Embedding cooperative learning into the design of integrated learning systems: Rationale and guidelines

  • Thomas A. Brush


An Integrated Learning System (ILS) is an advanced computer-based instructional system, generally consisting of a set of computerized courseware covering several grade levels and content areas, and complex classroom management and reporting features. Although ILSs have become increasingly popular in schools over the past five to ten years, they introduce several potential factors that could have negative effects on students' academic and social growth. These factors include: (a) de-emphasis of affective outcomes and increased student isolation, (b) lack of teacher involvement in curriculum planning and delivery, and (c) disparate effects on student achievement based on students' academic level. One possible strategy for addressing these concerns is integrating cooperative learning with ILS instruction. This paper will examine the research dealing with integrating cooperative learning strategies and computer-based instruction and provide guidelines and strategies for designing ILS instruction that enhances opportunities for cooperative learning.


Educational Technology Grade Level Learning Strategy Student Achievement Cooperative Learning 
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. Alfrangis, C.M. (1989).A Critical Analysis of the Components of an Integrated Learning System and a Measure of the System's Effect on Mathematics and Reading. Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University.Google Scholar
  2. Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997).The Jigsaw Classroom. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Bailey, G.D. (1993). Wanted: A road map for understanding Integrated Learning Systems. In G.D. Bailey (Ed.),Computer-based Integrated Learning Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, H.J. (1992). Computer-based integrated-learning systems in the elementary and middle grades: A critical review and synthesis of evaluation reports.Journal of Educational Computer Research, 8, 1–41.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, H.J. (1992b). A model for improving the performance of integrated learning systems: Mixed individualized/group/whole class lessons, cooperative learning, and organizing time for teacher-led remediation of small groups.Educational Technology, 32(9), 6–15.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, H.J. (1994). Mindless or mindful use of integrated learning systems.International Journal of Educational Research, 21(1), 65–79.Google Scholar
  7. Becker, H.J., & Hativa, N. (1994). History, theory, and research concerning integrated learning systems.International Journal of Educational Research, 21(1), 5–12.Google Scholar
  8. Bender, P.V. (1991). The effectiveness of integrated computer learning systems in the elementary school.Contemporary Education, 63, 19–23.Google Scholar
  9. Beyer, F.S. (1993). The CAI/cooperative learning project: Third year evaluation report. ERIC Document Reproduction Service # ED374791.Google Scholar
  10. Brush, T.A. (1997). The effects on student achievement and attitudes when using Integrated Learning Systems with cooperative pairs.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brush, T.A. (1997b). The effects of group composition on achievement and time-on-task for students completing ILS activities in cooperative pairs.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(1), 2–17.Google Scholar
  12. Brush, T., & Bannon, S. (1998, April).The integration of technology into K-12 classrooms: A five-state comparison. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  13. Cardelle-Elawar, M., & Wetzel, K. (1995). Students and computers as partners in developing students' problem-solving skills.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27(4), 387–401.Google Scholar
  14. Clariana, R.B. (1994). The effects of an Integrated Learning System on student performance in mathematics and reading in one third-grade classroom.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 21(1), 12–15.Google Scholar
  15. Clariana, R.B. (1996). Differential achievement gains for mathematics computation, concepts, and applications with an Integrated Learning System.Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 15, 203–215.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, E.G., & Benton, J. (1988). Making groupwork work.American Educator, 12(3), 10–17, 45–46.Google Scholar
  17. Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In M. Jones (Ed.),Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dockterman, D. (1995). Interactive learning: It's pushing theright buttons.Educational Leadership, 53(2), 58–59.Google Scholar
  19. Garibaldi, A. (1979). Affective contributions of cooperative and group goal structures.Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 788–794.Google Scholar
  20. Hativa, N. (1994). What you design is not what you get (WYDINWYG): Cognitive, affective, and social impacts of learning with ILS - An integration of findings from six-years of qualitative and quantitative studies.International Journal of Educational Research, 21(1), 81–111.Google Scholar
  21. Hativa, N., & Becker, H.J. (1994). Integrated learning systems: Problems and potential benefits.International Journal of Educational Research, 21(1), 113–119.Google Scholar
  22. Hativa, N., Swissa, S., & Lesgold, A. (1992). Competition in individualized CAI.Instructional Science, 21, 393–428.Google Scholar
  23. Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Schachar, H. (1990). Teachers' verbal behavior in cooperative and whole-class instruction. In S. Sharan (Ed.),Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research. New York: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Holden, M.C., Holcolmb, C.M., & Wedman, J.F. (1992). Designing hypercard stacks for cooperative learning.The Computing Teacher, 19(5), 20–22.Google Scholar
  25. Hooper, S. (1992). Cooperative learning and computer-based instruction.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(3), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. (1991). The effects of group composition on achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computer-based cooperative instruction.Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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(2), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Janke, R. (1977, April).The Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT) method and the behavioral adjustment and academic achievement of emotionally impaired adolescents. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  29. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1983). The socialization and achievement crisis: Are cooperative learning experiences the solution? In L. Bickman (Ed.).Applied Social Psychology Annual. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1987).Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.),Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research. New York: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1991).Learning Together and Alone. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  33. Kagan, S. (1985). Learning to cooperate. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.),Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kerr, N.L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 819–828.Google Scholar
  35. Kerr, N.L., & Bruun, S.E. (1983). The dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Freerider effects.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 78–94.Google Scholar
  36. Lepper, M.R. (1985). Microcomputers in education: Motivational and social issues.American Psychologist, 40, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Litchfield, B.C. (1993, April).Design factors in multimedia environments: Research findings and implications for instructional design. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  38. Lloyd, J.W., Crowley, E.P., Kohler, F.W., & Strain, P.S. (1988). Redefining the applied research agenda: Cooperative learning, prereferral, teacher consultation, and peer-mediated interventions.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 43–52.Google Scholar
  39. Lookatch, R.P. (1996). Collaborative learning and multimedia: Are two heads still better than one?Tech-Trends, 41(4), 27–31.Google Scholar
  40. Maddux, C.D., & Willis, J.W. (1992). Integrated learning systems and their alternatives: Problems and cautions.Educational Technology, 32(9), 51–57.Google Scholar
  41. Mesch, D., Lew, M., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1986). Isolated teenagers, cooperative learning, and the training of social skills.The Journal of Psychology, 120, 323–334.Google Scholar
  42. Mevarech, Z.R. (1994). The effectiveness of individualized versus cooperative computer-based integrated learning systems.International Journal of Educational Research, 21(1), 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Mills, S.C. (1994). Integrated learning systems: New technology for classrooms of the future.TechTrends, 39(1), 27–28, 31.Google Scholar
  45. Nastasi, B.K., & Clements, D.H. (1991). Research on cooperative learning: Implications for practice.School Psychology Review, 20, 110–131.Google Scholar
  46. Neal, J.S. (1994). The interpersonal computer.Science Scope, 17(4), 24–27.Google Scholar
  47. Neuwirth, C.M., & Wojahn, P.G. (1996). Learning to write: Computer support for a cooperative process. In T. Koschmann (Ed.).CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  48. Osin, L., Nesher, P., & Ram, J. (1994). Do the rich become richer and the poor poorer: A longitudinal analysis of pupil achievement and progress in elementary schools using computer-assisted instruction.International Journal of Educational Research, 21(1), 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Robinson, S. (1991). Integrated learning systems: From teacher-proof to teacher empowering.Contemporary Education, 63, 15–18.Google Scholar
  50. Roblyer, M.D., Edwards, J., & Havriluk, M.A. (1997).Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
  51. Rysavy, S., & Sales, G.C. (1991). Cooperative learning in computer-based instruction.Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(2), 70–79.Google Scholar
  52. Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1992).Expanding cooperative learning through group investigation. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  53. Sherman, G.P., & Klein, J.D. (1995). The effects of cued interaction and ability grouping during cooperative computer-based science instruction.Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(4), 5–24.Google Scholar
  54. Sherry, M. (1990). Implementing an integrated instructional system: Critical issues.Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 118–120.Google Scholar
  55. Shockley, H.A. (1992). Turnkey or turnkey? Integrating an integrated learning system.Educational Technology, 32(9), 22–25.Google Scholar
  56. Simsek, A., & Hooper, S. (1992). The effects of cooperative versus individual videodisc learning on student performance and attitudes.International Journal of Instructional Media, 19, 209–218.Google Scholar
  57. Siowck-Lee, G. (1994, June).Developing and using courseware for cooperative learning activities in the classroom. Paper presented at the Asia Pacific Information Technology in Teaching and Education Conference, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  58. Slavin, R.E. (1983).Cooperative Learning. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  59. Slavin, R.E. (1985). Team-assisted individualization: Combining cooperative learning and individualized instruction in mathematics. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds),Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  60. Slavin, R.E. (1986).Using Student Team Learning (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  61. Slavin, R.E. (1987). Cooperative learning and the cooperative school.Educational Leadership, 45(3), 7–13.Google Scholar
  62. Slavin, R.E. (1990). Learning together.The American School Board Journal, 177(8), 22–23.Google Scholar
  63. Slavin, R.E. (1991). Are cooperative learning and “untracking” harmful to the gifted? A response to Allan.Educational Leadership, 48(6), 68–71.Google Scholar
  64. Slavin, R.E. (1993, April).Cooperative learning and achievement: An empirically-based theory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  65. Slavin, R.E. (1995).Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  66. Slavin, R.E., Leavey, M.B., & Madden, N.A. (1986).Team Accelerated Instruction: Mathematics. Watertown, MA: Charlesbridge.Google Scholar
  67. Tateyama-Sniezek, K.M. (1990). Cooperative learning: Does it improve the academic achievement of students with handicaps?Exceptional Children, 56, 426–437.Google Scholar
  68. Tom Snyder Productions. (1996).The Great Ocean Rescue. [Computer Program]. Watertown, MA: Author.Google Scholar
  69. Van Dusen, L.M., & Worthen, B.R. (1994). The impact of integrated learning system implementation on student outcomes: Implications for research and evaluation.International Journal of Educational Research, 21(1), 13–37.Google Scholar
  70. West, R.C., & Marcotte, D.R. (1993–94). The effects of an integrated learning system (ILS) using incremental time allotments on ninth grade algebra achievement.Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 22, 283–294.Google Scholar
  71. White, M.A. (1992). Are ILSs good education?Educational Technology, 32(9), 49–50.Google Scholar
  72. Wiburg, K. (1995). Integrated learning systems: What does the research say?The Computing Teacher, 22(5), 7–10.Google Scholar
  73. Worthen, B.R., Van Dusen, L.M., & Sailor, P.J. (1994). A comparative study of the impact of integrated learning systems on students' time-on-task.International Journal of Educational Research, 21(1), 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Yager, S., Johnson, R.T., & Johnson, D.W. (1985). Oral discussion, group-to-individual transfer, and achievement in cooperative learning groups.Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 60–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yager, S., Johnson, R.T., Johnson, D.W., & Snider, B. (1985). The effect of cooperative and individualistic learning experiences on positive and negative cross-handicap relationships.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yeuh, J., & Alessi, S.M. (1988). The effects of reward structure and group ability composition on cooperative computer-based instruction.Journal of Computer Based Instruction, 15, 18–22.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© the Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas A. Brush

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations