30 PDF

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. Johnson

University of Minnesota
dominant and thought may be linear (one thing follows an-

30.1 TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM other), rational (cause and effect), and abstract. Electronic tech-
nology tends to recreate the village on a global scale through
We live in an historical period in which knowledge is the instantaneous and simultaneous communication in which phys-
most critical resource for social and economic development ical distance between people becomes irrelevant. On a more
and people need to be able to participate in a networked, negative note, Neil Postman (1985) expressed fears that our
information-based society. Whereas previously people engaged ability to reason with rigor and self-discipline is being eroded as
in manufacturing-based work where they generally competed fewer people read systematically and more people watch and
with or worked independently of each other, now people en- listen to electronic media. Their thinking may become more
gage in information- and technological-rich work where they reactive and impressionistic.
work in teams. People need to be able to work collaboratively Given the pervasive and powerful effects media that tech-
in designing, using, and maintaining the tools of technology. nologies can have on the nature of society and the thinking
Technology and teamwork will continuously play a larger role and communicating of its members, there can be little doubt
in most peoples lives. Children, adolescents, and young adults that technology will increasingly be utilized in instructional sit-
have no choice but to develop and increase their technologi- uations. In the past, however, teachers and schools have been
cal and teamwork literacy. There is no better place for them very slow in adopting new technologies and very quick in dis-
to begin than in school. Learning in cooperative groups while continuing their use (Cuban, 1986). There tends to be a cycle in
utilizing the tools of technology should occur at all grade levels which (a) the potential of a technology leads to fervent claims
and in all subject areas. and promises by advocates, (b) its utility is demonstrated by
Because the nature of technology used by a society influ- academic research in a small set of classrooms rich with human
ences what the society is and becomes, individuals who do not and technical support, (c) teachers who have little or no re-
become technologically literate will be left behind. Influences sources adopt the technology and are frustrated by their failure
of a technology include the nature of the medium, the way to make it work, and (d) the use of the new technology gradually
the medium extends human senses, and the type of cognitive declines. With the invention of motion pictures, for example,
processing required by the medium. Harold Adam Innis (1964, Thomas Edison predicted that films of great teachers would re-
1972) proposed that media biased toward lasting a long time, place live classroom teachers. When radio was invented the
such as stone hieroglyphics, lead to small, stable societies be- prediction was made that teachers would soon be obsolete be-
cause stone was difficult to edit and rewrite and was too heavy cause all over the country students could sit and listen to great
to distribute over great distances. In contrast, media biased to- minds lecture via the radio. Similar predictions were made when
ward traveling easily across distances, such as papyrus, enabled television and computers were first invented.
the Romans to build and run a large empire. Marshall McLuhan The failure of schools to adopt available instructional tech-
(1964) believed that the way the media technology balances nologies and to maintain (let alone continuously improve) their
the senses creates its own form of thinking and communicating use may be due at least in part to two barriers: (a) the individual
and eventually alters the balance of human senses. He believed assumption underlying most hardware and software develop-
that oral communication makes hearing dominant and thought ment and (b) the failure to utilize cooperation learning as an in-
simultaneous and circular. Written communication makes sight herent part of using instructional technologies. The purpose of
785
786 JOHNSON AND JOHNSON
this chapter is to clarify the interdependence between instruc- of peers and the cognitive benefits associated with ex-
tional technologies and cooperation among students in using plaining to peers and developing shared mental models are
the technologies. To understand how cooperative learning may lost.
be used with technologies, the nature of cooperative learning 3. Individualized instruction greatly increases development and
needs to be defined, the theoretical foundations on which it is hardware costs. A workstation is required for each learner,
based need to be clarified, the research validating its use needs which entails considerable hardware expense. Considerable
to be reviewed, distinctions between cooperative learning and development and software expenses are required, as the
other types of instructional groups need to be make, and the ba- lessons have to be designed to personalize instruction and
sic elements that make cooperation work must be defined. At to adapt the instructional sequenced to individual process-
that point, the interrelationships between cooperative learning ing requirements.
and technology-supported instruction can be noted and their
complementary strengths delineated. The future of technology- The difficulties associated with identifying and accommodat-
assisted cooperative learning can then be discussed. ing individual needs severely limit designers ability to individ-
ualize instruction. The shortcomings of individualized instruc-
tion call into question the wisdom of designing individualized
30.2 THE INDIVIDUAL ASSUMPTION programs. Despite these problems, however, much of the in-
structional software has been and is designed, developed, and
Before the 1990s, most of the research on computer-supported marketed for individual use.
learning was based on the single-learner assumption. The This omission of social interaction in computer-based learn-
individual assumption is that instruction should be tailored ing experiences worried many educators in the 1980s (Baker,
to each students personal aptitude, learning style, personality 1985; Cuban, 1986; Hawkins, Sheingold, Gearhart, & Berger,
characteristics, motivation, and needs. Computers were viewed 1982; Isenberg, 1992). Given the limitations of the individual
as an important tool for individualizing learning experiences, assumption, and its shortcomings, technology may be more pro-
especially for computer-assisted instruction programs based on ductively used when it is used in combination with cooperation
programmed learning, but also for learning experiences derived learning. The spontaneous cooperation often reported around
from constructivist principles (Crook, 1994). Many hardware technology, in addition, both casts doubt on the individual as-
and software designers (as well as teachers) assumed that all sumption made by hardware and software designers and points
technology-supported instruction should be structured individ- toward the use of cooperative learning in technology-supported
ualistically (one student to a computer) and computer programs instruction (Dyer, 1994). To use cooperative learning, however,
were written accordingly. educators must understand its nature.
The ability of designers to adapt instruction sequences to
the cognitive and affective needs of each learner, however, is
limited by three factors. 30.3 THE NATURE OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING
1. Substantial variation exists in types of learning styles and per- There are advantages to embedding technology-supported in-
sonality traits, and although many of them are sometimes cor- struction in cooperative learning. Cooperative learning may
related with achievement, few have been shown to predict be distinguished from traditional direct transfer models of
achievement consistently. instruction in which the instructor is assumed to be the dis-
2. Little agreement exists on how to translate differences in tributor of knowledge and skills. To understand technology-
learning styles and personal traits into instructional prescrip- supported cooperative learning, you must understand the na-
tions. The only design rule that is widely accepted is that ture of cooperative learning, the theoretical foundations on
students should control the flow of information. which it is based, the research validating its use, the distinctions
3. Creating algorithms to adapt instruction to individual needs between cooperative learning and other types of instructional
and designing and producing multiple versions of lessons are groups, and the basic elements that make cooperation work
both time-consuming and expensive. (Fig. 30.1).
Thus, the potential for individualized instruction may be lim-

ited due to the difficulties associated with identifying individual 30.3.1 Cooperative Learning
differences and translating them into instructional prescrip-
tions. In addition, individualized instruction has several short- Cooperation is working together to accomplish shared goals.
comings: Within cooperative activities individuals seek outcomes that are
beneficial to themselves and beneficial to all other group mem-
1. Individual work isolates students and working alone for long bers. Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small
periods may lower personal motivation by increasing bore- groups so that students work together to maximize their own
dom, frustration, anxiety, and the perception that learning is and each others learning. In cooperative learning situations
impersonal. there is a positive interdependence among students goal at-
2. Individual instruction limits the resources available to them- tainments; students perceive that they can reach their learning
selves and the technology. The support and encouragement goals if and only if the other students in the learning group also
30. Cooperation and Technology 787
Social Interdependence
Cooperative Competitive Individualistic
Research: Why Use Cooperative Learning
Effort To Achieve Positive Relationships Psychological Health
Five Basic Elements
Positive Inter- Individual Promotive Social Skills Group Processing
dependence Accountability Interaction
Cooperative Learning
Formal Coop Learning Informal Coop Learning Coop Base Groups
Make Preinstructional Decisions Conduct Introductory Focused Opening Class Meeting To Check
Discussion Homework, Ensure Members
Understand Academic Material,
Complete Routine Tasks Such As
Attendance
Explain Task And Cooperative Conduct Intermittent Pair Ending Class Meeting To Ensure
Structure Discussions Every Ten Or Fifteen Members Understand Academic
Minutes Material, Homework Assignment
Monitor Learning Groups And Conduct Closure Focused Members Help And Assist Each
Intervene To Improve Taskwork Discussion Other Learn In-Between Classes
& Teamwork
Assess Student Learning And Conduct Semester Or Year Long
Process Group Effectiveness 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 Negotiating, Mediating
Controversy
Civic Values
Work For Mutual Equality Of All Trusting, Caring View Situations Unconditional
Benefit, Common Members Relationships From All Worth Of Self,
Good Perspectives Diverse Others
FIGURE 30.1. Cooperative learning.
reach their goals (Deutsch, 1962; D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 30.3.2 Collaborative Learning
1989).
Technology-supported cooperative learning exists Cooperative learning is sometimes differentiated from collab-
when the instructional use of technology is combined with the orative learning, which has its roots in the world of Sir James
use of cooperative learning groups. Cooperative learning is usu- Britton (1990) and others in England in the 1970s. Quoting
ally contrasted with competitive learning (students working Vygotsky (1978), Britton notes that just as the individual mind
to achieve goals that only a few can attain; students can succeed is derived from society, a students learning is derived from the
if and only if the other students in the class fail to obtain their community of learners. Britton is quite critical of educators who
goals) and individualistic learning (students working alone wish to provide specific definitions of the teachers role. He rec-
on goals independent from the goals of others) (Deutsch, 1962; ommends placing students in groups and letting them gener-
D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). ate their own culture, community, and procedures for learning.
Britton believed in natural learning (learning something by 4. Evaluate students learning and help students process
making intuitive responses to whatever our efforts throw up) how well their groups functioned. Students learning
rather than training (the application of explanations, instruc- is carefully assessed and their performances are evaluated.
tions, or recipes for action). The source of learning is interper- Members of the learning groups then process how effectively
sonal; learning is derived from dialogues and interactions with they have been working together.
other students and sometimes the teacher. He viewed struc-
ture provided by teachers as manipulation that creates training, Informal cooperative learning consists of having stu-
not learning, and therefore teachers should assign students to dents work together to achieve a joint learning goal in tem-
groups, provide no guidelines or instructions, and stay out of porary, ad-hoc groups that last from a few minutes to one class
their way until the class is over. As an educational procedure, period (D. W. Johnson et al., 1998b; D. W. Johnson, Johnson, &
therefore, collaborative learning has historically been much less Smith, 1998). During a lecture, demonstration, or film they can
structured and more student directed than cooperative learn- be used to focus student attention on the material to be learned,
ing, with only vague directions given to teachers about its use. set a mood conducive to learning, help set expectations as to
The vagueness in the role of the teacher and students results what will be covered in a class session, ensure that students
in a vagueness of definition of the nature of collaborative learn- cognitively process the material being taught, and provide clo-
ing. Although there is a clear definition of cooperative learning, sure to an instructional session. Informal cooperative learning
there is considerable ambiguity about the meaning of collabora- groups are often organized so that students engage in 3- to 5-min
tive learning. The two terms (cooperative learning and collab- focused discussions before and after a lecture and 2- to 3-min
orative learning) are, therefore, usually used as interchangeable turn-to-your-partner discussions interspersed every 15 min
and synonymous. or so throughout a lecture.
Cooperative base groups are long-term, heterogeneous
cooperative learning groups with stable membership (D. W.
Johnson et al., 1998b; D. W. Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998).
30.3.3 Types of Cooperative Learning The purposes of the base group are to give the support, help,
encouragement, and assistance each member needs to make aca-
There are four types of cooperative learning that may be used
demic progress (attend class, complete all assignments, learn)
in combination with instructional technology: formal cooper-
and develop cognitively and socially in healthy ways. Base
ative learning, informal cooperative learning, cooperative base
groups meet daily in elementary school and twice a week in
groups, and academic controversy.
secondary school (or whenever the class meets).
Formal cooperative learning is students working to-
The fourth type of cooperative learning is academic con-
gether, for one class period to several weeks, to achieve shared
troversy, which exists when one students ideas, information,
learning goals and complete jointly specific tasks and assign-
conclusions, theories, and opinions are incompatible with those
ments (such as decision making or problem solving, complet-
of another, and the two seek to reach an agreement (D. W. John-
ing a curriculum unit, writing a report, conducting a survey
son & R. Johnson,1979, 1995). Teachers structure academic con-
or experiment, reading a chapter or reference book, learning
troversies by choosing an important intellectual issue, assigning
vocabulary, or answering questions at the end of a chapter;
students to groups of four, dividing the group into two pairs, and
D. W. Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1998a, 1998b). Any course
assigning one pair the pro position and the other pair a con po-
requirement or assignment may be reformulated to be cooper-
sition. Students then follow the five-step controversy procedure
ative. In formal cooperative learning groups, teachers:
of (a) preparing the best case possible for their assigned posi-
tion, (b) persuasively presenting the best case possible for their
1. Make a number of preinstructional decisions. A teacher position to the opposing pair, (c) having an open discussion in
has to decide on the objectives of the lesson (both academic which the two sides argue forcefully and persuasively for their
and social skills objectives), the size of groups, the method position while subjecting the opposing position to critical anal-
of assigning students to groups, the roles students will be ysis, (d) reversing perspectives, and (e) dropping all advocacy
assigned, the materials needed to conduct the lesson, and coming to a consensus as to their best reasoned judgment about
the way the room will be arranged. the issue.
2. Explain the task and the positive interdependence. A In all four types of cooperative learning, repetitive lessons
teacher clearly defines the assignment, teaches the required can be scripted so they become classroom routines. Cooper-
concepts and strategies, specifies the positive interdepen- ative learning scripts are standard cooperative procedures
dence and individual accountability, gives the criteria for suc- for conducting generic, repetitive lessons and managing class-
cess, and explains the expected social skills to be engaged. room routines (D. W. Johnson et al., 1998a, 1998b). They are
3. Monitor students learning and intervene within the used to organize course routines and generic lessons that occur
groups to provide task assistance or to increase stu- repeatedly. Some examples are checking homework, prepar-
dents interpersonal and group skills. A teacher system- ing for and reviewing a test, drill-reviewing facts and events,
atically observes and collects data on each group as it works. reading textbooks and reference materials, writing reports and
When it is needed, the teacher intervenes to assist students essays, giving presentations, learning vocabulary, learning con-
in completing the task accurately and in working together cepts, doing projects such as surveys, and problem solving. All
effectively. of these instructional activities may be done cooperatively and,
once planned and conducted several times, will become au- vary. One of his colleagues, Kurt Lewin, refined Koffkas
tomatic activities in the classroom. They may also be used in notions in the 1920s and 1930s while stating that (a) the essence
combination to form an overall lesson. of a group is the interdependence among members (created by
Cooperative learning is being used throughout preschools, common goals), which results in the group being a dynamic
elementary and secondary schools, colleges, and adult educa- whole, so that a change in the state of any member or sub-
tion programs because of its blend of theory, research, and prac- group changes the state of any other member or subgroup,
tice. It is being used throughout the world, that is, throughout and (b) an intrinsic state of tension within group members
North America and Europe and in Central and South America, motivates movement toward the accomplishment of the de-
Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the Pacific Rim. Cooperative sired common goals. In the late 1940s, one of Lewins graduate
learnings popularity is based on its theoretical basis, which has students, Morton Deutsch (1949, 1962), extended Lewins rea-
been validated by hundreds of research studies. soning about social interdependence and formulated a theory
of cooperation and competition. Deutsch conceptualized three
types of social interdependencepositive, negative, and none.
Deutschs basic premise was that the type of interdependence
30.4 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS structured in a situation determines how individuals interact
OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING with each other, which in turn largely determines outcomes.
Positive interdependence tends to result in promotive interac-
Whereas computers have been used as educational tools since tion, negative interdependence tends to result in oppositional
the 1970s, integrating the design and deployment of comput- or contrient interaction, and no interdependence results in an
ers with educational theory has been difficult and largely ab- absence of interaction. Depending on whether individuals pro-
sent. Technology-supported instruction, for example, needs mote or obstruct each others goal accomplishments, there is
to be integrated into the theories underlying the use of co- substitutability, cathexis, and inducibility. The relationship be-
operative learning. There are at least three general theoret- tween the type of social interdependence and the interaction
ical perspectives that have guided research on cooperative pattern it elicits is assumed to be bidirectional. Each may cause
learningcognitive-developmental, behavioral, and social in- the other. Deutschs theory has served as a major conceptual
terdependence. The cognitive developmental or construc- structure for the study of social interdependence since the late
tivist perspective is based largely on the theories of Piaget and 1940s.
Vygotsky. The work of Piaget and related theorists is based on
the premise that when individuals cooperate on the environ-
ment, sociocognitive conflict occurs that creates cognitive dis-
equilibrium, which in turn stimulates perspective-taking ability 30.5 RESEARCH ON SOCIAL
and cognitive development. The work of Vygotsky and related INTERDEPENDENCE
theorists is based on the premise that knowledge is social, con-
structed from cooperative efforts to learn, understand, and solve The research on social interdependence is notable for the sheer
problems. The behavioral learning theory perspective fo- amount of work done, the long history of the work, the wide
cuses on the impact of group reinforcers and rewards on learn- variety of dependent variables examined, the generalizability
ing. Skinner focused on group contingencies, Bandura focused and external validity of the work, and the sophistication of the
on imitation, and Homans as well as Thibaut and Kelley focused research reviews.
on the balance of rewards and costs in social exchange among A great deal of research on social interdependence has been
interdependent individuals. While the cognitive-developmental conducted. In North America, the first study was published in
and behavioral theoretical orientations have their follow- 1898. Between that time and 1989, over 550 experimental and
ings, the theory dealing with cooperation that has gener- 100 correlational studies were conducted on social interdepen-
ated by far the most research is the social interdependence dence (see D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989, for a complete
theory. listing of these studies). Hundreds of other studies have used so-
Social interdependence exists when individuals share cial interdependence as the dependent rather than the indepen-
common goals and each persons success is affected by the ac- dent variable. In our own research program at the Cooperative
tions of the others (Deutsch, 1962; D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, Learning Center at the University of Minnesota since the late
1989). It may be differentiated from social dependence (i.e., 1960s we have conducted over 90 studies to refine our under-
the outcomes of one person, are affected by the actions of a sec- standing of how cooperation works. In terms of sheer quantity
ond person, but not vice versa) and social independence (i.e., of research, social interdependence theory is one of the most
individuals outcomes are unaffected by each others actions). examined aspects of human nature.
There are two types of social interdependence: cooperative and The research on social interdependence has been conducted
competitive. The absence of social interdependence and depen- in 11 historical decades. Research subjects have varied as to age,
dence results in individualistic efforts. sex, economic class, ethnicity, nationality, and cultural back-
Theorizing on social interdependence began in the early ground. A wide variety of research tasks, ways of structuring
1900s, when one of the founders of the Gestalt School of social interdependence, and measures of the dependent vari-
Psychology, Kurt Koffka, proposed that groups were dynamic ables has been used. Many researchers with markedly differ-
wholes in which the interdependence among members could ent theoretical and practical orientations working in different
English, 1987; Hawkins et al., 1982; Webb, Ender, & Lewis,

Po 1986). There are a number of beneficial results from (a) orally
ce ve Interact sit
en moti ion iv explaining, elaborating, and summarizing information and
nd Pro e (b) teaching ones knowledge to others. Yueh and Alessi
pe
In
rde
terde (1988) found that a combination of group and individual re-

I nt e
wards resulted in increased peer teaching. Explaining and

pen
Effort Positive
teaching increase the degree to which group members cog-
P o si ti v e
to Relationships
dence
Achieve nitively process and organize information, engage in higher-

Promoti
raction
level reasoning, attain insights, and become personally com-

mitted to achieving. Listening critically to the explanations
Psychological of groupmates provides the opportunity to utilize others re-
Inte
ve
Adjustment, sources.
I
e
nte
tiv
Social Competence 3. Giving and receiving feedback on taskwork and teamwork

r
ac
o
om tio
Pr n behaviors. In cooperative groups, members monitor each
Po others efforts, give immediate feedback on performance,
nce sitiv
Interdepende e and, when needed, give each other help and assistance. Car-
rier and Sales (1987) found that students working in pairs
chose elaborative feedback more frequently than did those
FIGURE 30.2. Outcomes of cooperation. From Coopration working alone.
and Competition: Theory and Research, by D. W. Johnson 4. Challenging each others reasoning. Intellectual controversy
and R. Johnson, 1989 Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. promotes curiosity, motivation to learn, reconceptualization
Reprinted by permission. of what ones knows, higher-quality decision making, greater
insight into the problem being considered, higher-level rea-
settings and even in different countries have conducted the soning, and cognitive development (D. W. Johnson & R. John-
research. The diversity of subjects, settings, age levels, and son, 1995). LOGO environments may especially engender
operationalizations of social interdependence and the depen- conflicts among ideas and subsequent negotiation and reso-
dent variables give this work an external validity and a general- lution of that conflict (Clements & Nastasi, 1985, 1988; Lehrer
izability rarely found in the social sciences. & Smith, 1986).
A wide variety of dependent variables has been examined 5. Advocating increased efforts to achieve. Encouraging
in the research on social interdependence. These numerous de- others to achieve increases ones own commitment
pendent variable may be subsumed within the broad categories to do so.
of (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989) interaction pattern, effort 6. Mutually influencing each others reasoning and behavior.
to achieve, positive interpersonal relationships, and psycholog- Group members actively seek to influence and be influenced
ical health (Fig. 30.2). by each other. If a member has a better way to complete the
task, groupmates usually quickly adopt it.
7. Engaging in the interpersonal and small group skills needed
30.5.1 Interaction Patterns for effective teamwork.
8. Processing how effectively group members are working to-
Two heads are better than one. gether and how the groups effectiveness can be continuously
Heywood improved.
Positive interdependence creates promotive interaction. Negative interdependence typically results in oppositional
Promotive interaction occurs as individuals encourage and interaction. Oppositional interaction occurs as individuals
facilitate each others efforts to reach the groups goals (such discourage and obstruct each others efforts to achieve. Indi-
as maximizing each members learning). Group members pro- viduals focus both on increasing their own success and on pre-
mote each others success by (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, venting any one else from being more successful than they are.
1989): No interaction exists when individuals work independently
without any interaction or interchange with each other. Indi-
1. Giving and receiving help and assistance. In cooperative viduals focus only on increasing their own success and ignore
groups, members both give and receive work related and as irrelevant the efforts of others.
personal help and support. Hooper (1992a) found a positive Each of these interaction patterns affects outcomes differ-
and significant correlation between achievement and helping ently. The outcomes of social interdependence may be orga-
behaviors. nized into three major areas.
2. Exchanging resources and information. Group members seek
information and other resources from each other, compre- 30.5.1.1 Effort to Achieve. Between 1898 and 1989, re-
hend information accurately and without bias, and make searchers conducted over 375 experimental studies on social
optimal use of the information provided (e.g., Cosden & interdependence 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 studies
Coop vs. comp 0.67 0.67 0.62 0.58
Coop vs. ind 0.64 0.60 0.70 0.44
Comp vs. ind 0.30 0.08 0.13 0.23
High-quality studies
Coop vs. comp 0.88 0.82 0.83 0.67
Coop vs. ind 0.61 0.62 0.72 0.45
Comp vs. ind 0.07 0.27 0.13 0.25
Mixed operationalizations
Coop vs. comp 0.40 0.46 0.45 0.33
Coop vs. ind 0.42 0.36 0.02 0.22
Pure operationalizations
Coop vs. comp 0.71 0.79 0.73 0.74
Coop 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 cooperative 4. Creative thinking (process gain). In cooperative groups,
learning results in significantly higher achievement and reten- members more frequently generate new ideas, strategies, and
tion than do competitive and individualistic learning (see Table solutions that they would think of on their own.
30.1). The more conceptual and complex the task, the more 5. Transfer of learning from one situation to another (group to
problem solving required, and the more creative the answers individual transfer). What individuals learn in a group today,
need to be, the greater the superiority of cooperative over com- they are able to do alone tomorrow.
petitive and individualistic learning. When we examined only 6. Positive attitudes toward the tasks being completed (job satis-
the methodological high-quality studies, the superiority of coop- faction). Cooperative efforts result in more positive attitudes
erative over competitive or individualistic efforts was still pro- toward the tasks being completed and greater continuing mo-
nounced. tivation to complete them. The positive attitudes extend to
Some cooperative procedures contained a mixture of coop- the work experience and the organization as a whole.
erative, competitive, and individualistic efforts, whereas oth- 7. Time on task. Cooperators spend more time on task than do
ers contained pure cooperation. The original jigsaw procedure competitors (effect size = 0.76) or students working individ-
(Aronson, 1978), for example, is a combination of resource in- ualistically (effect size = 1.17).
terdependence and an individualistic reward structure. Teams
gamestournaments (DeVries & Edwards, 1974) and student Kurt Lewin often stated, I always found myself unable to
teamsachievementdivisions (Slavin, 1986) are mixtures of think as a single person. Most efforts to achieve are a personal
cooperation and intergroup competition. Team-assisted instruc- but social process that requires individuals to cooperate and to
tion (Slavin, Leavey, & Madden, 1982) is a mixture of individu- construct shared understandings and knowledge. Both compet-
alistic and cooperative learning. When the results of pure and itive and individualistic structures, by isolating individuals from
mixed operationalizations of cooperative learning were com- each other, tend to depress achievement.
pared, the pure operationalizations produced higher achieve-
ment.
Besides higher achievement and greater retention, co- 30.5.2 Positive Interpersonal Relationships
operation, compared with competitive or individualistic ef-
forts, tends to result in more (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, Heartpower is the strength of your corporation.
1989): Vince Lombardi (famous coach of the Green Bay Packers)
Since 1940, over 180 studies have compared the impact of

1. Willingness to take on difficult tasks and persist, despite dif- cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts on inter-
ficulties, in working toward goal accomplishment. personal attraction (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). Coop-
2. Long-term retention of what is learned. erative efforts, compared with competitive and individualistic
3. Higher-level reasoning (critical thinking) and metacognitive experiences, promoted considerably more liking among indi-
thought. Cooperative efforts promote a greater use of higher- viduals (see Table 30.1). The effect sizes were higher for (a)
level reasoning strategies and critical thinking than do com- high-quality studies and (b) studies using pure operationaliza-
petitive or individualistic efforts (effect sizes = 0.93 and 0.97, tions of cooperative learning than for studies using mixed oper-
respectively). Even on writing assignments, students working ationalizations. These positive feelings were found to extend to
cooperatively show more higher-level thought. superiors in the organizational structure. Thus, individuals tend
to care more about each other and to be more committed to indexes of psychological health, such as emotional maturity,
each others success and well-being when they work together well-adjusted social relations, strong personal identity, ability to
cooperatively than when they compete to see who is best or cope with adversity, social competencies, and basic trust in and
work independently from each other. optimism about people. Personal ego-strength, self-confidence,
A major extension of social interdependence theory, is social independence, and autonomy are all promoted by being in-
judgment theory, which focuses on relationships among diverse volved in cooperative efforts. Individualistic attitudes tend
individuals (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). Cooperators to be related to a number of indices of psychological pathol-
tend to like each other not only when they are homogeneous, ogy such as emotional immaturity, social maladjustment, delin-
but also when they differ in intellectual ability, handicapping quency, self-alienation, and self-rejection. Competitiveness is
conditions, ethnic membership, social class, culture, and gen- related to a mixture of healthy and unhealthy characteristics.
der. Individuals working cooperatively tend to value heterogene- Cooperative experiences are not a luxury; they are an absolute
ity and diversity more than do individuals working competitively necessity for healthy psychological development.
or individualistically. The positive impact of heterogeneity re- Interested researchers have examined the relationship be-
sults from a process of acceptance that includes frequent and tween social interdependence and self-esteem. Since the 1950s
accurate communication, accurate perspective taking, mutual there have been over 80 studies comparing the relative impact
inducibility (openness to influence), multidimensional views of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic experiences on
of each other, feelings of psychological acceptance and self- self-esteem (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). Cooperative
esteem, psychological success, and expectations of rewarding experiences promoted higher self-esteem than did competitive
and productive future interaction. (effect size = 0.58) or individualistic (effect size = 0.44) experi-
Besides liking each other, cooperators give and receive ences. Our research demonstrated that cooperative experiences
considerable social support, both personally and academically tend to be related to beliefs that one is intrinsically worthwhile,
(D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson). Since the 1940s, over 106 studies others see one in positive ways, ones attributes compare fa-
comparing the relative impact of cooperative, competitive, and vorably with those of ones peers, and one is a capable, com-
individualistic efforts on social support have been conducted. petent, and successful person. In cooperative efforts, students
Social support may be aimed at enhancing another persons (a) realize that they are accurately known, accepted, and liked
success (task-related social support) or at providing support on by ones peers, (b) know that they have contributed to own,
a more personal level (personal social support). Cooperative others, and group success, and (c) perceive themselves and
experience promoted greater task-oriented and personal social others in a differentiated and realistic way that allows for mul-
support than did competitive (effect size = 0.62) or individu- tidimensional comparisons based on complementarity of own
alistic (effect size = 0.70) experiences. Social support tends to and others abilities. Competitive experiences tend to be re-
promote achievement and productivity, physical health, psycho- lated to conditional self-esteem based on whether one wins or
logical health, and successful coping with stress and adversity. loses. Individualistic experiences tend to be related to basic self-
rejection.
30.5.2.1 Psychological Health. Ashley Montagu was fond Cooperative experiences tend to increase perspective-taking
of saying, With few exceptions, the solitary animal is, in any ability (the ability to understand how a situation appears to other
species, an abnormal creature. Karen Horney said, The neu- people) while competitive and individualistic experiences tend
rotic individual is someone who is inappropriately competitive to promote egocentrism (being unaware of other perspectives
and, therefore, unable to cooperate with others. Montagu and other than your own [effect sizes of 0.61 and 0.44, respectively]
Horney recognized that the essence of psychological health is D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). Individuals who are part of a
the ability to develop and maintain cooperative relationships. cooperative effort learn more social skills and become more so-
Psychological health may be defined, therefore, as the ability cially competent than do persons competing or working individ-
to develop, maintain, and appropriately modify interdependent ualistically. Finally, it is through cooperative efforts that many of
relationships with others to succeed in achieving goals (D. W. the attitudes and values essential to psychological health (such
Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). To manage social interdepen- as self-efficacy) and learned and adopted.
dence, individuals must correctly perceive whether interdepen-
dence exists and whether it is positive or negative, be motivated 30.5.2.2 Everything Affects Everything Else. Deutschs
accordingly, and act in ways consistent with normative expec- (1985) crude law of social relations states that the character-
tations for appropriate behavior within the situation. The major istic processes and effects elicited by a given type of social
variables related to psychological health studied by researchers interdependence also tends to elicit that type of social inter-
interested in social interdependence are psychological adjust- dependence. Thus, positive interdependence elicits promotive
ment, self-esteem, perspective-taking ability, social skills, and a interaction and promotive interaction tends to elicit positive in-
variety of related attitudes and values. terdependence. Deutschs law may also be applied to the three
A number of studies have been conducted on the relation- types of outcomes resulting from cooperative experiences. The
ship between social interdependence and psychological health more individuals work together to achieve, the more caring and
(D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). Working cooperatively with committed their relationships tend to be; the more individuals
peers and valuing cooperation results in greater psychological care about each other the harder they will work to achieve mu-
health than does competing with peers or working indepen- tual goals. The more individuals work together to achieve, the
dently. Cooperativeness is positively related to a number of greater their psychological adjustment, self-esteem, and social
competence; the healthier psychologically individuals are, the task interdependence (which are overlapping and not indepen-
better able to they are to work with others to achieve mutual dent from each other).
goals. The better individuals psychological health, the more The authors have conducted a series of studies investigat-
caring and committed their relationships tend to be; the more ing the nature of positive interdependence and the relative
caring and committed their relationships, the more healthy psy- power of the different types of positive interdependence (Frank,
chologically they tend to be. Because each outcome can induce 1984; Hwong, Caswell, Johnson, & Johnson, 1993; D. W. John-
the others, you are likely to find them together. They are a pack- son, Johnson, Stanne, & Garibaldi, 1990; Johnson, Johnson, Or-
age, with each outcome a door into all three. Together they tiz, & Stanne, 1991; Lew, Mesch, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986a,
induce positive interdependence and promotive interaction. 1986b; Mesch, Lew, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986; Mesch, John-
The research outcomes noted occur only when the efforts son, & Johnson, 1988). Our research indicates that positive in-
are truly cooperative. Not all groups are cooperative groups. terdependence provides the context within which promotive
To be cooperative, five basic elements must be present in a interaction takes place, group membership and interpersonal
group. interaction among students do not produce higher achieve-
ment unless positive interdependence is clearly structured, the
combination of goal and reward interdependence increases
30.6 THE BASIC ELEMENTS OF COOPERATION achievement over goal interdependence alone, and resource
interdependence does not increase achievement unless goal in-
30.6.1 Potential Group Performance terdependence is present also.
Not all groups are cooperative (D. W. Johnson & F. Johnson,

2003). Placing people in the same room, seating them together, 30.6.3 Individual Accountability/Personal
telling them they are a group, does not mean they will coop- Responsibility
erate effectively. Project groups, lab groups, committees, task
forces, departments, and councils are groups, but they are not
necessarily cooperative. Many groups are ineffective and some What children can do together today, they can do alone tomorrow.
Vygotsky (1978)
are even destructive. Almost everyone has been part of a group
that has wasted time and produced poor work. Ineffective and
destructive groups are characterized by a number of dynamics Using cooperative groups requires structuring group and in-
(D. W. Johnson & F. Johnson) such as social loafing, free riding, dividual accountability. Group accountability exists when the
group immaturity, uncritical and quick acceptance of members overall performance of the group is assessed and the results are
dominant response, and group-think. Such hindering factors are given back to all group members to compare against a standard
eliminated by carefully structuring the five essential elements of performance. Individual accountability exists when the
of cooperation. Those elements are positive interdependence, performance of each individual member is assessed, the results
individual and group accountability, promotive interaction, ap- given back to the individual and the group to compare against
propriate use of social skills, and group processing. a standard of performance, and the member is held responsi-
ble by groupmates for contributing his or her fair share to the
groups success. On the basis of the feedback received, (a) ef-
30.6.2 Positive Interdependence: We Instead of Me forts to learn and contribute to groupmates learning can be
recognized and celebrated, (b) immediate remediation can take
All for one and one for all. place by providing any needed assistance or encouragement,
Alexander Dumas and (c) groups can reassign responsibilities to avoid any redun-
dant efforts by members.
The heart of cooperation is positive interdependence (see The purpose of cooperative groups is to make each mem-
D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989, 1992a, 1992b). Positive in- ber a stronger individual in his or her own right. Individual ac-
terdependence exists when one perceives that one is linked countability is the key to ensuring that learning cooperatively in
with others in a way so that one cannot succeed unless they fact strengthens all group members. There is a pattern to class-
do (and vice versa) and/or that one must coordinate ones ef- room learning. First, students learn knowledge, skills, strate-
forts with the efforts of others to complete a task (Deutsch, gies, or procedures in a cooperative group. Second, students
1962; D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). There are two major apply the knowledge or perform the skill, strategy, or procedure
categories of interdependence: outcome interdependence and alone to demonstrate their personal mastery of the material. Stu-
means interdependence (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson). When dents learn it together and then perform it alone. Archer-Kath,
persons are in a cooperative or competitive situation, they are Johnson, and Johnson (1994) found that individual feedback re-
oriented toward a desired outcome, end state, goal, or reward. If sulted in greater achievement and perceptions of cooperation,
there is no outcome interdependence (goal and reward interde- goal interdependence, and resource interdependence than did
pendence), there is no cooperation or competition. In addition, group feedback. Hooper, Ward, Hannafin and Clark (1989) found
the means through which the mutual goals or rewards are to be that cooperative technology-supported instruction resulted in
accomplished specify the actions required on the part of group higher achievement when individual accountability was struc-
members. Means interdependence includes resource, role, and tured than when it was not.
30.6.4 Promotive Interaction 30.6.5 Interpersonal and Small Group Skills
In an industrial organization its the group effort that counts. Theres I will pay more for the ability to deal with people than any other
really no room for stars in an industrial organization. You need ability under the sun.
talented people, but they cant do it alone. They have to have John D. Rockefeller
help.
John F. Donnelly (President, Donnelly Mirrors) Using cooperative learning requires group members to mas-
ter the small group and interpersonal skills they need to work
Promotive interaction exists when individuals encourage effectively with each other and function as part of a group.
and facilitate each others efforts to complete tasks in order The greater the members teamwork skills, the higher will be
to reach the groups goals. Through promoting each others the quality and quantity of their learning. Cooperative learning
success, group members build both an academic and a per- is inherently more complex than competitive or individualis-
sonal support system for each member. Promotive interaction tic learning because students have to engage simultaneously in
is characterized by individuals providing each other with ef- taskwork and teamwork. To coordinate efforts to achieve mu-
ficient and effective help and assistance, exchanging needed tual goals, students must (a) get to know and trust each other,
resources such as information and materials and processing in- (b) communicate accurately and unambiguously, (c) accept and
formation more efficiently and effectively, providing each other support each other, and (c) resolve conflicts constructively
with feedback in order to improve subsequent performance, (D. W. Johnson, 1991, 2003; D. W. Johnson & F. Johnson, 2003).
challenging each others conclusions and reasoning in order to The more socially skillful students are, and the more atten-
promote higher-quality decision making and greater insight into tion teachers pay to teaching and rewarding the use of social
the problems being considered, advocating the exertion of ef- skills, the higher the achievement that can be expected within
fort to achieve mutual goals, influencing each others efforts to cooperative learning groups. In their studies on the long-term
achieve the groups goals, acting in trusting and trustworthy implementation of cooperative learning, Marvin Lew and Debra
ways, being motivated to strive for mutual benefit, and having Mesch (Lew et al., 1986a, 1986b; Mesch et al., 1986, 1988) inves-
a moderate level of arousal characterized by low anxiety and tigated the impact of a reward contingency for using social skills
stress. as well as positive interdependence and a contingency for aca-
Traditionally, promotive interaction was viewed as being demic achievement on performance within cooperative learn-
face-to-face. Technology, through the use of local and wide area ing groups. In the cooperative skills conditions students were
networks and mediating tools such as e-mail, electronic bul- trained weekly in four social skills and each member of a cooper-
letin boards, conferencing systems that can include live video, ative group was given two bonus points toward the quiz grade if
and specialized groupware, enables individuals to promote each all group members were observed by the teacher to demonstrate
other success all across the world, in ways that were never possi- three of four cooperative skills. The results indicated that the
ble before. Such electronic communication is growing exponen- combination of positive interdependence, an academic contin-
tially, but it does not always substitute for face-to-face interac- gency for high performance by all group members, and a social
tion. Face-to-face communication has a richness that electronic skills contingency promoted the highest achievement. Archer-
communication may never match (Prusak & Cohen, 2001). Kath et al. (1994) found that individual feedback was more effec-
There is evidence that up to 93% of peoples intent is con- tive in teaching students social skills than was group feedback.
veyed by facial expression and tone of voice, with the most Putnam, Rynders, Johnson, and Johnson (1989) demonstrated
important channel being facial expression (Druckman, Rozelle, that, when individuals were taught social skills, were observed
& Baxter, 1982; Meherabian, 1971). Harold Geneen, the former by their superior, and were given individual feedback as to how
head of ITT, believed that his response to requests was differ- frequently they engaged in the skills, their relationships became
ent face-to-face than through electronic means. In New York, more positive.
I might read a request and say no. But in Europe, I could
see that an answer to the same question might be yes. . . it
became our policy to deal with problems on the spot, face- 30.6.6 Group Processing
to-face (cited in Trevino, Lengel, & Draft, 1987). A number of
businesses are building office facilities that maximize human Take care of each other. Share your energies with the group. No one
interaction. The biggest complaint of students in a virtual high must feel alone, cut off, for that is when you do not make it.
school was that interactions with on-line students just did not Willi Unsoeld (renowned mountain climber)
measure up to face-to-face context (Allen, 2001). On the other
hand, Bonk and King (1998) suggest that promotive interac- Group processing occurs when members discuss how
tion in electronic environments has some advantages over live well they are achieving their goals and maintaining effective
discussion in terms of engagement in learning, depth of discus- working relationships among members. Cooperative groups
sion, time on task, and the promotion of higher-order thinking need to describe what member actions are helpful and unhelp-
skills. Instructional programs, therefore, may be most effective ful and make decisions about what behaviors to continue or
when they include multiple ways for students to promote each change. The purposes of group processing are to clarify and
others success, both electronically and face to face whenever improve the effectiveness of members in contributing to the
possible. cooperative efforts to achieve the groups goals by (a) enabling
groups to improve continuously the quality of members work, mass-manufacturing organizational structure to a team-based,
(b) facilitating the learning of teamwork skills, (c) ensuring that high-performance organizational structure. This new organiza-
members receive feedback on their participation, and (d) en- tional structure is created when cooperative learning is used the
abling groups to focus on group maintenance (D. W. Johnson, majority of the time in the classroom and cooperation is used to
2003; D. W. Johnson et al., 1998a). Groups that process how ef- structure faculty and staff work in (a) colleagial teaching teams,
fectively members are working together tend to achieve higher (b) school-based decision making, and (c) faculty meetings
than do groups that do not process or individuals working alone, (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1994).
the combination of teacher and student processing resulted in Just as the heart of the classroom is cooperative learning,
greater problem-solving success than did the other cooperative the heart of the school is colleagial teaching teams. Collea-
conditions, and the combination of group and individual feed- gial teaching teams are small cooperative groups in which
back resulted in higher achievement (Archer-Kath et al., 1994; members work to improve continuously each others (a) in-
D. W. Johnson et al., 1990; Yager, Johnson, & Johnson, 1985). structional expertise and success in general and (b) expertise in
Group processing leads to self-monitoring and self-efficacy. using cooperative learning in specific. Administrators may also
Discussing the observations of members actions results in be organized into colleagial support groups to increase their
(a) a heightened self-awareness of the effective and ineffective administrative expertise and success.
actions taken during the group meetings, (b) public commit- School-based decision making may be structured
ment to increase the frequency of effective actions and decrease through the use of two types of cooperative teams. A task
the frequency of ineffective actions, and (c) an increased sense force considers a school problem and proposes a solution to
of having the ability to be more effective if appropriate effort the faculty as a whole. The faculty is then divided into ad hoc
is exerted (i.e., self-efficacy). Sarason and Potter (1983) exam- decision-making groups and considers whether to accept or
ined the impact of individual self-monitoring of thoughts on modify the proposal. The decisions made by the ad hoc groups
self-efficacy and successful performance and found that having are summarized, and the entire faculty then decides on the ac-
individuals focus their attention on self-efficacious thoughts is tion to be taken to solve the problem.
related to greater task persistence and less cognitive interfer- Faculty meetings represent a microcosm of what adminis-
ence. They concluded that the more that people are aware of trators think the school should be. The clearest modeling of co-
what they are experiencing, the more aware they will be of their operative procedures in the school may be in faculty meetings
own role in determining their success. The greater the sense of and other meetings structured by the school administration.
self- and joint efficacy promoted by group processing, the more All four types of cooperative learning (formal, informal, base
productive and effective group members and the group as a groups, and controversy) may be used in faculty meetings to
whole become. increase their productivity, build faculty cohesion, and improve
Effective processing focuses group members on positive the facultys social competence.
rather than negative behaviors. Sarason and Potter (1983) found Technological innovation lags in schools. A key obstacle to
that when individuals monitored their stressful experiences the use of technology in schools is the limited support teach-
they were more likely to perceive a program as having been ers have for integrating unfamiliar technologies into instruction.
more stressful than did those who did not, but when individu- Just as students group together to learn cooperatively how to
als monitored their positive experiences they were more likely use new software or hardware, teachers need to group together
to perceive the group experience as involving less psychologi- to learn how to use the new technologies and then how to inte-
cal demands, were more attracted to the group and had greater grate them into the instruction. As long as each teacher works in
motivation to remain members, and felt less strained during the isolation from his or her peers, the implementation of technol-
experience and more prepared for future group experiences. ogy represents a personal decision on the part of each teacher,
When individuals are anxious about being successful and are rather than an organizational change at the school and district
then told that they have failed, their performance tends to de- levels. Many teachers are unfamiliar with the new technologies
crease significantly, but when individuals anxious about being and feel unable to master them. To implement technology fully,
successful are told that they have succeeded, their performance the organizational structure of the school has to change from
tends to increase significantly (Turk & Sarason, 1983). the old mass-manufacturing organizational structure to a team-
based, high-performance organizational structure where teams
of teachers can explore the new technologies, learn how to use
30.7 THE COOPERATIVE SCHOOL them, and implement them together.
The new electronic tools are radically changing the way people
access and use information and, therefore, have profound im-
plications for the educational process. Education, on the other 30.8 COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND
hand, is stuck with organizational patterns and professional tra- TECHNOLOGY-SUPPORTED INSTRUCTION
ditions that negate many of the advantages of the new technolo-
gies. For technology to be fully utilized in schools, the organi- To enhance learning, technology must promote cooperation
zational structure of the school has to change, as well as the among students and create a shared experience. Crook (1996)
organizational structure of the classroom. To utilize the new has widely analyzed how computers can facilitate collaborative
technologies most effectively, schools need to change from a learning in schools. He makes a distinction between:
1. Interacting around computers. The first perspective stresses processing and a communal database for producing, searching,
the use of computers as tools to facilitate face-to-face com- classifying, and linking knowledge. The Belvedere system was
munication between student pairs or in a small group. Crook developed by Lesgold, Weiner, and Suthers (1995) and it fo-
(1996, pp. 189193) states that technology may serve to sup- cuses and prompts students cognitive activity by giving them
port cooperation by providing students with points of shared a graphical language to express the steps of hypothesizing,
reference. He states that the traditional classroom does not data gathering, and weighing of information. CoVis (Learning
have enough available anchor points at which action and at- Through Collaborative Visualization Project) focuses on coop-
tention can be coordinated. The capabilities of computers erative project work in high-school science (Pea, Edelson, &
can be used as mediating tools that help students to focus Gomez, 1994), with advanced networking technologies, collab-
their attention on mutually shared objects. orative software, and visualization tools to enable students and
2. Interacting through computers. This refers to the use of net- others to work together in classrooms and across the country
works. Local area networks (LAN) and wide area networks at the same time (synchronously) or at different times (asyn-
(WAN) and the global version of the latter (Internet) provide chronously). These and many other groupware systems are pro-
education with a variety of mediating tools for cooperation viding new and powerful opportunities for cooperative learn-
(email, electronic bulletin boards, conferencing systems, and ing.
specialized groupware).
30.8.2 Cooperation Through Computers

30.8.1 Interacting Around Computers
There has been a rapid expansion of computer network tech-
30.8.1.1 Single-User Programs Reapplied to Coopera- nology that allows students all over the world to create pow-
tive Learning. Many computer programs were developed to erful shared spaces on the computer screen. The future of
tailor learning situations to individual students. Field experi- technology-supported cooperative learning may depend on the
ments, however, indicate several advantages of the importance software and hardware that creates workspaces that network
of cooperation among students in using these programs (Crook, group members and groups throughout the world. Network-
1994; Hawkins et al., 1982). The technical extension of the tra- ing has had a strong influence on the tools and methods of
dition LOGO (Papert, 1980) to legoLOGO, where Lego bricks technology-supported cooperative learning. In a network-based
robots can be controlled by LOGO programs has been an espe- environment, students and teachers can interact through the
cially promising tool for creating cooperation among students computer free of the limitations of time and place. The speed
(e.g., Eraut, 1995; Jarvela, 1996). Cooperative learning has been at which asynchronous and distance communication may be
promoted by many different program types, such as databases, completed opens new opportunities for cooperative learning.
spreadsheets, math programs, programming languages, simu- It makes more intensive cooperative possible with the out-
lations, multimedia authoring tools, and so forth (Amigues & of-school experts, brings students from different schools into
Agostinelli, 1992; Brush, 1997; Eraut, 1995; Lehtinen & Repo. contact with each other, and creates powerful tools for joint
1996). writing and knowledge sharing. There are, however, different
levels at which the network environment supports coopera-
30.8.1.2 Programs Developed To Promote Cooperation. tion. From a series of studies, Bonk and King (1995) concluded
For cooperation to take place, students must have a joint that networks can (a) change the way students and instruc-
workspace. One of the promises of the computer is to allow tors interact, (b) enhance cooperative learning opportunities,
students to create shared spaces. Instead of sharing a black- (c) facilitate class discussion, and (d) move writing from solitary
board or a worktable, students can share a computer screen. to more active, social learning. The network tools include the
Such groupware (aimed at supporting group rather than indi- following.
vidual work) has expanded dramatically the past ten years. Nu-
merous programs in a variety of subject areas have been devel- 1. Local Area Network-Based Client-Server Systems. There are
oped to externalize the problem-solving process by displaying many software programs based on local area networks and
the students solution or learning paths on the screen, and they clientserver architecture, such as CSILE, the Belvedere Sys-
generally tend to be helpful for both individual reflection and co- tem, and CoVis.
operative problem solving (Lehtinen, Hamalainen, & Malkonen, 2. E-Mail for Cooperative Learning. E-mail is used to deliver in-
1998). The ways in which technology and cooperative learning formation to students, supervise students, and support na-
have been integrated are so numerous that even a small fraction tional and international communication between coopera-
cannot be mentioned. Some of the more widely used methods tive learning groups and schools located far away from each
of computer-supported cooperative learning (CSCL) are CSILE, other. With the help of mailing lists, groups of students can
the Belvedere System, and CoVis. use e-mail to share joint documents and comment on each
CSILE (Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environ- others work.
ment) was originally developed in the late 1980s (Scardamalia, 3. The Internet and World Wide Web and Cooperative Learn-
Bereiter, McLearn, Swallow, & Woodruff, 1989) and uses a net- ing. Internet-based conferencing systems and e-mail systems
work to help students build, articulate, explore, and struc- are very similar. Computer conferencing has existed since
ture knowledge. The system contains tools for text and chart the first computer networks but has only recently been
FIGURE 30.3. Outcomes of technology-supported cooperative learning.
implemented as part of cooperative learning. Web-based students have the additional task of learning teamwork proce-
cooperative learning is time independent and location inde- dures and skills. Consequently, the initial use of technology-
pendent, thus allowing a combination of synchronous and supported cooperative learning may take more time, but once
asynchronous discussions. It is similar to e-mail lists but, students and teachers master the new systems, the results will
in addition, has user-control, document structures, shared be worth the effort. Technology-supported cooperative learn-
databases, and interaction styles that make it especially effec- ing tends to be cost effective way of teaching students how to
tive for cooperative work (Bates, 1995; Harasim et al., 1995; use technology. In addition, increasing academic achievement,
Malikowski, 1998). Creating and using shared databases is es- giving learners control over their learning, creating positive at-
pecially helpful for network-based cooperative-learning sys- titudes toward technology-based instruction and cooperative
tems. On the World Wide Web, conferencing may require learning, promoting cognitive development, and increasing so-
threading (the ability to sequentially read the messages that cial skills. Computers themselves promote cooperative interac-
make up one discussion). Woolley (1995) listed about 150 tion among learners. The composition of the group and the
internet conferencing systems. It is now possible to have gender of the learners are factors that have been hypothesized
live video of individuals and groups conferencing with each to affect the success of technology-supported cooperative learn-
other. ing (see Fig. 30.3).
Adding technology to a lesson inherently increases the les- 30.8.3 Achievement

sons complexity. When students participate in technology-
supported instruction, they have the dual tasks of (a) learning 30.8.3.1 Academic Achievement. Two large metaanalysis
how to use the technology (i.e., the hardware and soft- on the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction concluded
ware required by the lesson) and (b) mastering the informa- that the use of technology markedly improved learning out-
tion, skills, procedures, and processes being presented within comes (e.g., Fletcher-Finn & Gravatt, 1995; Khalili & Shashaani,
the technology. When cooperative learning groups are used, 1994). These metaanalysis, however, did not differentiate among
teaching practices and the ways technology was implemented helpful for higher-order social interaction and, subsequently, for
in classrooms. It is not possible, therefore, to draw any conclu- better learning in terms of deep understanding (Scardamalia,
sions about the effectiveness of technology-supported cooper- Bereiter, & Lamon, 1994; Suthers, 1998). What is still lacking is
ative learning from these metaanalysis. evidence that the same results could be found in normal class-
We conducted several studies examining the use of cooper- rooms. There are CSCL projects like CoVis that are widely imple-
ative, competitive, and individualistic learning activities at the mented (Pea, Edelson, & Gopmez, 1994), but there have been
computer (D. W. Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne, 1989; D. W. John- few well-controlled follow-up evaluations published.
son et al., 1990; R. Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne, 1985, 1986; Simon Hooper and his colleagues have conducted a series of
R. Johnson, Johnson, Stanne, Smizak, & Avon, 1987; Johnson, studies on technology-supported cooperative learning involv-
Johnson, Richards, 1986). The studies included eighth-grade stu- ing fifth through eighth-grade and college students (Dyer, 1993;
dents through college freshmen and lasted from 3 to 30 instruc- Hooper, 1991; Hooper & Hannafin, 1988, 1991; Hooper et al.,
tional hr. The tasks were a computerized navigational and map 1989; Huang, 1993; McDonald, 1993). They found that (a) co-
reading problem-solving task and word processing assignments. operative group members achieved significantly higher than did
Computer-assisted cooperative learning, compared with com- students working under individualistic conditions, (b) coopera-
petitive and individualistic efforts at the computer, promoted tive learning groups in which individual accountability was care-
(a) a higher quantity of daily achievement, (b) a higher quality of fully structured achieved higher than did cooperative learning
daily achievement, (c) greater mastery of factual information, (d) groups in which no individual accountability was structured,
greater ability to apply ones factual knowledge in test questions (b) the achievement of low-ability students in heterogeneous
requiring application of facts, (e) greater ability to use factual in- cooperative groups was consistently higher than the achieve-
formation to answer problem-solving questions, and (f) greater ment of low-ability students in homogeneous groups, (c) there
success in problem solving. Cooperation at the computer pro- was a positive and significant correlation between achievement
moted greater motivation to persist on problem-solving tasks. and helping behaviors, and increases in achievement and coop-
Students in the cooperative condition were more successful in eration were significantly related within heterogeneous groups,
operating computer programs. In terms of oral participation, and (d) cooperative (compared with individualistic) learning
students in the cooperative condition, compared with students resulted in greater willingness to learn the material, options se-
in the competitive and individualistic conditions, made fewer lection, time on task, perceived interdependence, and support-
statements to the teacher and more to each other, made more iveness for partners. Carlson and Falk (1989) and Noell and Car-
task-oriented statements and fewer social statements, and gen- nine (1989) found that students in cooperative groups perform
erally engaged in more positive, task-oriented interaction with higher than students working alone on learning tasks involv-
each other (especially when the social skill responsibilities were ing interactive videodiscs. Adams, Carson, and Hamm (1990)
specified and group processing was conducted). Finally, the suggest that cooperative learning can influence attention, mo-
studies provided evidence that females were perceived to be tivation, and achievement when students use the medium of
of higher status in the cooperative than in the competitive or television.
individualistic conditions. Fletcher (1985), on the other hand, investigating cognitive
In addition to our work, there are a number of studies that facilitation, found on a computer task calling for solving equa-
have found that students using a combination of cooperative tions in an earth spaceship game that individuals who were
learning and computer-based instruction learn better than do told to verbalize their decisions did as well in problem-solving
students using computer-based instruction while working in- performance on the game as groups told to come to consen-
dividualistically (Anderson, Mayes, & Kibby, 1995; Cockayne, sus (both of which had results superior to those of individuals
1991; Cox & Berger, 1985; Dalton, 1990a, 1990b; Dalton, Han- working silently). King (1989) asked groups of fourth graders
nafin, & Hooper, 1987; Dees, 1991; Hooper, 1992b; Hooper, to reproduce a stimulus design using LOGO computer graphics
Temiyakarn, & Williams, 1993; Hythecker et al., 1985; Inkpen, after they had watched a videotape modeling of think aloud
Booth, Klawe, & Upitis, 1995; Lin, Wu, & Liu, 1999; Love, 1969; problem solving. The groups were instructed to think aloud as
McInerney, McInerney, & Marsh, 1997; Mevarech, 1993; 1987; they performed their task. More successful groups asked more
Mevarech, Silber, & Fine, 1991; Mevarech, Stern, & Levita, Okey task-related questions, spent more time on strategy, and reached
& Majer, 1976; Postthast, 1995; Reglin, 1990; Repman, 1993; higher levels of strategy elaboration than did groups who were
Rocklin et al., 1985; Shlecter, 1990; Stephenson, 1992; Under- less successful on the task.
wood, McCaffrey, 1990; Webb, 1984; Whitelock, Scanlon, Tay-
lor, & OShea, 1995; Yeuh & Alessi, 1988). There are also a 30.8.3.2 Learning How to Use Technology. Cooperative
number of studies that found no statistically significant differ- learning may reduce hardware and software problems that in-
ences in achievement between subjects who worked in groups terfere with achievement when students work alone (Hativa,
and subjects who worked alone (Carrier & Sales, 1987; Cos- 1988). Students naturally form groups when learning how to use
den & English, 1987; Hooper & Hannafin, 1988; Trowbridge & a new technology or software program (Becker, 1984). In his de-
Durnin, 1984). No study has reported significantly greater learn- scription of the implementation of the Apple Classrooms of To-
ing when students work alone. Many of these studies, however, morrow, Dwyer (1994) notes that the cooperative, task-related
are short-term experiments focused on a small number of stu- interaction among students was spontaneous and more exten-
dents. Several experiments provide evidence that well-known sive than in traditional classrooms, with students interacting
CSCL programs like CSIKE and Belvedere have proved to be with one another while working at computers, spontaneously
helping each other, showing curiosity about each others activi- and challenging each others intuitively derived concepts and
ties, wanting to share what they had just learned to do, working points of view (i.e., engaging in academic controversy), thereby
together to build multimedia presentations about diverse topics, creating cognitive conflict within and among group members,
and combining their groups work into whole class, interdisci- and (c) the successful and equitable (members contributing
plinary projects. approximately equally) resolution of those conflicts (learners
When technology-supported lessons require new, complex have to go beyond mere disagreement to benefit from cogni-
procedures (such as learner-controlled lessons), cooperative tive conflict; [Bearison, Magzament, & Filardi, 1986; Damon &
learning tends to promote quicker and more thorough mastery Killen, 1982). To create the conditions under which cognitive
of the procedures than competitive or individualistic learning. development takes place, students must work cooperatively,
Trowbridge and Durnin (1984) found that students working in challenge each others points of view, and resolve the resulting
groups of two or three seemed more likely to interpret pro- cognitive conflicts. Clements and Nastasi conducted a series of
gram questions as the authors of the materials intended. Discus- studies on the occurrence of cooperation and controversy in
sions of multiple interpretations tended to converge on the cor- technology-supported instruction (Battista & Clements, 1986;
rect interpretation. Hooper (1992a) reported that students were Clements & Nastasi, 1985, 1988; Nastasi & Clements, 1992; Nas-
frustrated and could not master the computer-assisted, learner- tasi, Clements, & Battista, 1990). They have found that both
controlled lesson when they worked alone. Keeler and Anson LOGO and CAI/CBI-W computer environments promoted con-
(1995) used cooperative learning in a software application lab siderable cooperative work and conflict (both social and cogni-
course and found that both students performance and their tive). The LOGO environment (compared to CAI/CBI-W com-
retention were significantly improved. Dyer (1993) compared puter and traditional classroom tasks environments) promoted
structured cooperative pairs, unstructured cooperative pairs, (a) more peer interaction focused on learning and problem
and individuals working alone to solve computer-assisted math solving, (b) self-directed problem solving (i.e., learners solve
problem solving lessons. Structured cooperative pairs commu- problems they themselves have posed) in which there is mu-
nicated more frequently and used the computer more efficiently tual ownership of the problem, (c) more frequent occurrence
and skillfully than did the unstructured cooperative pairs or and resolution of cognitive conflicts, (d) greater development
the students in the individualistic condition. McDonald (1993) of executive-level problem-solving skills (planning, monitoring,
found that students in the learner-controlled/cooperative learn- decision making), higher-level reasoning, and cognitive devel-
ing condition selected more options during the lesson and spent opment. The development of higher-level cognitive processes
more time interacting with the tutorial than did the learner- seemed to be facilitated by the resolution of cognitive conflict
controlled/individual learning condition. Hooper et al. (1993) that arises out of cooperating. They also found that the LOGO
found that cooperative learning established a mutually support- (compared with the CAI) computer environment resulted in
ive learning environment among group members in which both more learner satisfaction and expressions of pleasure at the dis-
cognitive difficulties and navigational disorientation were over- covery of new information and their work, variables reflective
come in using the computer to complete a symbolic-reasoning of intrinsic and competence motivation.
task. Students studying alone had greater difficulty reading and More recently, Bell (2001) has developed a software pro-
understanding lesson directions, used the help option more of- gram to create arguments to be used in discussions with other
ten, and required more attempts to master embedded quizzes students (the SenseMaker argumentation tool). It is designed to
than did students in cooperative learning groups. In learning support a rhetorical construction of arguments by individuals
how to use computers, Webb (1984) and Webb et al. (1986) by connecting evidence dots with claim frames. The intent is to
found that in cooperative groups, explaining how to do com- teach students the nature of scientific inquiry by coordinating
puter programming was not related to skill in doing so and emerging evidence with an existing set of theories. The use of
receiving explanations influenced only the learning of basic SenseMaker to develop arguments to be used in an academic
commands (not the interpretation of programs or the ability controversy could significantly advance students level of rea-
to generate programs). Generally, this evidence indicates that soning and learing.
students will learn how to use hardware and software more
quickly and effectively when they learn in cooperative groups 30.8.4.2 Learner Control. Combining cooperative learning
rather than alone. When teachers wish to introduce new tech- and technology-supported instruction results in students hav-
nology and new software programs of some complexity, they ing more control over their learning. Hooper and his associates
will be well advised to use cooperative learning. (Hooper, 1992a; Hooper et al., 1993) note that three forms of
lesson control are used in the design of technology-based in-
struction: learner, program, and adaptive control. Learner con-
30.8.4 Cognitive and Social Development trol involves delegating instructional decisions to learners so
that they can determine what help they need, what difficulty
30.8.4.1 Cognitive Development: Cooperation and Con- level or content density of material they wish to study, in what
troversy. Social-cognitive theory posits that cognitive devel- sequence they wish to learn the material, and how much they
opment is facilitated by (Bearison, 1982; D. W. Johnson & want to learn. Learner-controlled environments include simu-
R. Johnson, 1979, 1995; Perret-Clermont, 1980) (a) individuals lations, hypermedia, and online databases. Program or linear
working cooperatively with peers on tasks that require coor- control prescribes an identical instructional sequence for all stu-
dination of actions or thoughts, (b) cooperators contradicting dents regardless of interest or need. Adaptive control modifies
lesson features according to student aptitude (e.g., Snow, 1980), procedures and skills were not emphasized, reliable differences
prior performance (e.g., Tobias, 1987), or ongoing lesson needs in achievement in cooperative and individualistic technology-
(e.g., Tennyson, Christensen, & Park, 1984). Linear or program assisted instruction tend not to be found (Mevarech et al., 1987;
control may impose an inappropriate lesson sequence on learn- Hooper et al., 1989; Susman, 1998; Underwood & McCaffrey,
ers and thereby lower their motivation, and adaptive instruction 1990).
may foster learner dependence (Hannafin & Rieber, 1989). As Software designers may be able to facilitate the development
learner control increases so does (a) instructional effectiveness use of the interpersonal and small group skills required for team-
and efficiency (Reigeluth & Stein, 1983) and (b) learner inde- work in several ways.
pendence, efficiency, mental effort, and motivation (Federico,
1980; Salomon, 1983, 1985; Steinberg, 1984). 1. Before students engage in the actual instruction, they might
Technology-supported cooperative learning tends to in- first be required to complete a tutorial activity designed to
crease the effectiveness of learner control. When students work introduce or refresh their understanding of cooperative skills.
alone, in isolation from their peers, they tend not to control This could include a discussion of each members role and
the learning situation productively, making ineffective instruc- its value in determining the overall group success.
tional decisions and leaving instruction prematurely (Carrier, 2. Teachers guides could suggest roles to assign to each group
1984; Hannafin, 1984; Milheim & Martin, 1991; Steinberg, 1977, member to perform in the group (keyboarder, recorder,
1989). Students working cooperatively tend to motivate each checker for understanding, encourager of participation).
other to seek elaborative feedback to their responses to prac- 3. Time for group processing to analyze and discuss how effec-
tice items during learning control and to seek a greater vari- tively they are working together and how they might work
ety of feedback types more frequently than did those working together more effectively in the future could be provided.
alone (Carrier & Sales, 1987). Cooperative pairs spent longer Software could be designed to include pauses during which
times inspecting information on the computer screen as they group members are directed to focus on their progress, dis-
discussed which level of feedback they needed and the answers cuss the records they are keeping, or reflect on improvements
to practice items. Students in the learner-controlled/cooperative or changes they might make to increase performance.
learning condition selected more options during the lesson, and 4. The software could periodically remind students to monitor
spent more time interacting with the tutorial, than did students their own performance and to assist in optimizing group per-
in the learner-controlled/individual learning condition (McDon- formance.
ald, 1993). Hooper et al. (1993) found that students in the 5. Yeuh and Alessi (1988) suggest that group reward is cru-
program-control conditions attempted more than four times as cial to provide a group goal motivating everyone to work
many examples and nearly twice as many practice questions as well together and individual accountability is needed to cre-
did the students in the learner-control conditions. The LOGO ate a feelings of fairness among group members. Tangible
computer environment tends to promote more actual learner prizes are recognition for individual successes and for group
control over the task structure and the making of rules to gov- achievement offers motivation to succeed on both levels.
ern it than does the CAI computer environment (Battista & One computer-generated reward would be a printout of col-
Clements, 1986; Clements & Nastasi, 1985, 1988; Nastasi et al., lective characters, coupons, or certificates that are assigned
1990). Learner control seems to be most effective when prior points or a relative value or are valued based on the num-
knowledge is high or when students possess well-developed ber accumulated. These items could be displayed by students
metacognitive abilities (Garhart & Hannafin, 1986). What these where they would be acknowledged by the teacher and other
studies imply is that cooperative learning is an important vari- classmates.
able in improving the effectiveness of learner controlled envi-
ronments.
30.8.5 Attitudes
30.8.4.3 Increasing Social Competencies. If students are
to work effectively in cooperative groups they must have the 30.8.5.1 Attitudes Toward Technology-Based Instruc-
teamwork skills to do so. To examine the importance of social tion. Students are more likely to learn from and to use
skills training on the productiveness of cooperative groups, it technology-based instruction in the future when their self-
is possible to compare studies that have included cooperative efficacy toward technology and attitudes about technology-
skills training and those that have not. Numerous studies on based instruction are positive. Sutton (1991) found that students
technology-supported cooperative learning have demonstrated developed more positive attitudes toward the computer-based
positive effects on the amount and quality of social interaction instructional lesson and learning with a computer when they
(e.g., Amigues & Agostinelli, 1992; Crook, 1994; Davis & Hut- worked in cooperative learning groups than when they worked
tenlocher, 1995; Fishman & Gomez, 1997; McConnell, 1994; individually (Hooper et al., 1993; Huang, 1993; McDonald,
Rysavy & Sales, 1991). A number of studies have found that 1993). Students tend to enjoy using the computer to engage
when teamwork procedures and skills are present, cooperative in cooperative activities.
learning results in higher achievement in technology-supported
instructional lessons than individualistic learning (Hooper & 30.8.5.2 Attitudes Toward Cooperative Learning.
Hannafin, 1991; Hooper & Hannafin, 1988, 1991; R. Johnson Mevarech et al. (1985) found that students who learned in
et al., 1985, 1986; Susman, 1998). In studies where teamwork pairs were more positive in their attitudes toward cooperative
learning than were students who worked individually with Proponents of homogeneous ability grouping, however, state
the computer. Evaluations obtained by Rocklin et al. (1985) that heterogeneous ability grouping may fail to challenge high-
from students involved in computer-based cooperative learning ability students (Willis, 1990) and that less academically success-
were more positive toward cooperative learning and how ful students benefit at the expense of their more successful part-
it affected them personally than were subjects who worked ners (Mills & Durden, 1992; Robinson, 1990). Many of the most
individually. Hooper et al. (1993) found that students working carefully conducted studies aimed are resolving this contro-
in cooperative pairs developed more positive attitudes toward versy have been focused on ability grouping in technologically-
cooperative learning than did students working alone, that assisted instruction. In a week-long study on the learning of
is, students rated cooperative learning in a computer-assisted LOGO, Webb (1984) investigated whether the higher-ability stu-
lesson almost a point higher on a 5-point scale than did students dents in cooperative groups of three would try to monopolize
who worked alone. A number of studies found that students the computer. She found that (a) student ability did not relate
in the structured cooperative learning conditions developed to contact time with the computer and (b) student success in
more positive attitudes toward working cooperatively than programming was predicted by different profiles of abilities and
did students in the unstructured cooperative learning or the by group process variables such as verbal interaction. Yeuh and
individualistic learning condition (Dyer, 1993; Hooper et al., Alessi (1988) used group ability composition as one of their
1993; Huang, 1993; McDonald, 1993). treatments for students utilizing the computer to learn three top-
ics in algebra. They formed groups of medium-ability students
30.8.5.3 Preference for Using Technology Coopera- and groups of mixed-ability students and found that group com-
tively. There is a natural partnership between technology and position had no significant effect on achievement. Hooper and
cooperation. The introduction of computers into classrooms Hannafin (1988), in a study with 40 eighth-grade students, found
tends to increase cooperative behavior and task-oriented ver- that on a computer task low ability students working with high-
bal interaction (Chernick & White, 1981, 1983; Hawkins et al., ability partners achieved higher than did low ability students
1982; Levin & Kareev, 1980; Rubin, 1983; Webb, 1984). Indi- studying in homogeneous groups or alone, without lowering
viduals prefer to work cooperatively at the computer (Hawkins the achievement of high-ability students. In a subsequent study
et al., 1982; Levin & Kareev, 1980; Muller & Perlmutter, 1985). involving 125 sixth- and seventh-grade students, Hooper and
Students are more likely to seek each other out at the computer Hannafin (1991) randomly assigned students to homogeneous
than they normally would for other schoolwork. Even when or heterogeneous pairs, and pairs to cooperative or individual-
students play electronic games they prefer to have partners and istic conditions. High-ability students interacted equally across
associates. Working at a computer cooperatively with classmates treatments, but low-ability students interacted 30% more when
seems to be more fun and enjoyable as well as more effective placed in heterogeneous pairs. Students in the heterogeneous
for most students. groups achieved and cooperated significantly more than did stu-
dents in the homogeneous pairs (or the individualistic condi-
tion).
30.8.6 Individual Differences Simsek and Hooper (1992) compared the effects of cooper-
ative and individual learning on student performance and atti-
30.8.6.1 Group Composition. A factor hypothesized to af- tudes during interactive videodisc instruction. Thirty fifth- and
fect the success of technology-supported cooperative learning sixth-grade students were classified as high or low ability and
is whether members of cooperative groups are homogeneous or randomly assigned to cooperative or individual treatments. Stu-
heterogeneous. There is considerable disagreement as to which dents completed a level II interactive video disc science lesson.
is the most effective composition. Advocates of heterogeneous The achievement, attitudes, and time on task of high- and low-
grouping point out that (a) students are more likely to gain ability students working alone or in cooperative groups were
sophistication and preparation for life in a heterogeneous soci- compared. Results indicated that both high- and low-ability stu-
ety by working cooperatively with classmates from diverse cul- dents performed better on the posttest when they learned in
tures, attitudes, and perspectives, (b) high-achieving students cooperative groups than did their counterparts who learned
benefit from the cognitive restructuring that occurs when pro- alone. Students who worked individually spent less time on
viding in-depth explanations to peers, and (c) less academically task. Members of cooperative groups developed more positive
successful students benefit from the extra attention, alternative attitudes toward instruction, teamwork, and peers than did stu-
knowledge representations, and modeling that more academi- dents studying alone.
cally successful students provide (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, Simsek and Tsai (1992) compared the effects of homoge-
1989; Webb, 1989). Students in heterogeneous ability groups neous versus heterogeneous ability grouping on performance
tend to learn more than students in homogeneous ability groups and attitudes of students working cooperatively during interac-
(Yager, Johnson, & Johnson, 1985; Yager, Johnson, Johnson, & tive videodisc instruction. After two cooperative training ses-
Snider, 1986). Beane and Lemke (1971) found that high abil- sions, 80 fourth- through sixth-grade students, classified as high
ity students benefited more from heterogeneous than homoge- and low ability, were randomly assigned to treatments. Stu-
neous grouping. The academic discussion and peer interaction dents completed a level II interactive video disc science les-
in heterogeneous (compared with homogeneous) groups pro- son. The amount of instructional time for each group was also
mote the discovery of more effective reasoning strategies (John- recorded. Homogeneous low-ability groups scored significantly
son & Johnson, 1979; Berndt, Perry, & Miller, 1988). lower than the other three groups, while the difference in
achievement of high-ability students in homogeneous versus Johnson, Richards, and Buckman (1986) found that computer-
heterogeneous groups was not statistically significant. Homo- assisted cooperative learning, compared with competitive and
geneous low-ability groups consistently used the least amount individualistic computer-assisted learning, increased the posi-
of time. Low-ability students in heterogeneous groups had signif- tiveness of female students attitudes toward computers, equal-
icantly more positive attitudes than did their high-ability group- ized the status and respect among group members regardless
mates. of gender, and resulted in a more equal participation pattern
Hooper (1992b) compared individual and cooperative learn- between male and female members. Whereas females in co-
ing in an investigation of the effects of ability grouping operative groups liked working with the computer more than
on achievement, instructional efficacy, and discourse during males did, there was no significant difference in oral inter-
computer-based mathematics instruction. A total of 115 fifth- actions between males and females. Dalton et al. (1987) ex-
and sixth-grade students were classified as having high or amined interactions between instructional method and gender
average ability and were randomly assigned to group or indi- and found that cooperative learning was rated more favorably
vidual treatments. Students in the cooperative condition were by low-ability females than by low-ability males. Other stud-
assigned to either heterogeneous or homogeneous dyads, ac- ies noted no significant differences in performance between
cording to ability. Results indicated that students completed the males and females in computer-based instruction cooperative
instruction more effectively in groups than alone. In groups, learning settings (Mevarech et al., 1987; Webb, 1984). Carrier
achievement and efficiency were highest for high-ability homo- and Sales (1987) compared female pairs, male pairs, and mixed
geneously grouped students and lowest for average-ability ho- pairs among college juniors and noted that female pairs verbal-
mogeneously grouped students. Generating and receiving help ized the most, whereas male pairs verbalized the least, and that
were significant predictors of achievement, and average-ability malefemale pairs demonstrated the most off-task behavior. Lee
students generated and received significantly more help in het- (1993) found that males tended to become more verbally active
erogeneous groups than in homogeneous ones. and females tended to become less verbally active in equal-ratio,
Hooper et al. (1993) compared cooperative and individualis- mixed-gender groups.
tic learning on academically high- and average/low-performing A study that looked at mixed-gender groups versus single-
students. They classified 175 fourth-grade students as high or gender groups was done by Underwood and McCaffrey (1990)
average/low performing academically and randomly assigned in England. Two classes of students between 10.5 and 11.4 years
them to pairs or individualistic conditions strategies by perfor- of age from a single school participated in the study. The 40
mance level. Performance level was determined by scores on females and 40 males were randomly assigned to male/male, fe-
the mathematics subscale of the California Achievement Test. All male/female, or male/female pairs. The study was divided into
cooperative pairs consisted of one high- and one average/low- three sessions. The first session had the subjects working in-
performing student. They found that the students in the co- dividually. In the second session subjects worked in pairs. The
operative conditions performed higher on a computer-assisted third session also involved pairs, but subjects who were in mixed
symbolic reasoning task than did the students in the individual- pairs were shifted to single-gender pairs and single-gender pairs
istic conditions. The greatest benefactors from the group learn- were assigned to mixed pairs. The subjects worked with a com-
ing experience appeared to be the highest-performing students. puter program in language tasks that required them to place
Overall achievement increased by almost 20% for high-academic missing letters into text. The results showed that single-gender
ability students but only 4% for average-ability students. High- pairs completed more stories and had more correct responses
ability students may have benefited from generating explana- than did mixed-gender pairs. When subjects were shifted from
tions of their less able partners and less able partners might single-gender pairs to mixed-gender pairs, their level of activity
have adopted more passive roles. Mulryan (1992) found that decreased but there was no change in their overall performance.
the highest-achieving students adopted the more active roles in The study found no overall differences for gender on any of the
cooperative learning groups and the least able students demon- measures. No cooperative training was given and mixed pairs
strated high levels of passive behavior, a pattern that, according rarely discussed their answers. Rather, one subject operated the
to Webb (1989), further decreases the achievement of the pas- keyboard and the other gave directions.
sive students. Overall, there is mixed evidence concerning the impact of
The results of these studies indicate that cooperative learn- technology-supported instruction on males and females. A con-
ing may be used effectively with both homogeneous and hetero- servative interpretation of the existing research is that there
geneous groups but that the greatest educational benefits may will be no performance differences between males and females
be derived when heterogeneous groups work with technology- on technology-supported cooperative learning, but females will
supported instruction. In heterogeneous cooperative learning have more positive attitudes toward using technology when
groups, low-ability students increased their achievement consid- they learn in cooperative groups.
erably and high-ability students generally either increased their
achievement or achieved at the same level as did their counter-
parts in homogeneously high groups. 30.8.7 Relationships: Networking into Teams
30.8.6.2 Gender. The gender of group members has been hy- Technology such as electronic mail, bulletin boards, and confer-
pothesized to be an important factor in determining the success ences can be used to create teams of individuals who are widely
of technology-supported cooperative learning. D. W. Johnson, separated geographically. In an electronically networked team,
interaction no longer has to be face-to-face, team members can individuals) schools were able to reduce significantly the cost
be anywhere in the world. Meetings require only that members of obtaining and maintaining computers (Johnson & Johnson,
be at their terminals. Communication between meetings can be 1985; Wizer, 1987).
asynchronous and extremely fast in comparison with telephone
conversations and interoffice mail. Participation may be more 30.8.8.2 Innovation in Groupware and Hardware. In
equalized and less affected by prestige and status (McGuire, creating joint workspaces for team members to work together,
Kiesler, & Siegel, 1987; Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire, and in creating hardware and communication networks that fa-
1986). The egalitarian network structures may coexist with cilitates teamwork, considerable innovation has taken, is taking,
substantial hierarchy and centralization in patters of communi- and will take place. The promise of the current technology is
cation. that in the future, more effective, efficient, and productive ways
Electronic communications influence interaction style and of teaming will be created through technology.
work flow. The use of electronic mail compared to telephones, Of special interest for technology-supported cooperative
for example, enables workers to control the pace of their re- learning is the use of self-powered, palm-sized computers
sponse and thus facilitates multitasking. Digital conferencing and low-cost, high-bandwidth wireless communications. Just
may make employees less risk averse and render group decision as computers made communication asynchronous, these mo-
making less predictable, more time-consuming, and more egal- bile innovations make communication independent of place.
itarian (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991; Wellman et al. 1996). Whether The ability to communicate with anyone at anytime and any-
these effects on decision making enhance organizational perfor- where geometrically increases the possibilities of technology-
mance or will continue as the technologies develop and change supported cooperative learning. And the widespread use of such
is uncertain in part because they depend on the specific ways in technologies will undoubtedly inspire even more effective ways
which the technological systems are designed and implemented to use hardware and software to enhance human cooperation.
(OMahony & Barley, 1999; Sproull & Kiesler, 1991). Both students and teachers, furthermore, benefit from high-
Electronic communication, however, relies almost entirely bandwidth, as it allows various technologies (i.e., high-quality
on plain text for conveying messages, text that is often video, sophisticated teleconferencing, and Internet-based com-
ephemeral, appearing on and disappearing from a screen with- munication and assessment tools) to converge and be delivered
out any necessary tangible artifacts. It becomes easy for a sender together, thereby providing richer content and stimulating co-
to be out of touch with his or her audience. And it is easy for the operative interaction.
sender to be less constrained by conventional norms and rules
for behavior in composing messages. Communicators can feel
a greater sense of anonymity, detect less individuality in others,
feel less empathy, feel less guilt, be less concerned over how 30.9 QUESTIONS ABOUT
they compare with others, and be less influenced by social con- TECHNOLOGY-SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE
ventions (Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984; Short, Williams, & LEARNING
Christie, 1976). Such influences can lead both to more honesty
and more flaming (name calling and epithets). Given the powerful effects of cooperation on achievement, re-
Hara, Bonk, and Angeli and his associates (2000) conducted lationships, and psychological health, and given the numerous
a content analysis of on-line discussions. They examined par- advantages of using technology-supported cooperative learning,
ticipation rates, interaction patterns, social cues within student there are a number of questions about the use of technology
messages, cognitive and metacognitive components, and depth that may tentatively be answered. First, Does technology effect
of processing. They concluded that messages became more achievement or is it merely a means of delivering instruction?
lengthy and cognitively deeper over time. The messages were In a review of research, Clark (1983) concluded that technology
also embedded with peer references, became more interactive is merely a means of delivering instruction. There are cognitive
over time, and were thus indicative of a student-oriented envi- consequences of discussing what one is learning with class-
ronment. mates that technology may not be able to duplicate. The extent
to which social interaction is essential for effective learning, the
transformation of the mind, and the development of expertise
30.8.8 Other Factors is unclear.
Second, Is a dialogue with a computer as effective in
30.8.8.1 Cost Effectiveness. The use of cooperative learn- promoting achievement, higher-level reasoning, and ability
ing increases the cost effectiveness of technology. Although the to apply learning as a dialogue with a peer? The answer is
range of technology that could be used in schools is increasing probably no. It takes more than the presentation of information
yearly (Hancock & Betts, 1994), the cost of adopting new tech- to have a dialogue. There needs to be an exchange of knowledge
nologies is an inhibiting factor to its use. Ensuring that every that leads to epistemic conflict and intellectual challenge and
student is provided with the latest technology is beyond the fi- curiosity. Such an exchange is personal as well as informational.
nancial resources of most school districts. Giving each coopera- It involves respect for and belief in each others abilities and
tive learning group access to the latest technology is much more commitment to each others learning. Our results and the results
cost effective. An historical example is the adoption of comput- of other researchers indicate that a dialogue with a peer is far
ers by schools. By having groups work at computers (instead of more powerful than one with a computer.
Third, Can a computer pass as a person? The answer, again, procedures that teachers and administrators may use, and actu-
is probably no. A person interacts quite differently with a com- ally implemented in tens of thousands of classrooms through-
puter than he or she does with another person. Machines and out the world. Technology is transforming the way in which
people are not equally interesting or persuasive. With other peo- work and communication are conducted. Despite the success
ple there is a commitment to their learning and well-being. It is of cooperative learning and technology, there are a number of
rare to feel the same emotions toward a machine. shortcomings of the work on technology-supported coopera-
Fourth, Is the effectiveness of a message separate from the tive learning.
medium? Generally, the research on cognitive development in- First, there is a lack of theorizing. If technology-supported
dicates that the same information, presented in other formats cooperative learning is to continue to develop, it needs to be-
(especially nonsocial formats) is only marginally effective in pro- come more articulate about the theories that underlie its use.
moting genuine cognitive development (Murray, 1983; D. W. Currently, social interdependence theory is the most clearly
Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). spelled out theoretical base for cooperative learning, but the
Fifth Is technology an amplifier or a transformer of the way in which technology provides unique opportunities for co-
mind? An amplifier serves a tool function like note taking or operation have not been tied to social interdependence theory.
measuring. A transformer leads to the discovery and invention John Dewey has been widely quoted, but his work does not
of principles. If technological learning devices are transform- provide a precise theory on which to base either cooperative
ers, the habitual technology users eventually will be in a new learning or technology-supported instruction. The same may
stage of mental functioning. Postman (1985) believes that the be said for Vygotsky. Conceptual models of how technology
introduction into a culture of a technique such as writing or a and teamwork may be productively integrated are practically
clock is not merely an extension of humans power to record nonexistent. The variables unique to the combination of tech-
information or bind time but a transformation of their way of nology and cooperation have not been identified and defined.
thinking and the content of human culture. Generally, therefore, Two theoretical perspectives are needed that can be contrasted
it may be concluded that technology such as the computer is a and compared in research studies. The field needs such rivalry to
tool to amplify the minds of students. As a tool, the computer develop.
(as well as the calculator) can free students from the rote mem- Second, relatively little research has been done. Overall, the
orization of methods of mathematical formulation and formula- quality of the existing research is quite high. Only a few of
driven science, allowing more time for underlying concepts to the potential outcomes, however, have been studied. There are
be integrated with physical examples. A danger of the computer many gaps in the research on technology-supported cooperative
is that student will know what button to push to get the right learning. The unique strengths of technology-supported coop-
answer without understanding the underlying process or devel- erative learning have not been assessed and documented. The
oping the ability to solve the problem on his or her own without impact of technology-based cooperative learning on relation-
the computer. There is far more to expertise than knowing how ships among students (especially in face-to-face and non-face-
to run hardware and software. to-face situations and among diverse individuals) has not been
Finally, Can technology such as computers prepare a stu- studied. The specific ways that use of technology affects vari-
dent for the real world? Technological expertise is helpful in ous aspects of psychological health (such as social adjustment,
finding and holding a job. Working in a modern organization, personal happiness, self-esteem, anxiety levels, social compe-
however, requires team skills such as leadership and conflict tencies, and ability to cope with stress and diversity) is largely
management and the ability to engage in interpersonal prob- unknown. Almost all of the research that has been conducted
lem solving. Although it is clear that cooperative learning is has focused on the effectiveness of technology-based computer
an analogue to modern organizational life, experience in using instruction or specific software programs without testing the-
technology in and of itself may only marginally improve em- ory. In the future, theoretically oriented research needs to be
ployability and job success. A person has to have interpersonal conducted.
competence as well as technical competence. 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 for
designing and implementing instructional procedures that op-
30.10 THE FUTURE OF timize the impact of technology-supported cooperative learn-
TECHNOLOGY-SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE ing. Equivalent procedures need to be designed for work envi-
LEARNING ronments where technology and teamwork are used together.
Once the operational procedures are clarified, decisions about
The interdependence between the use of technology-supported training teachers and students can be made. Teachers can be
instruction and cooperative learning is relatively unexplored. trained to implement cooperative learning, but training in the
Technologies can either facilitate or obstruct cooperation. The specific procedures for implementing technology-supported co-
ways in which technology may enhance or interfere with cooperative learning is underdeveloped. The nature and amount
operative efforts have not been conceptualized, placed in a of training students need to work together cooperatively while
theoretical framework, researched, and applied in classrooms. utilizing technology are largely unknown. Whereas the social
Cooperative learning has a well-formulated theory validated by skills required to cooperate have been clear for some time
hundreds of research studies, translated into a set of practical (D. W. Johnson, 1991, 2003; D. W. Johnson & F. Johnson, 2003),
the social skills required to utilize technology cooperatively have on group composition focusing on the ability of students to use
generally been ignored. More needs to be known about the skills instructional technologies.
students need to maximize the constructiveness of technology- Fourth, the implementation process by which technology-
supported cooperative learning. supported cooperative learning is institutionalized within
In addition to using validated theory to operationalize schools needs to be documented and studied. Whereas advo-
teacher and student procedures, new software development cates of technology see a revolution coming in instruction, histo-
should be more closely tied to validated theory. Effective co- rians point to the virtual absence of lasting or profound changes
operation depends on the existence of five basic elements (pos- in classroom practice over the past 100 years. Despite brief
itive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive in- periods of popularity, new instructional technologies such as
teraction, appropriate use of social skills, and group processing) educational television, language laboratories, and programmed
in operational procedures (D. W. Johnson & Johnson, 1989). learning were tried and dropped. Life in classrooms remains
Whereas there are many groupware programs, the extent to largely unchanged. Lepper and Gurtner (1989) argue that the
which groupware incorporates the five basic elements of coop- last technology to have had a major impact on the way schools
eration has not been discussed or researched, and whether there are run is the blackboard. Most often new technologies are used
are other elements essential to technology-supported cooper- in ways that do not disrupt regular classroom practices, which
ative learning programs has not been determined by research. means that they can be dropped with no disruption to ongoing
Attention to ensuring that the groupware developed is based on classroom life. Similarly, software selection is often conducted
social interdependence theory as well as on technology hard- with the intention of supporting existing classroom practices
ware and software potentialities is needed. rather than transforming them. Considerably more research is
In summary, what is needed is a theory to stimulate research needed on the implementation process by which the combina-
that, in turn, will validate and modify the theory. The results tion of cooperative learning and learning technologies becomes
need to be used to design specific procedures for operational- integrated and institutionalized in classroom and schools.
izing technology-supported cooperative learning at every grade Fifth, studies need to focus on the role of teachers and ad-
level and in every subject area. Groupware needs to be tied ministrators in the implementation process. No matter how
more closely to theory. Without this combination of theory, re- good technology is, unless teachers decide to use it and gain
search, and operational procedures and software, proponents some expertise in how to implement it, the technology will not
of technology-supported cooperative learning cannot present a be adopted by schools.
persuasive case for adoption or an effective training program for Sixth, studies need to examine the support services re-
teachers. On the positive side, there has been so little research quired for technology to be used in the classroom. Who re-
on technology-supported cooperative learning that the future pairs the technology and how often repairs are needed are
is wide open to interested social scientists. important questions. Teachers, for example, cannot be ex-
There are, however, several areas on which researchers can pected to be computer technicians. As the quantity of research
focus. First, there is a need for long-term studies that track the on technology-supported cooperative learning has grown, so
use of technology-supported cooperative learning across at least has the networking among interested social scientists and ed-
1 school year and, ideally, several years. Short-term studies of ini- ucators. In 1996 an international conference on computer-
tial use are not enough. The real question is whether the use of supported cooperative learning took place, followed by similar
technology-supported cooperative learning will be maintained conferences in Toronto in 1997, at Stanford University in 1999,
over several years. in The Netherlands in 2001, and in Boulder, Colorado, in 2002.
Second, the critical factors that result in technology and co- Conferences such as these are helpful in advancing the develop-
operative learning enhancing each other need to be identified ment of relevant theory, research, and operational procedures
and researched. One important factor may be epistemic con- and software.
flict, that is, the collision of adverse opinion. Cognitive growth
and the development of problem-solving skills depend on epi-
stemic conflict (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1979, 1995; Piaget, 30.11 SUMMARY
1950). Students need the opportunity to experience and resolve
academic controversies. Technology rarely engages students in We live in a networked, information-based society in which
intellectual conflict the same way other students can. The role teams and technology are needed to manage the complexity
of technology in promoting and facilitating intellectual conflicts of learning, work, and living. Schools have become a strategic
among students has not been thoroughly investigated. place. For education to develop the technological and teamwork
Third, there is a question whether technology-supported competencies of children, adolescents, and young adults, if must
instruction will increase inequality in educational outcomes overcome the individualistic assumption historically connected
(Becker & Sterling, 1987). Students who have access to the new with technology-supported instruction and utilize cooperative
technologies in their homes will be more skilled and sophisti- learning as an inherent part of instruction. The individual as-
cated in their uses than will students who do not. Equality in the sumption is that instruction should be tailored to each stu-
classroom may require heterogeneous grouping where students dents personal aptitude, learning style, personality characteris-
who are skilled in the use of instructional technologies work tics, motivation, and needs. Computers were originally viewed
with students who are not. Cooperative learning is an essential as an important tool for providing individualized learning ex-
aspect of such equalization. New studies need to be conducted periences. The difficulties and shortcomings of individualizing
instruction call into question the wisdom of focusing technol- example, can control the flow of work, monitor accuracy, give
ogy on delivering individualized instruction. Technology may electronic feedback, and do calculations. Cooperative learning
be more productively used when it is used in combination with provides a sense of belonging, the opportunity to explain and
cooperation learning. summarize what is being learned, social models, respect and
Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small approval for efforts to achieve, encouragement of divergent
groups so that students work together to maximize their thinking, and interpersonal feedback on academic learning and
own and each others learning. There are four types of co- the use of the technology.
operative learningformal cooperative learning, informal co- A number of questions must be asked about technology-
operative learning, base groups, and academic controversies. supported instruction. Does technology affect achievement, or
Technology-supported cooperative learning exists when is it only a means for delivering instruction? Current evidence in-
the instructional use of technology is combined with the use of dicates that computers deliver instruction but they do not effect
cooperative learning groups. What underlies cooperative learn- achievement in and of themselves. Is a dialogue with the com-
ings worldwide use is that it is based on a well-formulated puter as effective as a dialogue with another person in promot-
theory that has been validated by numerous research studies ing achievement and higher-level reasoning? The answer seems
and operationalized into practical procedures that can be used to be no. Can the computer pass as a person? The answer seems
at any level of education. The three theoretical perspectives to be no. Cooperators are people, not machines. Is the effective-
that have contributed to cooperative learning are cognitive- ness of a message separate from the medium? The answer seems
developmental theory, behavioral learning theory, and social to be yes, messages from other people are more powerful and
interdependence theory. The latter has had the most profound influential than are messages from machines. Is technology an
influence on the development of cooperative learning. Between amplifier or a transformer of the mind? The answer seems to be
1898 and 1989, over 550 experimental and 100 correlational an amplifier. Technology amplifies communication, but it takes
studies were conducted comparing the relative effectiveness of other people to transform each others minds.
cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts. Generally, The future of technology-supported cooperative learning
cooperative efforts result in higher achievement, more positive depends largely on the cycle of theoryresearchpractice.
relationships, and greater psychological health than do compet- The unique opportunities of technology-supported cooperative
itive or individualistic efforts. Not all groups, however, are coop- learning need to be tied to social interdependence theory (or an-
erative groups. To be a cooperative group, five basic elements other theory underlying cooperative learning), research needs
must be structured within the learning situationpositive inter- to be conducted to validate or disconfirm the theoretical pre-
dependence, promotive interaction, individual accountability, dictions, and operational procedures and groupware need to be
social skills, and group processing. For schools to adopt tech- developed directly based on the validated theory.
nology and maintain its use over time, the school organizational Finally, technologies can either facilitate or obstruct cooper-
structure must change from a mass-manufacturing structure to ation. The ways in which technology may enhance or inter-
a team-based, high-performance structure (which is known as fere with cooperative efforts have not been conceptualized,
the cooperative school). placed in a theoretical framework, researched, and applied in
There is a growing body of research on technology- classrooms. Despite the success of cooperative learning and
supported cooperative learning. The results indicate that technology, there are a number of shortcomings of the work
compared with technology-supported instruction, coopera- on technology-supported cooperative learning. Among other
tive learning tends to increase achievement (both academic issues, long-term studies of the use of technology-supported co-
achievement and learning how to use technology), promote operative learning are needed, the role of factors that enhance
positive attitudes (toward technology and cooperation), pro- or interfere with cooperation (such as epistemic conflict) need
mote development (cognitive development, learning control, to be studied, the impact of implementation on equality of op-
social competencies), promote positive relationships with portunity needs to be researched, and the role of the teacher
team members, promote positive effects on both high- and and support services needed to be investigated.
low-performing students and both male and female students, Few educational innovations hold the promise that
be cost effective, and promote innovation in groupware and technology-supported cooperative learning does. The combi-
hardware. What this research illuminates is that cooperative nation of cooperation and technology has a potential that is
learning and technology-supported instruction have comple- changing the way courses are being delivered and instruction
mentary strengths. The more technology is used to teach, the is taking place. More theorizing, research, and refinement of
more necessary cooperative learning is. The computer, for practice is needed to help the field actualize its possibilities.
References
Adams, D., Carson, H., & Hamm, M. (1990). Cooperative learning Allen, R. (2001, Fall). Technology and learning. Curriculum Update,
and educational media. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Tech- 13, 68. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-
nology. ment.
Ames, R., & Lau, S. (1982). An attributional analysis of student help- instruction in understanding and implementing cooperative group
seeking in academic settings. Journal of Educational Psychology, learning with elementary pupils in social studies. Theory and Re-
74, 414423. search in Social Education, 17(3), 241158.
Amigues, R., & Agostinelli, S. (1992). Collaborative problem-solving Carrier, C. (1984). Do learners make good choices? A review of research
with computer: How can an interactive learning environment be de- on learner control in instruction. Instructional Innovator, 29(2),
signed? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 7(4), 325 1517.
337. Carrier, C., & Sales, G. (1987). Pair versus individual work on the acqui-
Anderson, A., Mayes, T., & Kibby, M. (1995). Small group collaborative sition concepts in a computer-based instructional lesson. Journal of
discovery learning from hypertext. In C. OMalley (Ed.), Computer Computer-Based Instruction, 14(1), 1117.
supported collaborative learning, NATO ASI Series F: Computer Chernick, R., & White, M. (1981). Pupils interaction with microcom-
and systems sciences (Vol. 129, pp. 2328). Heidelberg, Berlin: puters vs. interaction in classroom settings. New York: Teachers
Springer-Verlag. College, Columbia University, Electronic Learning Laboratory.
Archer-Kath, J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1994). Individual versus Chernick, R., & White, M. (1983, May). Pupil cooperation in computer
group feedback in cooperative groups. Journal of Social Psychology, learning vs. learning with classroom materials. Paper presented
Aronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. at the New York State Psychological Association, Liberty, NY.
Baker, C. (1985). The microcomputer and the curriculum. A critique. Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Re-
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17, 449451. view of Educational Research, 53, 445459.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren- Clements, D. (1986). Research on Logo and social development. Logo
tice Hall. Exchange, 5(3), 2224.
Bates, A. (1995). Tecnology, open learning and distance education. Clements, D., & Nastasi, B. (1985). Effects of computer environments
London: Routledge. on social-emotional development: Logo and computer-assisted in-
Battista, M., & Clements, D. (1986). The effects of Logo and CAI problem- struction. Computers in the Schools, 2(2/3), 1131.
solving environments on problem-solving abilities and mathematics Clements, D., & Nastasi, B. (1988). Social and cognitive interaction in
achievement. Computers in Human Behavior, 2, 183193. educational computer environments. American Educational Re-
Beane, W., & Lemke, E. (1971). Group variables influencing the transfer search Journal, 25, 87106.
of conceptual behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(3), Cockayne, S. (1991, February). Effects of small group sizes on learning
215218. with interactive videodisc. Educational Technology, 4345.
Bearison, D. (1982). New directions in studies of social interaction and Cohen, E. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for heterogeneous
cognitive growth. In F. Serafica (Ed.), Social-cognitive development classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
in context (pp. 199221). New York: Guildford Press. Cosden, M., & English, J. (1987). The effects of grouping, self-esteem,
Bearison, D., Magzamen, S., & Filardo, E. (1986). Socio-cognitive conflict and locus of control on microcomputer performance and help seek-
and cognitive growth in young children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, ing by mildly handicapped students. Journal of Educational Com-
32, 5172. puting Research, 3, 443460.
Becker, H. (1984). School uses of microcomputers: Reports from a Cox, D., & Berger, C. (1985). The importance of group size in the use of
national survey (Issue No. 6). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Uni- problem-solving skills on a microcomputer. Journal of Educational
versity, Center for Social Organization of Schools. Computing Research, 1, 459468.
Becker, H. (1985). The second national U.S. school users of microcom- Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience of
puters survey. Paper presented at the Second World Conference on learning. London: Routledge.
Computers in Education, Norfolk, VA. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of tech-
Becker, H., & Sterling, C. (1987). Equity in schools computer use: Na- nology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
tional data and neglected considerations. Journal of Educational Dalton, D. (1990a). The effects of cooperative learning strategies on
Computing Research, 3, 289311. achievement and attitudes during interactive video. Journal of
Bell, P. (2001). Using argument map representations to make thinking Computer-Based Instruction, 17, 816.
visible in the classroom. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake Dalton, D. (1990b, April). The effects of prior learning on learner in-
(Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 449485). teraction and achievement during cooperative computer-based in-
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. struction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Berndt, T., Perry, T., & Miller, K. (1988). Friends and classmates inter- Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
actions on academic tasks. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, Dalton, D., Hannafin, M., & Hooper, S. (1987). Effects of individual and
506513. cooperative computer-assisted instruction on student performance
Bonk, C., & King, K. (Eds.). (1998). Electronic collaborators: Learner- and attitudes. Educational Technology Research and Development,
centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse. 37(2), 1524.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Damon, W., & Killen, M. (1982). Peer interaction and the process of
Bonk, C., Medury, P., & Reynolds, T. (in press). Cooperative hypermedia: change in childrens moral reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 28,
The marriage of collaborative writing and mediated environments. 347367.
Computers in the Schools, Davis, J., & Huttenlocher, D. (1995). Shared annotation for cooperative
Britton, J. (1990). Research currents: Second thoughts on learning. In learning. Proceedings of CSCL95: First International Conference
Brubacher, M., Payne, R., & Richett, K. (Eds.), Perspectives on small on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. Mahwah, NJ:
group learning: Theory and practice (pp. 311). Oakville, Ontario: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rubicon. Dees, R. (1991). The role of cooperative learning in increasing problem-
Brush, T. (1997). The effects on student achievement and attitudes when solving ability in a college remedial course. Journal for Research in
using integrated learning systems with cooperative pairs. Educa- Mathematics Education, 22(5), 409421.
tional Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 5164. Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human
Carlson, H., & Falk, D. (1989). Effective use of interactive videodisc Relations, 2, 129152.
Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In Hooper, S. (1992b). Cooperation learning and computer-based instruc-
M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 275 tion. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(3),
319). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 2138.
DeVries, D., & Edwards, K. (1974). Student teams and learning games: Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. (1988). Cooperative CBI: The effects of het-
Their effects on cross-race and cross-sex interaction. Journal of Ed- erogeneous versus homogeneous groups on the learning of progres-
ucational Psychology, 66(5), 741749. sively complex concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Re-
Dickson, W., & Vereen M. (1985). Two students at one microcomputer. search, 4(4), 413424.
Theory into Practice, 22(4), 296300. Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. (1991). The effects of group composition on
Druckman, D., Rozelle, R., & Baxter, J. (1982). Nonverbal communica- achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computer-
tion: Survey, theory, and research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. based cooperative instruction. Educational Technology Research
Dwyer, D. (1994). Apple classrooms of tomorrow: What weve learned. and Development, 39(3), 2740.
Educational Leadership, 51(7), 410. Hooper, S., Ward, T., Hannafin, M., & Clark, H. (1989). The effects of
Dyer, L. (1993). An investigation of the effects of cooperative learn- aptitude composition on achievement during small group learning.
ing on computer monitored problem solving. Ph.D. Dissertation, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16, 102109.
University of Minnesota. Hooper, S., Temiyakarn, C., & Williams, M. (1993). The effects of coop-
Eraut, M. (1995). Groupwork with computers in British primary schools. erative learning and learner control on high- and average-ability stu-
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(1), 6187. dents. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(2),
Federico, P. (1980). Adaptive instruction: Trends and issues. In R. Snow, 518.
P. Federico, & W. Montague (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruc- Hwong, N., Caswell, A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1993). Effects
tion: Vol. 1. Cognitive process analysis of aptitude (pp. 126). Hills- of cooperative and individualistic learning on prospective elemen-
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. tary teachers music achievement and attitudes. Journal of Social
Fishman, B., & Gomez, L. (1997, December). How activities foster CMC Psychology, 133(1), 5364.
tool use in classrooms. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Huang, C. (1993). The effects of feedback on performance and atti-
Computer support for cooperative learning 1997. Proceedings of tude in cooperative and individualized computer-based instruc-
the Second International Conference on Computer Support for tion. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Collaborative Learning (pp. 3744). Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Hythecker, V., Rocklin, T., Dansereau, D., Lambiotte, J., Larson, C., &
Fletcher, B. (1985). Group and individual learning of junior high school ODonnell, A. (1985). A computer-based learning strategy training
children on a micro-computer-based task. Educational Review, 37, module: Development and evaluation. Journal of Educational Com-
252261. puter Research, 1(3), 275283.
Fetcher-Flinn, C., & Gravatt, B. (1995). The efficacy of computer assisted Inkpen, K., Booth, K., Klawe, M., & Upitis, R. (1995). Playing together
instruction (CAI): A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Comput- beats playing apart, especially for girls. In J. Schnase & E. Cunnius
ing Research, 12(3), 219241. (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 1995: The First International Confer-
Frank, M. (1984). A comparison between an individual and group goal ence on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 177
structure contingency that differed in the behavioral contingency 181). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
and performance-outcome components (Doctoral dissertation, Uni- Innis, H. (1964). The bias of communication. Toronto: University of
versity of Minnesota). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45(05), Toronto Press.
1341A. Innis, H. (1972). Empire and communication. Toronto: University of
Garhart, C., Hannafin, M. (1986). The accuracy of cognitive monitoring Toronto Press.
during computer-based instruction. Journal of Computer-Based In- Isenberg, R. (1992). Social skills at the computer. The Cooperative Link,
struction, 13, 8893. 2(6), 12.
Hancock, V., & Betts, F. (1994). From the lagging to the leading edge. Jarvela, S. (1996). New models of teacher-student interaction: A critical
Educational Leadership, 51(7), 2429. review. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 6(3), 246
Hannafin, M. (1984). Guidelines for using locus of instructional control 268.
in the design of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Instruc- Johnson, D. W. (1991). Human relations and your career. Englewood
tional Development, 7(3), 610. Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hannafin, M., & Rieber, L. (1989). Psychological foundations of instruc- Johnson, D. W. (2003). Reaching out: Interpersonal effectiveness and
tional design for emerging computer-based interactive technologies: self-actualization. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Part II. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. (2003). Joining together: Group theory
102114. and group skills (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hara, N., Bonk, C., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online dis- Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1979). Conflict in the classroom:
cussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Controversy and learning. Review of Educational Research, 49,
Science, 28, 115152. 5170.
Harasim, L., Hiltz, R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986). Computer-assisted cooperative
A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA: MIT learning. Educational Technology, 26(1), 1218.
press. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition:
Hawkins, S., Sheingold, K., Gearhart, M., & Berger, C. (1982). Microcom- Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
puters in schools: Impact on the social life of elementary classrooms. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1992a). Positive interdependence: Key
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 3, 361373. to effective cooperation. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Ed.),
Hill, G. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are N + 1 heads Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of
better than one? Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517539. group learning (pp. 174199). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-
Hooper, S. (1992a). Effects of peer interaction during computer-based sity Press.
mathematics instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 85(3), Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1992b). Positive interdependence: The
180189. heart of cooperative Learning. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1994). Leading the cooperative school learning environments (pp. 105128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
(2nd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book. baum.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1995). Creative controversy: Intellectual Lehtinen, E., Hamalainen, S., & Malkonen, E. (1998, April). Learning
challenge in the classroom (3rd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book. experimental research methodology and statistical inference in a
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1998a). Cooperation in the computer environement. Paper presented at the American Educa-
classroom (6th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book. tional Research Association Annual Meeting, San Diego.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1998b). Advanced cooper- Lepper, M., & Gurtner J. (1989). Children and computers: Approaching
ative learning (2nd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book. the twenty-first century. American Psychologist, 44(2), 170178.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Richards, P. (1986). A scale for assessing Lesgold, A., Weiner, A., & Suthers, D. (1995, August). Tools for thinking
student attitudes toward computers: Preliminary findings. Comput- about complex issues. Paper presented at the 6th European Con-
ers in the Schools, 3(2), 3138. ference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Nijmegen, The
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998). Active learning: Coop- Netherlands.
eration in the college classroom (2nd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Levin, J., & Kareev, Y. (1980). Problem-solving in everyday situations.
Book. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Stanne, M. (1989). Impact of goal and Cognition, 2, 4751.
resource interdependence on problem-solving success. Journal of Lew, M., Mesch, D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986a). Positive inter-
Social Psychology, 129(5), 621629. dependence, academic and collaborative-skills group contingencies
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Stanne, M., & Garibaldi, A. (1990). The and isolated students. American Educational Research Journal, 23,
impact of group processing on achievement in cooperative groups. 476488.
Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 507516. Lew, M., Mesch, D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986b). Components
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Richards, S., & Buckman, L. (1986). The of cooperative learning: Effects of collaborative skills and academic
effect of prolonged implementation of cooperative learning on social group contingencies on achievement and mainstreaming. Contem-
support within the classroom. Journal of Psychology, 119, 405411. porary Educational Psychology, 11, 229239.
Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. W. (1979). Type of task and student achieve- Lin, J., Wu, C., & Liu, H. (1999). Using SimCPU in cooperative learning
ment and attitudes in interpersonal cooperation, competition, and laboratories. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20(3),
individualization. Journal of Social Psychology, 116, 211219. 259277.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Ortiz, A., & Stanne, M. (1991). Impact of Love, W. (1969). Individual versus paired learning of an abstract alge-
positive goal and resouce interdependence on achievement, inter- bra presented by computer assisted instruction. Ph.D. Dissertation,
action, and attitudes. Journal of General Psychology, 118(4), 341 Florida State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
347. ED 034 403).
Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. (1985). Effects of cooperative, Malikowski, S. (1998). WEB-based conferencing for education. The
competitive, and individualistic goal structures on computer-assisted Center for Excellence in Education.
instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 668677. McConnell, D. (1994). Managing open learning in computer supported
Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. (1986). A comparison collaborative learning environments. Studies in Higher Education,
of computer-assisted cooperative, competitive, and individualis- 19(3), 175191.
tic learning. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 382 McDonald, C. (1993). Learner-controlled lesson in cooperative learn-
392. ing groups during computer-based instruction. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., Stanne, M., Smizak, B., & Avon, J. (1987). University of Minnesota.
Effect of composition pairs at the word processor on quality of McGuire, T., Kiesler, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer-
writing and ability to use the word processor. Minneapolis: Coop- mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. Journal of Per-
erative Learning Center, University of Minnesota. sonality and Social Psychology, 52, 917930.
Keeler, C., & Anson, R. (1995). An assessment of cooperative learning McInerey, V., McInerney, D., & Marsh, H. (1997). Effects of metacogni-
used for basic computer skills instruction in the college classroom. tive strategy training within a cooperative group learning context
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19(4), 379393. on computer achievement and anxiety: An aptitude-treatment inter-
Khalili, A., & Shashaani, L. (1994). The effectiveness of computer ap- action study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 686695.
plications: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Computing in McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man.
Education, 27(1), 4862. New York: New American Library.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. (1984, October). Social psychological Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychol- Mesch, D., Lew, M., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986). Isolated
ogist, 39(10), 11231134. teenagers, cooperative learning and the training of social skills. Jour-
King, A. (1989). Verbal interaction and problem solving within nal of Psychology, 120, 323334.
computer-assisted cooperative learning groups. Journal of Educa- Mesch, D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1988). Impact of positive in-
tional Computing Research, 5(1), 115. terdependence and academic group contingencies on achievement.
Lee, M. (1993). Gender, group composition, and peer interaction in Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 345352.
computer-based cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Com- Mevarech, Z. (1993). Who benefits from cooperative computer-assisted
puting Research, 9(4), 549577. instruction? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9(4),
Lehrer, R., & Smith, P. (1986, April). Logo learning: Are two heads better 451464.
than one? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Mevarech, Z., Stern, D., & Levita, I. (1987). To cooperate or not to coop-
Educational Research Association, San Francisco. erate in CAI: That is the question. Journal of Educational Research,
Lehtinen, E., & Repo, S. (1996). Activity, social interaction and reflective 80(3), 164167.
abstraction: Learning advanced mathematics in a computer environ- Mevarech, Z., Silber, O., & Fine, D. (1991). Learning with computers in
ment. In S. Vosniadou, E. DeCorte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), small groups: Cognitive and affective outcomes. Journal of Educa-
International perspectives on the design of technology supported tional Computing Research, 7(2), 233243.
Milheim, W., & Martin, B. (1991). Theoretical bases for the use of learner Larson, C. (1985). Training learning strategies with computer-aided
control: Three different perspectives. Journal of Computer-Based cooperative learning. Computers in Education, 9(1), 6771.
Instruction, 18(3), 99105. Rubin, A. (1983). The computer confronts language arts: Cans and
Mills, C., & Durden, W. (1992). Cooperative learning and ability groups: shoulds for education. In A. Wilkinson (Ed.), Classroom comput-
An issue of choice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(1), 1116. ers and cognitive science (pp. 201218). San Diego, CA: Academic
Muller, A., & Perlmutter, M. (1985). Preschool childrens problem- Press.
solving interactions at computers and jigsaw puzzles. Journal of Rysavy, D., & Sales, G. (1991). Cooperative learning in computer-based
Applied Developmental Psychology, 6, 173186. instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development,
Mulryan, C. (1992). Student passivity during cooperative small groups 39(2), 7079.
in mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 261 Salomon, G. (1983). The differential investment of mental effort in learn-
273. ing from different sources. Educational Psychologist, 18(1), 4250.
Murray, F. (1983). Cognitive benefits of teaching on the teacher. Pa- Salomon, G. (1985). Information technologies: What you see is not (al-
per presented at American Educational Research Association Annual ways) what you get. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 207216.
Meeting, Montreal, Quebec. Sarason, I., & Potter, E. (1983). Self-monitoring: Cognitive processes,
Nastasi, B., & Clements, D. (1992). Social-cognitive behaviors and and performance. Seattle: University of Washington, Research Re-
higher-order thinking in educational computer environments. port.
Learning and Instruction, 2, 215238. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLearn, R., Swallow, J., & Woodruff,
Nastasi, B., Clements, D., & Battista, M. (1990). Social-cognitive interac- D. (1989). Computer supported intentional learning environments.
tions, motivation, and cognitive growth in logo programming and Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 5168.
CAI problem-solving environments. Journal of Educational Psy- Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, K., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project:
chology, 82, 150158. Trying to bring the classroom into world 3. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Class-
Noell, J., & Carnine, D. (1989). Group and individual computer-based room lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice
video instruction. Educational Technology, 29(1), 3637. (pp. 201228). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.
Okey, J., & Majer, K. (1976). Individual and small-group learning with Sherman, L. (2000). Cooperative learning and computer-supported in-
computer-assisted instruction. AV Communication Review, 24(1), tentional learning experiences. In C. Wolfe (Ed.), Learning and
7986. teaching on the world wide web (pp. 113130). New York: Aca-
OMahony, S., & Barley, S. (1999). Do digital telecommunications affect demic Press.
work and organization? The state of our knowledge. Research on Shlechter, T. (1990). The relative instructional efficiency of small group
Organizational Behavior, 21, 125161. computer-based training. Journal of Educational Computing Re-
Pea, R., Edelson, E., & Gomez, L. (1994, April). The CoVis Collabora- search, 6, 329341.
tory: High school science learning supported by a broadband edu- Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of
cational network with scientific visualization, videoconferencing, telecommunications. London: Wiley.
and collaborative computing. Paper presented at the Annual Meet- Showers, C., & Cantor, N. (1985). Social cognition: A look at motivated
ing of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, strategies. In M. Rosenzweig & L. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of
LA. psychology, (Vol. 36, pp. 275306). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Perret-Clermont, A. (1980). Social interaction and cognitive develop- Siann, G., & MacLeod, G. (1986). Computers and children of primary
ment in children. New York: Academic Press. school age: Issues and questions. British Journal of Educational
Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. New York: Harcourt. Technology, 17, 133144.
Postman, N. (1985). Ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. (1986). Group pro-
show business. New York: Viking Penguin. cesses in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Be-
Postthast, M. (1995, April). Cooperative learning experiences in in- havior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157187.
troductory statistics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Simpson, J. (1986). Computers and collaborative work among students.
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Educational Technology, 26(10), 3744.
Putnam, J., Rynders, J., Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. W. (1989). Collabo- Simsek, A., & Hooper, S. (1992). The effects of cooperative versus in-
rative skills instruction for promoting positive interactions between dividual videodisc learning on student performance and attitudes.
mentally handicapped and nonhandicapped children. Exceptional International Journal of Instructional Media, 19(3), 209218.
Children, 55, 550557. Simsek, A., & Tsai, B. (1992). The impact of cooperative group com-
Reglin, G. (1990). The effects of individualized and cooperative composition on student performance and attitudes during interac-
puter assisted instruction on mathematics achievement and math- tive videodisc instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction,
ematics anxiety for prospective teachers. Journal of Research on 19(3), 8691.
Computing in Education, 22, 404412. Slavin, R. (1986). Using student team learning. Baltimore, MD: Center
Reigeluth, C., & Stein, F. (1983). The elaborative theory of instruction. for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University.
In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (pp. Slavin, R., Leavey, M., & Madden, N. (1982). Team-assisted individu-
335382). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. alization: Mathematics teachers manual. Baltimore: Center for
Repman, J. (1993). Collaborative, computer-based learning: Cognitive Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University.
and affective outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Re- Snow, R. (1980). Aptitude, learner control, and adaptive instruction.
search, 9(2), 149163. Educational Psychologist, 15, 151158.
Riel, M. (1990). Cooperative learning across classrooms in electronic Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Computers, networks and work. Scien-
learning circles. Instructional Science, 19, 445466. tific American, 65, 116123.
Robinson, A. (1990) Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against Steinberg, E. (1977). Review of student control in computer-assisted
cooperative learning for talented students. Journal of Education of instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 3(3), 8490.
the Gifted, 14(3), 927. Steinberg, E. (1984). Teaching computers to teach. Hillsdale, NJ:
Rocklin, T., ODonnell, A., Dansereau, D., Lambiotte, J., Hythecker, Va., & Lawrence Erlbaum.
Steinberg, E. (1989). Cognition and learner control: A literature review, Webb, N. (1984). Microcomputer learning in small groups: Cognitive re-
19771988. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16(4), 117 quirements and group processes. Journal of Educational Psychol-
124. ogy, 76, 10761088.
Stephenson, S. (1992). Effects of student-instructor interaction and Webb, N. (1987). Peer interaction and learning with computers in small
paired/individual study on achievement in computer-based training groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 3, 193209.
(CBT). Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(1), 2226. Webb, N. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. Inter-
Susman, E. (1998). Cooperative learning: A review of factors that in- national Journal of Educational Research, 13, 2139.
crease the effectiveness of cooperative computer-based instruction. Webb, N., Ender, P., & Lewis, S. (1986). Problem solving strategies and
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18(4), 303332. group processes in small group learning computer programming.
Suthers, D. (1998, January). Computer aided education and training American Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 243261.
initiative. Technical Report 12. Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., & Haythorn-
Swing, S., & Peterson, P. (1982). The relationship of student ability and waite, C. (1996). Computer networks as social networks: collabo-
small group interaction to student achievement. American Educa- rative work, telework, and virtual community. Annual Review of
tional Research Journal, 19, 259274. Sociology, 22, 213238.
Tennyson, R., Christensen, D., & Park, O. (1984). The Minnesota Adap- Whitelock, D., Scanlon, E., Taylor, J., & OShea, T. (1995). Computer
tive Instructional System: A review of its theory and research. Jour- support for pupils collaborating: A case study on collisions. In
nal of Computer-Based Instruction, 11(1), 213. J. Schnase & E. Cunnius (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 1995: The First
Trevino. L., Lengel, R., & Daft, R. (1987). Media symbolism, media rich- International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative
ness, and media choice in organizations: A symbolic interactionist Learning (pp. 380384). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
perspective. Communication Research, 14, 553574. Willis, S. (1990). Cooperative learning fallout. ASCD Update, 32(8), 6,
Tobias, S. (1987). Mandatory text review and interaction with stu- 8.
dent characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 154 Woolley, J. (1995). Childrens understanding of fictional versus episte-
161. mic mental representation: Imagination and belief. Child Develop-
Trowbridge, D., & Durnin, R. (1984). Results from an investigation of ment, 66(4), 10111021.
groups working at the computer. Washington, DC: National Science Yager, S., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1985). Oral discussion, group-to-
Foundation. individual transfer, and achievement in cooperative learning groups.
Turk, S., & Sarason, I. (1983). Test anxiety and causal attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 6066.
Seattle: University of Washington, Department of Psychology. Yager, S., Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., & Snider, B. (1986). The impact of
Underwood, G., & McCaffrey, M. (1990). Gender differences in a coop- group processing on achievement in cooperative learning groups.
erative computer-based language task. Educational Research, 32, Journal of Social Psynology, 126, 389397.
4449. Yeuh, J., & Alessi, S. (1988). The effects of reward structure and group
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- ability composition on cooperative computer-assisted instruction.
sity Press. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15, 1822.
Webb, N. (1982). Group composition, group interaction, and achieve- Zimmerman, B. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are
ment in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychol- the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11,
ogy, 74(4), 475484. 303313.
812

30 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

30 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

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. Johnson

dominant and thought may be linear (one thing follows an-

786 JOHNSON AND JOHNSON

Thus, the potential for individualized instruction may be lim-

30. Cooperation and Technology 787

Process Group Effectiveness School Or Class Service Projects

Teaching Teams Site-Based Decision Making Faculty Meetings

Academic Controversy Negotiating, Mediating Decision-Making Negotiating, Mediating

FIGURE 30.1. Cooperative learning.

788 JOHNSON AND JOHNSON

30. Cooperation and Technology 789

790 JOHNSON AND JOHNSON

English, 1987; Hawkins et al., 1982; Webb, Ender, & Lewis,

terde (1988) found that a combination of group and individual re-

wards resulted in increased peer teaching. Explaining and

Achieve nitively process and organize information, engage in higher-

level reasoning, attain insights, and become personally com-

Social Competence 3. Giving and receiving feedback on taskwork and teamwork

30. Cooperation and Technology 791

Since 1940, over 180 studies have compared the impact of

792 JOHNSON AND JOHNSON

30. Cooperation and Technology 793

Not all groups are cooperative (D. W. Johnson & F. Johnson,

794 JOHNSON AND JOHNSON

30.6.4 Promotive Interaction 30.6.5 Interpersonal and Small Group Skills

30. Cooperation and Technology 795

796 JOHNSON AND JOHNSON

30.8.2 Cooperation Through Computers

30. Cooperation and Technology 797

FIGURE 30.3. Outcomes of technology-supported cooperative learning.

Adding technology to a lesson inherently increases the les- 30.8.3 Achievement

798 JOHNSON AND JOHNSON

30. Cooperation and Technology 799

800 JOHNSON AND JOHNSON

30. Cooperation and Technology 801

802 JOHNSON AND JOHNSON

30. Cooperation and Technology 803

804 JOHNSON AND JOHNSON

30. Cooperation and Technology 805

806 JOHNSON AND JOHNSON

30. Cooperation and Technology 807

808 JOHNSON AND JOHNSON

30. Cooperation and Technology 809

810 JOHNSON AND JOHNSON

30. Cooperation and Technology 811

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen