments. Students in the cooperative condition wereassigned to either heterogeneous or homogeneous dyads, ac-cording to ability. Results indicated that students completed theinstruction more effectively in groups than alone. In groups,achievement and efficiency were highest for high-ability homo-geneously grouped students and lowest for average-ability ho-mogeneously grouped students. Generating and receiving helpwere significant predictors of achievement, and average-abilitystudents generated and received significantly more help in het-erogeneous groups than in homogeneous ones.

Hooper et al. (1993) compared cooperative and individualis-tic learning on academically high- and average/low-performingstudents. They classified 175 fourth-grade students as high oraverage/low performing academically and randomly assignedthem to pairs or individualistic conditions strategies by perfor-mance level. Performance level was determined by scores onthe mathematics subscale of the California Achievement Test. Allcooperative pairs consisted of one high- and one average/low-performing student. They found that the students in the co-operative conditions performed higher on a computer-assistedsymbolic reasoning task than did the students in the individual-istic conditions. The greatest benefactors from the group learn-ing experience appeared to be the highest-performing students.Overall achievement increased by almost 20% for high-academicability students but only 4% for average-ability students. High-ability students may have benefited from generating explana-tions of their less able partners and less able partners mighthave adopted more passive roles. Mulryan (1992) found thatthe highest-achieving students adopted the more active roles incooperative learning groups and the least able students demon-strated high levels of passive behavior, a pattern that, accordingto Webb (1989), further decreases the achievement of the pas-sive students.

The results of these studies indicate that cooperative learn-ing may be used effectively with both homogeneous and hetero-geneous groups but that the greatest educational benefits maybe derived when heterogeneous groups work with technology-supported instruction. In heterogeneous cooperative learninggroups, low-ability students increased their achievement consid-erably and high-ability students generally either increased theirachievement or achieved at the same level as did their counter-parts in homogeneously high groups.

30.8.6.2 Gender. The gender of group members has been hy-pothesized to be an important factor in determining the successof technology-supported cooperative learning. D. W. Johnson,

Johnson, Richards, and Buckman (1986) found that computer-assisted cooperative learning, compared with competitive andindividualistic computer-assisted learning, increased the posi-tiveness of female students’ attitudes toward computers, equal-ized the status and respect among group members regardlessof gender, and resulted in a more equal participation patternbetween male and female members. Whereas females in co-operative groups liked working with the computer more thanmales did, there was no significant difference in oral inter-actions between males and females. Dalton et al. (1987) ex-amined interactions between instructional method and genderand found that cooperative learning was rated more favorablyby low-ability females than by low-ability males. Other stud-ies noted no significant differences in performance betweenmales and females in computer-based instruction cooperativelearning settings (Mevarech et al., 1987; Webb, 1984). Carrierand Sales (1987) compared female pairs, male pairs, and mixedpairs among college juniors and noted that female pairs verbal-ized the most, whereas male pairs verbalized the least, and thatmale–female pairs demonstrated the most off-task behavior. Lee(1993) found that males tended to become more verbally activeand females tended to become less verbally active in equal-ratio,mixed-gender groups.

A study that looked at mixed-gender groups versus single-gender groups was done by Underwood and McCaffrey (1990)in England. Two classes of students between 10.5 and 11.4 yearsof age from a single school participated in the study. The 40females and 40 males were randomly assigned to male/male, fe-male/female, or male/female pairs. The study was divided intothree sessions. The first session had the subjects working in-dividually. In the second session subjects worked in pairs. Thethird session also involved pairs, but subjects who were in mixedpairs were shifted to single-gender pairs and single-gender pairswere assigned to mixed pairs. The subjects worked with a com-puter program in language tasks that required them to placemissing letters into text. The results showed that single-genderpairs completed more stories and had more correct responsesthan did mixed-gender pairs. When subjects were shifted fromsingle-gender pairs to mixed-gender pairs, their level of activitydecreased but there was no change in their overall performance.The study found no overall differences for gender on any of themeasures. No cooperative training was given and mixed pairsrarely discussed their answers. Rather, one subject operated thekeyboard and the other gave directions.

Overall, there is mixed evidence concerning the impact oftechnology-supported instruction on males and females. A con-servative interpretation of the existing research is that therewill be no performance differences between males and femaleson technology-supported cooperative learning, but females willhave more positive attitudes toward using technology whenthey learn in cooperative groups.

30.8.7 Relationships: Networking into Teams

Technology such as electronic mail, bulletin boards, and confer-ences can be used to create teams of individuals who are widelyseparated geographically. In an electronically networked team,




interaction no longer has to be face-to-face, team members canbe anywhere in the world. Meetings require only that membersbe at their terminals. Communication between meetings can beasynchronous and extremely fast in comparison with telephoneconversations and interoffice mail. Participation may be moreequalized and less affected by prestige and status (McGuire,Kiesler, & Siegel, 1987; Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire,1986). The egalitarian “network” structures may coexist withsubstantial hierarchy and centralization in patters of communi-cation.

Electronic communications influence interaction style andwork flow. The use of electronic mail compared to telephones,for example, enables workers to control the pace of their re-sponse and thus facilitates multitasking. Digital conferencingmay make employees less risk averse and render group decisionmaking less predictable, more time-consuming, and more egal-itarian (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991; Wellman et al. 1996). Whetherthese effects on decision making enhance organizational perfor-mance or will continue as the technologies develop and changeis uncertain in part because they depend on the specific ways inwhich the technological systems are designed and implemented(O’Mahony & Barley, 1999; Sproull & Kiesler, 1991).

Electronic communication, however, relies almost entirelyon plain text for conveying messages, text that is oftenephemeral, appearing on and disappearing from a screen with-out any necessary tangible artifacts. It becomes easy for a senderto be out of touch with his or her audience. And it is easy for thesender to be less constrained by conventional norms and rulesfor behavior in composing messages. Communicators can feela greater sense of anonymity, detect less individuality in others,feel less empathy, feel less guilt, be less concerned over howthey compare with others, and be less influenced by social con-ventions (Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984; Short, Williams, &Christie, 1976). Such influences can lead both to more honestyand more “flaming” (name calling and epithets).

Hara, Bonk, and Angeli and his associates (2000) conducteda content analysis of on-line discussions. They examined par-ticipation rates, interaction patterns, social cues within studentmessages, cognitive and metacognitive components, and depthof processing. They concluded that messages became morelengthy and cognitively deeper over time. The messages werealso embedded with peer references, became more interactiveover time, and were thus indicative of a student-oriented envi-ronment.

30.8.8 Other Factors

30.8.8.1 Cost Effectiveness. The use of cooperative learn-ing increases the cost effectiveness of technology. Although therange of technology that could be used in schools is increasingyearly (Hancock & Betts, 1994), the cost of adopting new tech-nologies is an inhibiting factor to its use. Ensuring that everystudent is provided with the latest technology is beyond the fi-nancial resources of most school districts. Giving each coopera-tive learning group access to the latest technology is much morecost effective. An historical example is the adoption of comput-ers by schools. By having groups work at computers (instead of

individuals) schools were able to reduce significantly the costof obtaining and maintaining computers (Johnson & Johnson,1985; Wizer, 1987).

30.8.8.2 Innovation in Groupware and Hardware. Increating joint workspaces for team members to work together,and in creating hardware and communication networks that fa-cilitates teamwork, considerable innovation has taken, is taking,and will take place. The promise of the current technology isthat in the future, more effective, efficient, and productive waysof teaming will be created through technology.

Of special interest for technology-supported cooperativelearning is the use of self-powered, palm-sized computersand low-cost, high-bandwidth wireless communications. Justas computers made communication asynchronous, these mo-bile innovations make communication independent of place.The ability to communicate with anyone at anytime and any-where geometrically increases the possibilities of technology-supported cooperative learning. And the widespread use of suchtechnologies will undoubtedly inspire even more effective waysto use hardware and software to enhance human cooperation.Both students and teachers, furthermore, benefit from high-bandwidth, as it allows various technologies (i.e., high-qualityvideo, sophisticated teleconferencing, and Internet-based com-munication and assessment tools) to converge and be deliveredtogether, thereby providing richer content and stimulating co-operative interaction.

30.9 QUESTIONS ABOUTTECHNOLOGY-SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE

LEARNING

Given the powerful effects of cooperation on achievement, re-lationships, and psychological health, and given the numerousadvantages of using technology-supported cooperative learning,there are a number of questions about the use of technologythat may tentatively be answered. First, Does technology effectachievement or is it merely a means of delivering instruction?In a review of research, Clark (1983) concluded that technologyis merely a means of delivering instruction. There are cognitiveconsequences of discussing what one is learning with class-mates that technology may not be able to duplicate. The extentto which social interaction is essential for effective learning, thetransformation of the mind, and the development of expertiseis unclear.

Second, Is a “dialogue” with a computer as effective inpromoting achievement, higher-level reasoning, and abilityto apply learning as a dialogue with a peer? The answer isprobably no. It takes more than the presentation of informationto have a dialogue. There needs to be an exchange of knowledgethat leads to epistemic conflict and intellectual challenge andcuriosity. Such an exchange is personal as well as informational.It involves respect for and belief in each other’s abilities andcommitment to each other’s learning. Our results and the resultsof other researchers indicate that a dialogue with a peer is farmore powerful than one with a computer.




Third, Can a computer pass as a person? The answer, again,is probably no. A person interacts quite differently with a com-puter than he or she does with another person. Machines andpeople are not equally interesting or persuasive. With other peo-ple there is a commitment to their learning and well-being. It israre to feel the same emotions toward a machine.

Fourth, Is the effectiveness of a message separate from themedium? Generally, the research on cognitive development in-dicates that the same information, presented in other formats(especially nonsocial formats) is only marginally effective in pro-moting genuine cognitive development (Murray, 1983; D. W.Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989).

Fifth Is technology an amplifier or a transformer of themind? An amplifier serves a tool function like note taking ormeasuring. A transformer leads to the discovery and inventionof principles. If technological learning devices are transform-ers, the habitual technology users eventually will be in a newstage of mental functioning. Postman (1985) believes that theintroduction into a culture of a technique such as writing or aclock is not merely an extension of humans’ power to recordinformation or bind time but a transformation of their way ofthinking and the content of human culture. Generally, therefore,it may be concluded that technology such as the computer is atool to amplify the minds of students. As a tool, the computer(as well as the calculator) can free students from the rote mem-orization of methods of mathematical formulation and formula-driven science, allowing more time for underlying concepts tobe integrated with physical examples. A danger of the computeris that student will know what button to push to get the rightanswer without understanding the underlying process or devel-oping the ability to solve the problem on his or her own withoutthe computer. There is far more to expertise than knowing howto run hardware and software.

Finally, Can technology such as computers prepare a stu-dent for the “real world”? Technological expertise is helpful infinding and holding a job. Working in a modern organization,however, requires team skills such as leadership and conflictmanagement and the ability to engage in interpersonal prob-lem solving. Although it is clear that cooperative learning isan analogue to modern organizational life, experience in usingtechnology in and of itself may only marginally improve em-ployability and job success. A person has to have interpersonalcompetence as well as technical competence.

30.10 THE FUTURE OFTECHNOLOGY-SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE

LEARNING

The interdependence between the use of technology-supportedinstruction and cooperative learning is relatively unexplored.Technologies can either facilitate or obstruct cooperation. Theways in which technology may enhance or interfere with co-operative efforts have not been conceptualized, placed in atheoretical framework, researched, and applied in classrooms.Cooperative learning has a well-formulated theory validated byhundreds of research studies, translated into a set of practical

procedures that teachers and administrators may use, and actu-ally implemented in tens of thousands of classrooms through-out the world. Technology is transforming the way in whichwork and communication are conducted. Despite the successof cooperative learning and technology, there are a number ofshortcomings of the work on technology-supported coopera-tive learning.

First, there is a lack of theorizing. If technology-supportedcooperative learning is to continue to develop, it needs to be-come more articulate about the theories that underlie its use.Currently, social interdependence theory is the most clearlyspelled out theoretical base for cooperative learning, but theway in which technology provides unique opportunities for co-operation have not been tied to social interdependence theory.John Dewey has been widely quoted, but his work does notprovide a precise theory on which to base either cooperativelearning or technology-supported instruction. The same maybe said for Vygotsky. Conceptual models of how technologyand teamwork may be productively integrated are practicallynonexistent. The variables unique to the combination of tech-nology and cooperation have not been identified and defined.Two theoretical perspectives are needed that can be contrastedand compared in research studies. The field needs such rivalry todevelop.

Second, relatively little research has been done. Overall, thequality of the existing research is quite high. Only a few ofthe potential outcomes, however, have been studied. There aremany gaps in the research on technology-supported cooperativelearning. The unique strengths of technology-supported coop-erative learning have not been assessed and documented. Theimpact of technology-based cooperative learning on relation-ships among students (especially in face-to-face and non-face-to-face situations and among diverse individuals) has not beenstudied. The specific ways that use of technology affects vari-ous aspects of psychological health (such as social adjustment,personal happiness, self-esteem, anxiety levels, social compe-tencies, and ability to cope with stress and diversity) is largelyunknown. Almost all of the research that has been conductedhas focused on the effectiveness of technology-based computerinstruction or specific software programs without testing the-ory. In the future, theoretically oriented research needs to beconducted.

Third, the lack of conceptual models and the scarcity of re-search have created a corresponding lack of operational pro-cedures for practice. Operational procedures are needed fordesigning and implementing instructional procedures that op-timize the impact of technology-supported cooperative learn-ing. Equivalent procedures need to be designed for work envi-ronments where technology and teamwork are used together.Once the operational procedures are clarified, decisions abouttraining teachers and students can be made. Teachers can betrained to implement cooperative learning, but training in thespecific procedures for implementing technology-supported co-operative learning is underdeveloped. The nature and amountof training students need to work together cooperatively whileutilizing technology are largely unknown. Whereas the socialskills required to cooperate have been clear for some time(D. W. Johnson, 1991, 2003; D. W. Johnson & F. Johnson, 2003),




the social skills required to utilize technology cooperatively havegenerally been ignored. More needs to be known about the skillsstudents need to maximize the constructiveness of technology-supported cooperative learning.

In addition to using validated theory to operationalizeteacher and student procedures, new software developmentshould be more closely tied to validated theory. Effective co-operation depends on the existence of five basic elements (pos-itive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive in-teraction, appropriate use of social skills, and group processing)in operational procedures (D. W. Johnson & Johnson, 1989).Whereas there are many groupware programs, the extent towhich groupware incorporates the five basic elements of coop-eration has not been discussed or researched, and whether thereare other elements essential to technology-supported cooper-ative learning programs has not been determined by research.Attention to ensuring that the groupware developed is based onsocial interdependence theory as well as on technology hard-ware and software potentialities is needed.

In summary, what is needed is a theory to stimulate researchthat, in turn, will validate and modify the theory. The resultsneed to be used to design specific procedures for operational-izing technology-supported cooperative learning at every gradelevel and in every subject area. Groupware needs to be tiedmore closely to theory. Without this combination of theory, re-search, and operational procedures and software, proponentsof technology-supported cooperative learning cannot present apersuasive case for adoption or an effective training program forteachers. On the positive side, there has been so little researchon technology-supported cooperative learning that the futureis wide open to interested social scientists.

There are, however, several areas on which researchers canfocus. First, there is a need for long-term studies that track theuse of technology-supported cooperative learning across at least1 school year and, ideally, several years. Short-term studies of ini-tial use are not enough. The real question is whether the use oftechnology-supported cooperative learning will be maintainedover several years.

Second, the critical factors that result in technology and co-operative learning enhancing each other need to be identifiedand researched. One important factor may be epistemic con-flict, that is, the collision of adverse opinion. Cognitive growthand the development of problem-solving skills depend on epi-stemic conflict (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1979, 1995; Piaget,1950). Students need the opportunity to experience and resolveacademic controversies. Technology rarely engages students inintellectual conflict the same way other students can. The roleof technology in promoting and facilitating intellectual conflictsamong students has not been thoroughly investigated.

Third, there is a question whether technology-supportedinstruction will increase inequality in educational outcomes(Becker & Sterling, 1987). Students who have access to the newtechnologies in their homes will be more skilled and sophisti-cated in their uses than will students who do not. Equality in theclassroom may require heterogeneous grouping where studentswho are skilled in the use of instructional technologies workwith students who are not. Cooperative learning is an essentialaspect of such equalization. New studies need to be conducted

on group composition focusing on the ability of students to useinstructional technologies.

Fourth, the implementation process by which technology-supported cooperative learning is institutionalized withinschools needs to be documented and studied. Whereas advo-cates of technology see a revolution coming in instruction, histo-rians point to the virtual absence of lasting or profound changesin classroom practice over the past 100 years. Despite briefperiods of popularity, new instructional technologies such aseducational television, language laboratories, and programmedlearning were tried and dropped. Life in classrooms remainslargely unchanged. Lepper and Gurtner (1989) argue that thelast “technology” to have had a major impact on the way schoolsare run is the blackboard. Most often new technologies are usedin ways that do not disrupt regular classroom practices, whichmeans that they can be dropped with no disruption to ongoingclassroom life. Similarly, software selection is often conductedwith the intention of supporting existing classroom practicesrather than transforming them. Considerably more research isneeded on the implementation process by which the combina-tion of cooperative learning and learning technologies becomesintegrated and institutionalized in classroom and schools.

Fifth, studies need to focus on the role of teachers and ad-ministrators in the implementation process. No matter howgood technology is, unless teachers decide to use it and gainsome expertise in how to implement it, the technology will notbe adopted by schools.

Sixth, studies need to examine the support services re-quired for technology to be used in the classroom. Who re-pairs the technology and how often repairs are needed areimportant questions. Teachers, for example, cannot be ex-pected to be computer technicians. As the quantity of researchon technology-supported cooperative learning has grown, sohas the networking among interested social scientists and ed-ucators. In 1996 an international conference on computer-supported cooperative learning took place, followed by similarconferences in Toronto in 1997, at Stanford University in 1999,in The Netherlands in 2001, and in Boulder, Colorado, in 2002.Conferences such as these are helpful in advancing the develop-ment of relevant theory, research, and operational proceduresand software.

30.11 SUMMARY

We live in a networked, information-based society in whichteams and technology are needed to manage the complexityof learning, work, and living. Schools have become a strategicplace. For education to develop the technological and teamworkcompetencies of children, adolescents, and young adults, if mustovercome the individualistic assumption historically connectedwith technology-supported instruction and utilize cooperativelearning as an inherent part of instruction. The individual as-sumption is that instruction should be tailored to each stu-dent’s personal aptitude, learning style, personality characteris-tics, motivation, and needs. Computers were originally viewedas an important tool for providing individualized learning ex-periences. The difficulties and shortcomings of individualizing




instruction call into question the wisdom of focusing technol-ogy on delivering individualized instruction. Technology maybe more productively used when it is used in combination withcooperation learning.

Cooperative learning is the instructional use of smallgroups so that students work together to maximize theirown and each other’s learning. There are four types of co-operative learning—formal cooperative learning, informal co-operative learning, base groups, and academic controversies.Technology-supported cooperative learning exists whenthe instructional use of technology is combined with the use ofcooperative learning groups. What underlies cooperative learn-ing’s worldwide use is that it is based on a well-formulatedtheory that has been validated by numerous research studiesand operationalized into practical procedures that can be usedat any level of education. The three theoretical perspectivesthat have contributed to cooperative learning are cognitive-developmental theory, behavioral learning theory, and socialinterdependence theory. The latter has had the most profoundinfluence on the development of cooperative learning. Between1898 and 1989, over 550 experimental and 100 correlationalstudies were conducted comparing the relative effectiveness ofcooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts. Generally,cooperative efforts result in higher achievement, more positiverelationships, and greater psychological health than do compet-itive or individualistic efforts. Not all groups, however, are coop-erative groups. To be a cooperative group, five basic elementsmust be structured within the learning situation—positive inter-dependence, promotive interaction, individual accountability,social skills, and group processing. For schools to adopt tech-nology and maintain its use over time, the school organizationalstructure must change from a mass-manufacturing structure toa team-based, high-performance structure (which is known asthe cooperative school).

There is a growing body of research on technology-supported cooperative learning. The results indicate thatcompared with technology-supported instruction, coopera-tive learning tends to increase achievement (both academicachievement and learning how to use technology), promotepositive attitudes (toward technology and cooperation), pro-mote development (cognitive development, learning control,social competencies), promote positive relationships withteam members, promote positive effects on both high- andlow-performing students and both male and female students,be cost effective, and promote innovation in groupware andhardware. What this research illuminates is that cooperativelearning and technology-supported instruction have comple-mentary strengths. The more technology is used to teach, themore necessary cooperative learning is. The computer, for

example, can control the flow of work, monitor accuracy, giveelectronic feedback, and do calculations. Cooperative learningprovides a sense of belonging, the opportunity to explain andsummarize what is being learned, social models, respect andapproval for efforts to achieve, encouragement of divergentthinking, and interpersonal feedback on academic learning andthe use of the technology.

A number of questions must be asked about technology-supported instruction. Does technology affect achievement, oris it only a means for delivering instruction? Current evidence in-dicates that computers deliver instruction but they do not effectachievement in and of themselves. Is a dialogue with the com-puter as effective as a dialogue with another person in promot-ing achievement and higher-level reasoning? The answer seemsto be no. Can the computer pass as a person? The answer seemsto be no. Cooperators are people, not machines. Is the effective-ness of a message separate from the medium? The answer seemsto be yes, messages from other people are more powerful andinfluential than are messages from machines. Is technology anamplifier or a transformer of the mind? The answer seems to bean amplifier. Technology amplifies communication, but it takesother people to transform each other’s minds.

The future of technology-supported cooperative learningdepends largely on the cycle of theory–research–practice.The unique opportunities of technology-supported cooperativelearning need to be tied to social interdependence theory (or an-other theory underlying cooperative learning), research needsto be conducted to validate or disconfirm the theoretical pre-dictions, and operational procedures and groupware need to bedeveloped directly based on the validated theory.

Finally, technologies can either facilitate or obstruct cooper-ation. The ways in which technology may enhance or inter-fere with cooperative efforts have not been conceptualized,placed in a theoretical framework, researched, and applied inclassrooms. Despite the success of cooperative learning andtechnology, there are a number of shortcomings of the workon technology-supported cooperative learning. Among otherissues, long-term studies of the use of technology-supported co-operative learning are needed, the role of factors that enhanceor interfere with cooperation (such as epistemic conflict) needto be studied, the impact of implementation on equality of op-portunity needs to be researched, and the role of the teacherand support services needed to be investigated.

Few educational innovations hold the promise thattechnology-supported cooperative learning does. The combi-nation of cooperation and technology has a potential that ischanging the way courses are being delivered and instructionis taking place. More theorizing, research, and refinement ofpractice is needed to help the field actualize its possibilities.

References

Adams, D., Carson, H., & Hamm, M. (1990). Cooperative learningand educational media. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Tech-nology.

Allen, R. (2001, Fall). Technology and learning. Curriculum Update,1–3, 6–8. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-ment.




Ames, R., & Lau, S. (1982). An attributional analysis of student help-seeking in academic settings. Journal of Educational Psychology,74, 414–423.

Amigues, R., & Agostinelli, S. (1992). Collaborative problem-solvingwith computer: How can an interactive learning environment be de-signed? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 7(4), 325–337.

Anderson, A., Mayes, T., & Kibby, M. (1995). Small group collaborativediscovery learning from hypertext. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computersupported collaborative learning, NATO ASI Series F: Computerand systems sciences (Vol. 129, pp. 23–28). Heidelberg, Berlin:Springer-Verlag.

Archer-Kath, J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1994). Individual versusgroup feedback in cooperative groups. Journal of Social Psychology,

Aronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Baker, C. (1985). The microcomputer and the curriculum. A critique.

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17, 449–451.Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-

tice Hall.Bates, A. (1995). Tecnology, open learning and distance education.

London: Routledge.Battista, M., & Clements, D. (1986). The effects of Logo and CAI problem-

solving environments on problem-solving abilities and mathematicsachievement. Computers in Human Behavior, 2, 183–193.

Beane, W., & Lemke, E. (1971). Group variables influencing the transferof conceptual behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(3),215–218.

Bearison, D. (1982). New directions in studies of social interaction andcognitive growth. In F. Serafica (Ed.), Social-cognitive developmentin context (pp. 199–221). New York: Guildford Press.

Bearison, D., Magzamen, S., & Filardo, E. (1986). Socio-cognitive conflictand cognitive growth in young children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,32, 51–72.

Becker, H. (1984). School uses of microcomputers: Reports from anational survey (Issue No. 6). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Uni-versity, Center for Social Organization of Schools.

Becker, H. (1985). The second national U.S. school users of microcom-puters survey. Paper presented at the Second World Conference onComputers in Education, Norfolk, VA.

Becker, H., & Sterling, C. (1987). Equity in schools computer use: Na-tional data and neglected considerations. Journal of EducationalComputing Research, 3, 289–311.

Bell, P. (2001). Using argument map representations to make thinkingvisible in the classroom. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake(Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 449–485).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Berndt, T., Perry, T., & Miller, K. (1988). Friends’ and classmates’ inter-actions on academic tasks. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,506–513.

Bonk, C., & King, K. (Eds.). (1998). Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bonk, C., Medury, P., & Reynolds, T. (in press). Cooperative hypermedia:The marriage of collaborative writing and mediated environments.Computers in the Schools,

Britton, J. (1990). Research currents: Second thoughts on learning. InBrubacher, M., Payne, R., & Richett, K. (Eds.), Perspectives on smallgroup learning: Theory and practice (pp. 3–11). Oakville, Ontario:Rubicon.

Brush, T. (1997). The effects on student achievement and attitudes whenusing integrated learning systems with cooperative pairs. Educa-tional Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 51–64.

Carlson, H., & Falk, D. (1989). Effective use of interactive videodisc

instruction in understanding and implementing cooperative grouplearning with elementary pupils in social studies. Theory and Re-search in Social Education, 17(3), 241–158.

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

Carrier, C., & Sales, G. (1987). Pair versus individual work on the acqui-sition concepts in a computer-based instructional lesson. Journal ofComputer-Based Instruction, 14(1), 11–17.

Chernick, R., & White, M. (1981). Pupils’ interaction with microcom-puters vs. interaction in classroom settings. New York: TeachersCollege, Columbia University, Electronic Learning Laboratory.

Chernick, R., & White, M. (1983, May). Pupil cooperation in computerlearning vs. learning with classroom materials. Paper presentedat the New York State Psychological Association, Liberty, NY.

Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Re-view of Educational Research, 53, 445–459.

Clements, D. (1986). Research on Logo and social development. LogoExchange, 5(3), 22–24.

Clements, D., & Nastasi, B. (1985). Effects of computer environmentson social-emotional development: Logo and computer-assisted in-struction. Computers in the Schools, 2(2/3), 11–31.

Clements, D., & Nastasi, B. (1988). Social and cognitive interaction ineducational computer environments. American Educational Re-search Journal, 25, 87–106.

Cockayne, S. (1991, February). Effects of small group sizes on learningwith interactive videodisc. Educational Technology, 43–45.

Cohen, E. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for heterogeneousclassrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cosden, M., & English, J. (1987). The effects of grouping, self-esteem,and locus of control on microcomputer performance and help seek-ing by mildly handicapped students. Journal of Educational Com-puting Research, 3, 443–460.

Cox, D., & Berger, C. (1985). The importance of group size in the use ofproblem-solving skills on a microcomputer. Journal of EducationalComputing Research, 1, 459–468.

Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience oflearning. London: Routledge.

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of tech-nology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dalton, D. (1990a). The effects of cooperative learning strategies onachievement and attitudes during interactive video. Journal ofComputer-Based Instruction, 17, 8–16.

Dalton, D. (1990b, April). The effects of prior learning on learner in-teraction and achievement during cooperative computer-based in-struction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Boston, MA.

Dalton, D., Hannafin, M., & Hooper, S. (1987). Effects of individual andcooperative computer-assisted instruction on student performanceand attitudes. Educational Technology Research and Development,37(2), 15–24.

Damon, W., & Killen, M. (1982). Peer interaction and the process ofchange in children’s moral reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 28,347–367.

Davis, J., & Huttenlocher, D. (1995). Shared annotation for cooperativelearning. Proceedings of CSCL95: First International Conferenceon Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dees, R. (1991). The role of cooperative learning in increasing problem-solving ability in a college remedial course. Journal for Research inMathematics Education, 22(5), 409–421.

Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. HumanRelations, 2, 129–152.




Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. InM. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 275–319). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

DeVries, D., & Edwards, K. (1974). Student teams and learning games:Their effects on cross-race and cross-sex interaction. Journal of Ed-ucational Psychology, 66(5), 741–749.

Dickson, W., & Vereen M. (1985). Two students at one microcomputer.Theory into Practice, 22(4), 296–300.

Druckman, D., Rozelle, R., & Baxter, J. (1982). Nonverbal communica-tion: Survey, theory, and research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Dwyer, D. (1994). Apple classrooms of tomorrow: What we’ve learned.Educational Leadership, 51(7), 4–10.

Dyer, L. (1993). An investigation of the effects of cooperative learn-ing on computer monitored problem solving. Ph.D. Dissertation,University of Minnesota.

Eraut, M. (1995). Groupwork with computers in British primary schools.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(1), 61–87.

Federico, P. (1980). Adaptive instruction: Trends and issues. In R. Snow,P. Federico, & W. Montague (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruc-tion: Vol. 1. Cognitive process analysis of aptitude (pp. 1–26). Hills-dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fishman, B., & Gomez, L. (1997, December). How activities foster CMCtool use in classrooms. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.),Computer support for cooperative learning 1997. Proceedings ofthe Second International Conference on Computer Support forCollaborative Learning (pp. 37–44). Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Fletcher, B. (1985). Group and individual learning of junior high schoolchildren on a micro-computer-based task. Educational Review, 37,252–261.

Fetcher-Flinn, C., & Gravatt, B. (1995). The efficacy of computer assistedinstruction (CAI): A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Comput-ing Research, 12(3), 219–241.

Frank, M. (1984). A comparison between an individual and group goalstructure contingency that differed in the behavioral contingencyand performance-outcome components (Doctoral dissertation, Uni-versity of Minnesota). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45(05),1341–A.

Garhart, C., Hannafin, M. (1986). The accuracy of cognitive monitoringduring computer-based instruction. Journal of Computer-Based In-struction, 13, 88–93.

Hancock, V., & Betts, F. (1994). From the lagging to the leading edge.Educational Leadership, 51(7), 24–29.

Hannafin, M. (1984). Guidelines for using locus of instructional controlin the design of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Instruc-tional Development, 7(3), 6–10.

Hannafin, M., & Rieber, L. (1989). Psychological foundations of instruc-tional design for emerging computer-based interactive technologies:Part II. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2),102–114.

Hara, N., Bonk, C., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online dis-cussion in an applied educational psychology course. InstructionalScience, 28, 115–152.

Harasim, L., Hiltz, R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks:A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA: MITpress.

Hawkins, S., Sheingold, K., Gearhart, M., & Berger, C. (1982). Microcom-puters in schools: Impact on the social life of elementary classrooms.Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 3, 361–373.

Hill, G. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are N + 1 headsbetter than one? Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517–539.

Hooper, S. (1992a). Effects of peer interaction during computer-basedmathematics instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 85(3),180–189.

Hooper, S. (1992b). Cooperation learning and computer-based instruc-tion. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(3),21–38.

Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. (1988). Cooperative CBI: The effects of het-erogeneous versus homogeneous groups on the learning of progres-sively complex concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Re-search, 4(4), 413–424.

Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. (1991). The effects of group composition onachievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computer-based cooperative instruction. Educational Technology Researchand Development, 39(3), 27–40.

Hooper, S., Ward, T., Hannafin, M., & Clark, H. (1989). The effects ofaptitude composition on achievement during small group learning.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16, 102–109.

Hooper, S., Temiyakarn, C., & Williams, M. (1993). The effects of coop-erative learning and learner control on high- and average-ability stu-dents. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(2),5–18.

Hwong, N., Caswell, A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1993). Effectsof cooperative and individualistic learning on prospective elemen-tary teachers’ music achievement and attitudes. Journal of SocialPsychology, 133(1), 53–64.

Huang, C. (1993). The effects of feedback on performance and atti-tude in cooperative and individualized computer-based instruc-tion. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota.

Hythecker, V., Rocklin, T., Dansereau, D., Lambiotte, J., Larson, C., &O’Donnell, A. (1985). A computer-based learning strategy trainingmodule: Development and evaluation. Journal of Educational Com-puter Research, 1(3), 275–283.

Inkpen, K., Booth, K., Klawe, M., & Upitis, R. (1995). Playing togetherbeats playing apart, especially for girls. In J. Schnase & E. Cunnius(Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 1995: The First International Confer-ence on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 177–181). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Innis, H. (1964). The bias of communication. Toronto: University ofToronto Press.

Innis, H. (1972). Empire and communication. Toronto: University ofToronto Press.

Isenberg, R. (1992). Social skills at the computer. The Cooperative Link,2(6), 1–2.

Jarvela, S. (1996). New models of teacher-student interaction: A criticalreview. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 6(3), 246–268.

Johnson, D. W. (1991). Human relations and your career. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Johnson, D. W. (2003). Reaching out: Interpersonal effectiveness andself-actualization. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. (2003). Joining together: Group theoryand group skills (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1979). Conflict in the classroom:Controversy and learning. Review of Educational Research, 49,51–70.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986). Computer-assisted cooperativelearning. Educational Technology, 26(1), 12–18.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition:Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1992a). Positive interdependence: Keyto effective cooperation. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Ed.),Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy ofgroup learning (pp. 174–199). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1992b). Positive interdependence: Theheart of cooperative Learning. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.




Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1994). Leading the cooperative school(2nd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1995). Creative controversy: Intellectualchallenge in the classroom (3rd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1998a). Cooperation in theclassroom (6th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1998b). Advanced cooper-ative learning (2nd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Richards, P. (1986). A scale for assessingstudent attitudes toward computers: Preliminary findings. Comput-ers in the Schools, 3(2), 31–38.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998). Active learning: Coop-eration in the college classroom (2nd ed.). Edina, MN: InteractionBook.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Stanne, M. (1989). Impact of goal andresource interdependence on problem-solving success. Journal ofSocial Psychology, 129(5), 621–629.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Stanne, M., & Garibaldi, A. (1990). Theimpact of group processing on achievement in cooperative groups.Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 507–516.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Richards, S., & Buckman, L. (1986). Theeffect of prolonged implementation of cooperative learning on socialsupport within the classroom. Journal of Psychology, 119, 405–411.

Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. W. (1979). Type of task and student achieve-ment and attitudes in interpersonal cooperation, competition, andindividualization. Journal of Social Psychology, 116, 211–219.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Ortiz, A., & Stanne, M. (1991). Impact ofpositive goal and resouce interdependence on achievement, inter-action, and attitudes. Journal of General Psychology, 118(4), 341–347.

Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. (1985). Effects of cooperative,competitive, and individualistic goal structures on computer-assistedinstruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 668–677.

Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. (1986). A comparisonof computer-assisted cooperative, competitive, and individualis-tic learning. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 382–392.

Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., Stanne, M., Smizak, B., & Avon, J. (1987).Effect of composition pairs at the word processor on quality ofwriting and ability to use the word processor. Minneapolis: Coop-erative Learning Center, University of Minnesota.

Keeler, C., & Anson, R. (1995). An assessment of cooperative learningused for basic computer skills instruction in the college classroom.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19(4), 379–393.

Khalili, A., & Shashaani, L. (1994). The effectiveness of computer ap-plications: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Computing inEducation, 27(1), 48–62.

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. (1984, October). Social psychologicalaspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychol-ogist, 39(10), 1123–1134.

King, A. (1989). Verbal interaction and problem solving withincomputer-assisted cooperative learning groups. Journal of Educa-tional Computing Research, 5(1), 1–15.

Lee, M. (1993). Gender, group composition, and peer interaction incomputer-based cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Com-puting Research, 9(4), 549–577.

Lehrer, R., & Smith, P. (1986, April). Logo learning: Are two heads betterthan one? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, San Francisco.

Lehtinen, E., & Repo, S. (1996). Activity, social interaction and reflectiveabstraction: Learning advanced mathematics in a computer environ-ment. In S. Vosniadou, E. DeCorte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.),International perspectives on the design of technology supported

learning environments (pp. 105–128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum.

Lehtinen, E., Hamalainen, S., & Malkonen, E. (1998, April). Learningexperimental research methodology and statistical inference in acomputer environement. Paper presented at the American Educa-tional Research Association Annual Meeting, San Diego.

Lepper, M., & Gurtner J. (1989). Children and computers: Approachingthe twenty-first century. American Psychologist, 44(2), 170–178.

Lesgold, A., Weiner, A., & Suthers, D. (1995, August). Tools for thinkingabout complex issues. Paper presented at the 6th European Con-ference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Nijmegen, TheNetherlands.

Levin, J., & Kareev, Y. (1980). Problem-solving in everyday situations.Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative HumanCognition, 2, 47–51.

Lew, M., Mesch, D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986a). Positive inter-dependence, academic and collaborative-skills group contingenciesand isolated students. American Educational Research Journal, 23,476–488.

Lew, M., Mesch, D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986b). Componentsof cooperative learning: Effects of collaborative skills and academicgroup contingencies on achievement and mainstreaming. Contem-porary Educational Psychology, 11, 229–239.

Lin, J., Wu, C., & Liu, H. (1999). Using SimCPU in cooperative learninglaboratories. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20(3),259–277.

Love, W. (1969). Individual versus paired learning of an abstract alge-bra presented by computer assisted instruction. Ph.D. Dissertation,Florida State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 034 403).

Malikowski, S. (1998). WEB-based conferencing for education. TheCenter for Excellence in Education.

McConnell, D. (1994). Managing open learning in computer supportedcollaborative learning environments. Studies in Higher Education,19(3), 175–191.

McDonald, C. (1993). Learner-controlled lesson in cooperative learn-ing groups during computer-based instruction. Ph.D. Dissertation,University of Minnesota.

McGuire, T., Kiesler, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 52, 917–930.

McInerey, V., McInerney, D., & Marsh, H. (1997). Effects of metacogni-tive strategy training within a cooperative group learning contexton computer achievement and anxiety: An aptitude-treatment inter-action study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 686–695.

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man.New York: New American Library.

Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Mesch, D., Lew, M., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986). Isolated

teenagers, cooperative learning and the training of social skills. Jour-nal of Psychology, 120, 323–334.

Mesch, D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1988). Impact of positive in-terdependence and academic group contingencies on achievement.Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 345–352.

Mevarech, Z. (1993). Who benefits from cooperative computer-assistedinstruction? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9(4),451–464.

Mevarech, Z., Stern, D., & Levita, I. (1987). To cooperate or not to coop-erate in CAI: That is the question. Journal of Educational Research,80(3), 164–167.

Mevarech, Z., Silber, O., & Fine, D. (1991). Learning with computers insmall groups: Cognitive and affective outcomes. Journal of Educa-tional Computing Research, 7(2), 233–243.




Milheim, W., & Martin, B. (1991). Theoretical bases for the use of learnercontrol: Three different perspectives. Journal of Computer-BasedInstruction, 18(3), 99–105.

Mills, C., & Durden, W. (1992). Cooperative learning and ability groups:An issue of choice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(1), 11–16.

Muller, A., & Perlmutter, M. (1985). Preschool children’s problem-solving interactions at computers and jigsaw puzzles. Journal ofApplied Developmental Psychology, 6, 173–186.

Mulryan, C. (1992). Student passivity during cooperative small groupsin mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 261–273.

Murray, F. (1983). Cognitive benefits of teaching on the teacher. Pa-per presented at American Educational Research Association AnnualMeeting, Montreal, Quebec.

Nastasi, B., & Clements, D. (1992). Social-cognitive behaviors andhigher-order thinking in educational computer environments.Learning and Instruction, 2, 215–238.

Nastasi, B., Clements, D., & Battista, M. (1990). Social-cognitive interac-tions, motivation, and cognitive growth in logo programming andCAI problem-solving environments. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 82, 150–158.

Noell, J., & Carnine, D. (1989). Group and individual computer-basedvideo instruction. Educational Technology, 29(1), 36–37.

Okey, J., & Majer, K. (1976). Individual and small-group learning withcomputer-assisted instruction. AV Communication Review, 24(1),79–86.

O’Mahony, S., & Barley, S. (1999). Do digital telecommunications affectwork and organization? The state of our knowledge. Research onOrganizational Behavior, 21, 125–161.

Pea, R., Edelson, E., & Gomez, L. (1994, April). The CoVis Collabora-tory: High school science learning supported by a broadband edu-cational network with scientific visualization, videoconferencing,and collaborative computing. Paper presented at the Annual Meet-ing of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans,LA.

Perret-Clermont, A. (1980). Social interaction and cognitive develop-ment in children. New York: Academic Press.

Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. New York: Harcourt.Postman, N. (1985). Ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of

show business. New York: Viking Penguin.Postthast, M. (1995, April). Cooperative learning experiences in in-

troductory statistics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Putnam, J., Rynders, J., Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. W. (1989). Collabo-rative skills instruction for promoting positive interactions betweenmentally handicapped and nonhandicapped children. ExceptionalChildren, 55, 550–557.

Reglin, G. (1990). The effects of individualized and cooperative com-puter assisted instruction on mathematics achievement and math-ematics anxiety for prospective teachers. Journal of Research onComputing in Education, 22, 404–412.

Reigeluth, C., & Stein, F. (1983). The elaborative theory of instruction.In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (pp.335–382). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Repman, J. (1993). Collaborative, computer-based learning: Cognitiveand affective outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Re-search, 9(2), 149–163.

Riel, M. (1990). Cooperative learning across classrooms in electroniclearning circles. Instructional Science, 19, 445–466.

Robinson, A. (1990) Cooperation or exploitation? The argument againstcooperative learning for talented students. Journal of Education ofthe Gifted, 14(3), 9–27.

Rocklin, T., O’Donnell, A., Dansereau, D., Lambiotte, J., Hythecker, Va., &

Larson, C. (1985). Training learning strategies with computer-aidedcooperative learning. Computers in Education, 9(1), 67–71.

Rubin, A. (1983). The computer confronts language arts: Cans andshoulds for education. In A. Wilkinson (Ed.), Classroom comput-ers and cognitive science (pp. 201–218). San Diego, CA: AcademicPress.

Rysavy, D., & Sales, G. (1991). Cooperative learning in computer-basedinstruction. Educational Technology Research and Development,39(2), 70–79.

Salomon, G. (1983). The differential investment of mental effort in learn-ing from different sources. Educational Psychologist, 18(1), 42–50.

Salomon, G. (1985). Information technologies: What you see is not (al-ways) what you get. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 207–216.

Sarason, I., & Potter, E. (1983). Self-monitoring: Cognitive processes,and performance. Seattle: University of Washington, Research Re-port.

Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLearn, R., Swallow, J., & Woodruff,D. (1989). Computer supported intentional learning environments.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 51–68.

Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, K., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project:Trying to bring the classroom into world 3. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Class-room lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice(pp. 201–228). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.

Sherman, L. (2000). Cooperative learning and computer-supported in-tentional learning experiences. In C. Wolfe (Ed.), Learning andteaching on the world wide web (pp. 113–130). New York: Aca-demic Press.

Shlechter, T. (1990). The relative instructional efficiency of small groupcomputer-based training. Journal of Educational Computing Re-search, 6, 329–341.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology oftelecommunications. London: Wiley.

Showers, C., & Cantor, N. (1985). Social cognition: A look at motivatedstrategies. In M. Rosenzweig & L. Porter (Eds.), Annual review ofpsychology, (Vol. 36, pp. 275–306). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Siann, G., & MacLeod, G. (1986). Computers and children of primaryschool age: Issues and questions. British Journal of EducationalTechnology, 17, 133–144.

Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. (1986). Group pro-cesses in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Be-havior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157–187.

Simpson, J. (1986). Computers and collaborative work among students.Educational Technology, 26(10), 37–44.

Simsek, A., & Hooper, S. (1992). The effects of cooperative versus in-dividual videodisc learning on student performance and attitudes.International Journal of Instructional Media, 19(3), 209–218.

Simsek, A., & Tsai, B. (1992). The impact of cooperative group com-position on student performance and attitudes during interac-tive videodisc instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction,19(3), 86–91.

Slavin, R. (1986). Using student team learning. Baltimore, MD: Centerfor Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University.

Slavin, R., Leavey, M., & Madden, N. (1982). Team-assisted individu-alization: Mathematics teacher’s manual. Baltimore: Center forSocial Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University.

Snow, R. (1980). Aptitude, learner control, and adaptive instruction.Educational Psychologist, 15, 151–158.

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Computers, networks and work. Scien-tific American, 65, 116–123.

Steinberg, E. (1977). Review of student control in computer-assistedinstruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 3(3), 84–90.

Steinberg, E. (1984). Teaching computers to teach. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.




Steinberg, E. (1989). Cognition and learner control: A literature review,1977–1988. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16(4), 117–124.

Stephenson, S. (1992). Effects of student-instructor interaction andpaired/individual study on achievement in computer-based training(CBT). Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(1), 22–26.

Susman, E. (1998). Cooperative learning: A review of factors that in-crease the effectiveness of cooperative computer-based instruction.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18(4), 303–332.

Suthers, D. (1998, January). Computer aided education and traininginitiative. Technical Report 12.

Swing, S., & Peterson, P. (1982). The relationship of student ability andsmall group interaction to student achievement. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 19, 259–274.

Tennyson, R., Christensen, D., & Park, O. (1984). The Minnesota Adap-tive Instructional System: A review of its theory and research. Jour-nal of Computer-Based Instruction, 11(1), 2–13.

Trevino. L., Lengel, R., & Daft, R. (1987). Media symbolism, media rich-ness, and media choice in organizations: A symbolic interactionistperspective. Communication Research, 14, 553–574.

Tobias, S. (1987). Mandatory text review and interaction with stu-dent characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 154–161.

Trowbridge, D., & Durnin, R. (1984). Results from an investigation ofgroups working at the computer. Washington, DC: National ScienceFoundation.

Turk, S., & Sarason, I. (1983). Test anxiety and causal attributions.Seattle: University of Washington, Department of Psychology.

Underwood, G., & McCaffrey, M. (1990). Gender differences in a coop-erative computer-based language task. Educational Research, 32,44–49.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press.

Webb, N. (1982). Group composition, group interaction, and achieve-ment in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 74(4), 475–484.

Webb, N. (1984). Microcomputer learning in small groups: Cognitive re-quirements and group processes. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 76, 1076–1088.

Webb, N. (1987). Peer interaction and learning with computers in smallgroups. Computers in Human Behavior, 3, 193–209.

Webb, N. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. Inter-national Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–39.

Webb, N., Ender, P., & Lewis, S. (1986). Problem solving strategies andgroup processes in small group learning computer programming.American Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 243–261.

Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., & Haythorn-waite, C. (1996). Computer networks as social networks: collabo-rative work, telework, and virtual community. Annual Review ofSociology, 22, 213–238.

Whitelock, D., Scanlon, E., Taylor, J., & O’Shea, T. (1995). Computersupport for pupils collaborating: A case study on collisions. InJ. Schnase & E. Cunnius (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 1995: The FirstInternational Conference on Computer Support for CollaborativeLearning (pp. 380–384). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Willis, S. (1990). Cooperative learning fallout. ASCD Update, 32(8), 6,8.

Woolley, J. (1995). Children’s understanding of fictional versus episte-mic mental representation: Imagination and belief. Child Develop-ment, 66(4), 1011–1021.

Yager, S., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1985). Oral discussion, group-to-individual transfer, and achievement in cooperative learning groups.Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 60–66.

Yager, S., Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., & Snider, B. (1986). The impact ofgroup processing on achievement in cooperative learning groups.Journal of Social Psynology, 126, 389–397.

Yeuh, J., & Alessi, S. (1988). The effects of reward structure and groupability composition on cooperative computer-assisted instruction.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15, 18–22.

Zimmerman, B. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which arethe key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11,303–313.



812

Date post:	28-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ngothuan
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

COOPERATION AND THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY - … · PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, ......

Documents