Effects of orienting activities and practice on achievement, continuing motivation, and student behaviors in a cooperative learning environment

  • James D. Klein
  • Doris R. Pridemore


The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of orienting activities and type of practice on achievement, continuing motivation, and student behaviors in a cooperative learning environment. Eighty graduate education majors were assigned to cooperative groups and required to learn instructional design principles from three instructional television lessons. Each lesson included specific orienting activities (advance organizers or objectives) and different types of practice (verbal information or intellectual skills). Results indicated that subjects who worked in groups that received intellectual skills practice performed better on the application portion of the posttest than those who received verbal information practice. Knowledge acquisition and student behaviors were affected by a combination of type of practice and orienting activity. Groups that received intellectual skills practice discussed more content, gave more help to their fellow group members, and exhibited less individual behavior than groups that received verbal information practice. Groups given objectives discussed significantly more content than groups given advance organizers.


Educational Technology Design Principle Instructional Design Individual Behavior Knowledge Acquisition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, D., Carson, H., & Hamm., M. (1990).Cooperative learning and educational media. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R. (1980).Cognitive psychology and its implications. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  3. Andre, T. (1979). Does answering higher-level questions while reading facilitate productive learning?Review of Educational Research, 49, 280–318Google Scholar
  4. Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in learning and retention of meaningful information.Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 26.Google Scholar
  5. Ausubel, D. P. (1968).Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  6. Barnes, B. R., & Clawson, E. U. (1975). Do advance organizers facilitate learning?Review of Educational Research, 45, 637–659.Google Scholar
  7. Bertou, P. D., Clasen, R. E., & Lambert, P. (1972). An analysis of the relative efficacy of advance organizers, post organizers, interspersed questions and combinations thereof in facilitating learning and retention from a televised lecture.Journal of Educational Research, 15, 329–333.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Clark, R. E. (1984). Research on student thought processes during computer-based instruction.Journal of Instructional Development, 7(3), 2–5.Google Scholar
  10. Dalton, D. W., Hannafin, M. J., & Hooper, S. (1989). Effects of individual and cooperative computer-assisted instruction on student performance and attitude.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 15–24.Google Scholar
  11. Duchastel, P. C., & Brown, B. R. (1974). Incidental and relevant learning with instructional objectives.Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 481–485.Google Scholar
  12. Duchastel, P. C., & Merrill, P. F. (1973). The effects of behavioral objectives on learning: A review of empirical studies.Review of Educational Research, 43, 53–69.Google Scholar
  13. Gagné, R. M. (1985).The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  14. Gagné, R. M., & Driscoll, M. P. (1988).Essentials of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Gerlach, V. (1973).Instructional theory: A nine unit mini-course. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Educational Television Council for Higher Education.Google Scholar
  16. Gropper, G. L. (1983). A behavioral approach to instructional prescription. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Hamaker, C. (1986). The effects of adjunct questions on prose learning.Review of Educational Research, 56, 212–242.Google Scholar
  18. Hamilton, R. J. (1985). A framework for the evaluation of the effectiveness of adjunct questions and objectives.Review of Educational Research, 55, 47–85.Google Scholar
  19. Hannafin, M. J. (1985). Empirical issues in the study of computer-assisted interactive video. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 33, 235–247.Google Scholar
  20. Hannafin, M. J. (1987). The effects of orienting activities, cueing, and practice on learning of computer-based instruction.Journal of Educational Research, 81, 48–53.Google Scholar
  21. Hannafin, M. J., & Hughes, C. (1986). A framework for incorporating orienting activities in computer-based interactive video.Instructional Science, 15, 239–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hannafin, M. J., Phillips, T., Rieber, L., & Garhart, C. (1987). The effects of orienting activities and cognitive processing time on factual and inferential learning.Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 35, 75–84.Google Scholar
  23. Ho, C., Savenye, W., & Haas, N. (1986). The effects of orienting objectives and review on learning from interactive video.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 13, 126–129.Google Scholar
  24. Hooper, S., Temiyakarn, C., & Williams, M. D. (1993). The effects of cooperative learning and learner control on high- and average-ability students.Educational Technology, Research and Development, 41(4), 5–18.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989).Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. (1985). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on computer-assisted instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 668–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kinzie, M. B. (1990). Requirements and benefits of effective interactive instruction: Learner control, self-regulation, and continuing motivation. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 38(1), 5–21.Google Scholar
  28. Klein, J. D. (1994, February).Effects of instructional elements in a cooperative learning setting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
  29. Klein, J. D., & Pridemore, D. R. (1992). Effects of cooperative learning and the need for affiliation on performance, time on task, and satisfaction.Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40(4), 39–47.Google Scholar
  30. Klein, J. D., Erchul, J. A., & Pridemore, D. R. (1994). Effects of individual versus cooperative learning and type of reward on performance and continuing motivation.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maehr, M. L. (1976). Continuing motivation: An analysis of a seldom considered educational outcome.Review of Educational Research, 46, 443–462.Google Scholar
  32. Mayer, R. E. (1979). Can advance organizers influence meaningful learning?Review of Educational Research, 49, 371–383.Google Scholar
  33. Mayer, R. E. (1984). Aids to text comprehension.Educational Psychology, 19, 30–42.Google Scholar
  34. Melton, R. F. (1978). Resolution of conflicting claims concerning the effects of behavioral objectives on student learning.Review of Educational Research, 48, 291–302.Google Scholar
  35. Nugent, G. C., Tipton, T. J., & Brooks, D. W. (1980). Use of introductory organizers in television instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 445–451.Google Scholar
  36. Phillips, T. L., Hannafin, M. J., & Tripp, S. D. (1988). The effects of practice and orienting activities on learning from interactive video.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 36, 93–102.Google Scholar
  37. Rothkopf, E. Z. (1970). The concept of mathemagenic activities.Review of Educational Research, 40, 325–336.Google Scholar
  38. Salisbury, D. F, Richards, B. F., & Klein, J. D. (1985). Designing practice: A review of prescriptions and recommendations from instructional design theories.Journal of Instructional Development, 8(4), 9–19.Google Scholar
  39. Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations.Review of Educational Research, 50, 241–272.Google Scholar
  40. Slavin, R. E. (1990).Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  41. Slavin, R. E. (1991). Group rewards make groupwork work.Educational Leadership, 48(5), 89–91.Google Scholar
  42. Stevens, J. (1986).Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. Stone, C. L. (1983). A meta-analysis of advance organizer studies.Journal of Experimental Education, 5, 194–199.Google Scholar
  44. Travers, R. (1982).Essentials of learning: The new cognitive learning for students of education (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  45. Webb, N. M. (1982). Peer interaction and learning in small cooperative groups.Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 642–655.Google Scholar
  46. Webb, N. M. (1987). Peer interaction and learning with computers in small groups.Computers in Human Behavior, 3, 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© the Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • James D. Klein
    • 1
  • Doris R. Pridemore
    • 1
  1. 1.the Department of Learning and Instructional Technology at Arizona State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations