Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of individual and cooperative computer-assisted instruction on student performance and attitudes

  • Research
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, the performance and attitudes toward instruction of learners working individually on a computer-based sex education lesson were compared with those of learners working cooperatively in dyads. A tatal of 60 eighth-graders received treatments that either required individual work or encouraged cooperation with a partner. Results indicated that students who worked cooperatively significantly outperformed those who worked individually. On an attitude measure, interactions were detected between instructional method and gender, as well as among instructional method, gender, and ability. High-ability males and females reported comparable attitudes toward each instructional method, but ratings for low-ability students were differentiated according to instructional method: Low-ability males responded most favorably, while low-ability females responded least favorably to individualized methods, and low-ability females responded most favorably and low-ability males least favorably to cooperative methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aronson, E. (1978).The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement, F. (1981). Affective considerations in computer-based education.Educational Technology, 21(4), 28–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, D. A., & Berger, C. F. (1985). The importance of group size in the use of problem-solving skills on a microcomputer.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1, 459–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D. W., & Hannafin, M. J. (1985). Examining the effects of varied computer-based reinforcement on self esteem and attitudes.Association for Educational Data Systems Journal, 18, 172–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, W. P., & Vereen, M. A. (1983). Two students at one computer.Theory Into Practice, 22, 296–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durnin, R. G. (1985).Computer-based education: A study of student interaction and achievement in small group and individual settings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School.

  • Hannafin, M. J., Dalton, D. W., & Hooper S. (1987). Computers in education: 10 myths and 10 needs.Educational Technology, 27(10), 8–14.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1978). Social interdependence in the classroom: Cooperation, competition, individualism.Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12(1).

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). The internal dynamics of cooperative learning groups. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. H. Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.),Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1986). Computer-assisted cooperative learning.Educational Technology, 26, 12–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Maruyama, G. (1983). Interdependence and interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theoretical foundation and a meta-analysis of the research.Review of Educational Research, 53, 5–54.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. B. (1986). Comparison of computer-assisted cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning.American Educational Research Journal, 23, 382–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. (1982). Aptitude vs. content treatment interactions: Implications for instructional design.Journal of Instructional Development, 5(4), 15–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, J., Bangert, R., & Williams, G. (1983). Effects of computer-based teaching on secondary school students.Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, C., Kulik, J., & Bangert-Drowns, R. (1985). The importance of outcomes: A reply to Clark.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4(2), 381–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipinski, J. M., Nida, R. E., Shade, D. D., & Watson, J. A. (1986). The effects of microcomputers on young children: An examination of free-play choices, sex differences and social interaction.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(2), 147–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menis, Y., Snyder, M., & Ben-Kohav, E. (1980). Improving achievement in algebra by means of the computer.Educational Technology, 20(8), 19–22.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz, J. M., Malvin, J. H., Schaeffer, G. A., & Schaps, E. (1983). Evaluation of a cooperative learning strategy.American Educational Research Journal, 20, 687–696.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijhof, W., & Kommers, P. (1985). An analysis of cooperation in relation to cognitive controversy. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. H. Lazarowitz, C. Webb, and R. Schmuck (Eds.),Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, P. L., & Janicki, T. (1979). Individual characteristics and children's learning in large group and small group approaches.Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 453–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, P. L., Janicki, T., & Swing, S. R. (1981). Ability × treatment interaction effects on children's learning in large group and small group approaches.American Educational Research Journal, 18, 453–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations.Review of Educational Research, 50, 241–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharan, S., Ackerman, Z., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1980). Academic achievement of elementary education school children in small groups.Journal of Experimental Education, 48, 125–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverstein, M. A. (1985). Social interaction analysis of elementary school students and a videodisc system in an educational environment: A progress report. In M. Simonson & M. Treimer (Eds.),Proceedings of Selected Research Paper Presentations, Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communication and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning.Review of Educational Research, 50, 315–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement?Psychological Bulletin, 94, 429–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1984). Students motivating students to excel: Cooperative incentive tasks and student achievement.The Elementary School Journal, 85(1), 53–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1987). Mastery learning reconsidered.Review of Educational Research, 57, 175–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E., & Karweit, N. (1981). Cognitive and affective outcomes of an intensive student team learning experience.Journal of Experimental Education, 50, 29–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E., & Karweit, N. (1984). Mastery learning and student teams: A factorial experiment in urban general mathematics classes.American Educational Research Journal, 22, 351–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swing, S. R., & Peterson, P. L. (1982). The relationship of student ability and small group interaction to student achievement.American Educational Research Journal, 19, 259–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmage, H., Pascarella, E. T., & Ford, S. (1984). The influence of cooperative learning strategies on teacher practices, student perceptions of the learning environment, and academic achievement.American Educational Research Journal, 21, 163–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vereen, M. A. (1983).Microcomputer experience and student interaction in small groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin.

  • Webb, N. M. (1980). A process-outcome analysis of learning in group and individual settings.Educational Psychologist, 15, 69–83.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1982b). Peer interaction and learning in cooperative small groups.Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 642–655.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1984). Microcomputer learning in small groups: Cognitive requirements and group processes.Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1076–1088.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1985a). Student interaction and learning in small groups. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. H. Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.),Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1985b). Cognitive requirements of learning computer programming in group and individual settings.Association for Educational Data Systems Journal, 18(3), 183–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1985c). The role of gender in computer programming learning processes.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1(4), 441–457.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. the Center for Educational Technology, Learning Systems Institute, Florida State University, 32306, Tallahassee, FL

    David W. Dalton

  2. the Center for Research and Development in Education Computing, USA

    Michael J. Hannafin

  3. the Instruction Support Center at The Pennsylvania State University, 16802, University Park, PA

    Simon Hooper

Authors
  1. David W. Dalton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Hannafin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simon Hooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dalton, D.W., Hannafin, M.J. & Hooper, S. Effects of individual and cooperative computer-assisted instruction on student performance and attitudes. ETR&D 37, 15–24 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298287

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298287

Keywords

Search

Navigation