Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of two different cooperative approaches on students’ learning and practices within the context of a WebQuest science investigation

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

Abstract

The goal of this study was to investigate the effect of two different cooperative learning approaches, namely, the Jigsaw Cooperative Approach (JCA) and the Traditional Cooperative Approach (TCA), on students’ learning and practices/actions within the context of a WebQuest science investigation. Another goal of this study was to identify possible problems that students face within the context of a WebQuest when following either approach and to provide suggestions for developing web-based learning tools that enable students to overcome these problems. The sample of the study consisted of 38 seventh-graders, who, according to their science teachers, had prior experience with TCA and JCA. All participants studied about the ecology, architecture, energy and insulation of CO2-friendly houses through the use of a WebQuest science investigation. The data collection involved conceptual tests, screen–video captured data and interviews. Results revealed no differences between the two approaches, in terms of enhancing students’ understanding of concepts related to CO2-friendly houses, because of (a) JCA students’ inability to apply one of the JCA components, namely, teaching one another about learning material they solely studied, and (b) the fact that the JCA students started applying the TCA after failing teaching one another in the context of JCA. Finally, a number of problems that students faced within the context of a WebQuest science investigation when following the JCA or TCA were identified.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Chambers, B., Poulsen, C., & Spence, J. (2000). Why should we group students within-class for learning? Educational Research and Evaluation, 6(2), 158–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acar, B., & Tarhan, L. (2008). Effects of cooperative learning on students’ understanding of metallic bonding. Research in Science Education, 38, 401–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, E. (2002). Building empathy, compassion, and achievement in the jigsaw classroom. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement (pp. 209–225). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, G., Silkes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K., & Cole, M. (2000). Socially-shared cognition: System design and the organization of collaborative research. In D. H. Jonasssen & S. L. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 197–214). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colosi, J. C., & Zales, C. R. (1998). Jigsaw cooperative learning improves biology lab course. BioScience, 48(2), 118–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constantiono-Gonzalez, M. D. L. A., Suthers, D. D., & Santos, J. G. E. D. L. (2003). Coaching web-based collaborative learning based on problem based solution differences and participation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 13, 156–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, L., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Wilderson, F. (1980). The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic experiences of interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous peers. Journal of Social Psychology, 111(2), 243–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 63–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deJong, T. (2006). Scaffolds for computer simulation based scientific discovery learning. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Dealing with complexity in learning environments (pp. 107–128). London: Elsevier Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • deJong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • deJong, T., van Joolingen, W. R., Giemza, A., Girault, I., Hoppe, U., Kindermann, J., Kluge, A. W., Lazonder, A. W., Vold, V., Weinberger, A., Weinbrenner, S., Wichmann, A., Anjewierden, A., Bodin, M., Bollen, L. d´Ham, C., Dolonen, J., Engler, J., Geraedts, C., Grosskreutz, H., Hovardas, T., Julien, R., Lechner, J., Ludvigsen, S., Matteman, Y., Meistadt, Ø., Næss, B., Ney, M., Pedaste, M., Perritano, A., Rinket, M., von Schlanbusch, H., Sarapuu, T., Schulz, F., Sikken, J., Slotta, J., Toussaint, J., Verkade, A., Wajeman, C., Wasson, B., Zacharia, Z. C., & van der Zanden, M. (2010). Learning by creating and exchanging objects: The SCY experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 909–921.

  • Dodge, B. (1995). Some thoughts about WebQuests. The WebQuest page. Retrieved October 19, 2009, from http://webquest.sdsu.edu/about_webquests.html.

  • Doymus, K. (2007). The effect of a cooperative learning strategy in the teaching of phase and one component phase diagrams. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(11), 1857–1860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doymus, K. (2008). Teaching chemical equilibrium with the jigsaw technique. Research in Science Education, 38, 249–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doymus, K., Karacop, A., & Simsek, U. (2010). Effects of jigsaw and animation techniques on students’ understanding of concepts and subjects in electrochemistry. Education Technology, Research & Development. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9157-2.

  • Druin, A., Bederson, B., Boltman, A., Miura, A., Knotts-Callahn, D., & Plat, M. (1999). Children as our technology design partners. In A. Druin (Ed.), The design of children’s technology (pp. 44–60). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erlandson, B. E., Nelson, B. C., & Savenye, W. C. (2010). Collaboration modality, cognitive load, and science inquiry learning in virtual inquiry environments. Education Technology, Research & Development. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9152-7.

  • Grasha, A. F., & Yangarber-Hicks, N. (2000). Integrating teaching styles and learning styles with instructional technology. College Teaching, 48(1), 2–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanze, M., & Berger, R. (2007). Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student characteristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learning and Instruction, 17(1), 29–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedeen, T. (2003). The reverse jigsaw: A process of cooperative learning and discussion. Teaching Sociology, 31(3), 325–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holliday, D. C. (1995). Jigsaw IV: Using student/teacher concerns to improve Jigsaw III. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED495687). Retrieved from ERIC database.

  • Johnson, D. W. (1971). Effectiveness of role reversal: Actor or listener. Psychological Reports, 28, 275–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 1017–1044). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38, 67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2004). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 785–811). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 30(4), 26–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Mindtools for schools. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Kwon, H. I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer-mediated vs. face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(1), 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. K. (2007). Examining the effect of problem type in a synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55, 439–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A. (2001). Using integrated electronic environments for collaborative teaching/learning. Learning and Instruction, 10(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Martens, R. L., & Strijbos, J. W. (2004a). CSCL in higher education? A framework for designing multiple collaborative environments. In J. W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner, & R. L. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL and implementing it in higher education (pp. 3–30). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004b). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 52(3), 47–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarowitz, R., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Baird, J. H. (1994). Learning science in a cooperative setting: Academic achievement and affective outcomes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 1121–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leader, L. F., & Klein, J. D. (1996). The effects of search tool type and cognitive style on performance during hypermedia database searches. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 44, 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lou, Y., Abrami, P. S., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 449–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lou, Y., Abrami, P. S., & Spence, J. C. (2000). Effects of within-class grouping on student achievement: An exploratory model. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(2), 101–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, J. A., & Young, E. S. (2006). Preservice teachers’ theory development in physical and simulated environment. Journal of Research in Science Education, 43(9), 907–937.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2001). Investigating processes of social knowledge construction in online environments. In C. Montgomerie & J. Viteli (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2001 (pp. 1287–1292). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mergendoller, J., & Packer, M. J. (1989). Cooperative learning in the classroom: A knowledge brief on effective teaching. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2009). Constructing knowledge with an agent-based instructional program: A comparison of cooperative and individual meaning making. Learning and Instruction, 19, 433–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz, J. M., Malvin, J. H., Schaeffer, G. A., & Schaps, E. (1985). Evaluation of jigsaw, a cooperative learning technique. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10(2), 104–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson-LeGall, S. (1992). Children’s instrumental help-seeking. It’s role in the social acquisition and construction of knowledge. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz (Ed.), Interaction in cooperative groups: Theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120–141). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, A. M., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analysing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (Eds.). (2005). Educating the net generation. Washington, DC: Educause. http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen.

  • Pea, R. (1994). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 285–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 423–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polys, N. F., & Bowman, D. A. (2004). Design and display of enhancing information in desktop information-rich virtual environments: Challenges and techniques. Virtual Reality, 8, 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 65–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohrbeck, C. A., Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Miller, T. R. (2003). Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 240–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., Perkins, D., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Teaching mathematical thinking and problem solving. In L. B. Resnick & B. L. Klopfer (Eds.), Towards the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp. 83–103). Washington, DC: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharan, S. (1994). Handbook of cooperative learning methods. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94(3), 429–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1986). Using student team learning (p. 109). Washington, DC: Professional Library National Education Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1991). Cooperative learning and group contingencies. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1(1), 105–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1992). When and why does cooperative learning increase achievement? Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups (pp. 145–173). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research for the future: Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E., Hurley, E. A., & Chamberlain, A. (2003). Cooperative learning and achievement: Theory and research. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 177–198). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souvignier, E., & Kronenberger, J. (2007). Cooperative learning in third graders’ jigsaw groups for mathematics and science with and without questioning training. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 755–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, R. (1994). Cooperative learning in social studies: A handbook for teachers. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swaak, J., van Joolingen, W. R., & deJong, T. (1998). Supporting simulation-based learning: The effects of model progression and assignments on definitional and intuitive knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 8, 235–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 305–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Joolingen, W. R., deJong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Savelsbergh, E. R., & Manlove, S. (2005). Colab: Research and development of an online learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 671–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Joolingen, W. R., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2009). Developments in inquiry learning. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. deJong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 21–37). The Netherlands: Springer Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Veermans, K., van Joolingen, W., & deJong, T. (2006). Use of heuristics to facilitate scientific discovery learning in a simulation learning environment in a physics domain. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 341–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wecker, C., Kohnle, C., & Fischer, F. (2007). Computer literacy and inquiry learning: When geeks learn less. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 133–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was conducted in the context of the research project Science Created by You (SCY), which is funded by the European Community under the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) theme of the 7th Framework Programme for R&D (Grant agreement no.: 212814). The comments and suggestions of Dr Ard Lazonder in preparing this manuscript are especially appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning in Science Group, Department of Educational Sciences, University of Cyprus, P.O. Box 20537, 1678, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Zacharias C. Zacharia, Nikoletta A. Xenofontos & Constantinos C. Manoli

Authors
  1. Zacharias C. Zacharia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nikoletta A. Xenofontos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Constantinos C. Manoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zacharias C. Zacharia.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Sample of questions of the conceptual test:

Item 4

  1. A.

    The thermal insulation of a house could be achieved by thermally insulating:

    1. a.

      The walls of the house

    2. b.

      The windows of the house

    3. c.

      The roof of the house

    4. d.

      The floor of the house

    5. e.

      All the above

  2. B.

    Explain your reasoning.

Item 6 (The students can select more than one answer)

  1. A.

    For a bioclimatic architecture design for a house in Cyprus we should consider:

    1. a.

      The thermal insulation of the house

    2. b.

      The shading of the house

    3. c.

      The earthquake insulation of the house

    4. d.

      The orientation of the house

  2. B.

    Explain your reasoning.

Appendix 2

Sample of interview questions of Part 3:

Item 1

Have you faced any problems when working on your WebQuest investigation? If yes, which are these problems?

Item 2

Have you faced any problems that concerned the WebQuest material? If yes, which are these problems? (For each problem the students mentioned, they were asked to provide details.)

Item 3

Have you faced any problems that concerned the platform tools? If yes, which are these problems? (For each problem the students mentioned, they were asked to provide details.)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zacharia, Z.C., Xenofontos, N.A. & Manoli, C.C. The effect of two different cooperative approaches on students’ learning and practices within the context of a WebQuest science investigation. Education Tech Research Dev 59, 399–424 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9181-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9181-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation