Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of cooperative learning and learner control on high- and average-ability students

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

Abstract

The effects of studying alone or in cooperative learning groups on high- and average-ability students were investigated. Also examined were the effects of completing computer-based instruction using either a learner- or program-control version of a lesson. A total of 175 fourth-grade students were classified as being of high or average ability and randomly assigned to paired or individual treatments stratified by ability. Students completed training to enhance small-group interaction before completing a computer-based tutorial and a posttest. Following cooperative learning, students demonstrated increased achievement and efficiency as well as better attitudes toward both the computer lesson and grouping. Students completed more practice items and examples in program-control treatments than in learner-control treatments. However, the form of lesson control did not affect students' achievement or attitudes.

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 

  • Bandura, A. (1977).Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. J. (1986). Our national report card: Preliminary results from the new John Hopkins' study.Classroom Computer Learning, 6(4), 30–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bray, J. H., & Maxwell, S. E. (1985).Multivariate analysis of variance. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, C. A. (1984). Do learners make good choices? A review of research on learner control in instruction.Instructional Innovator, 29(2), 15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, C. A., & Jonassen, D. H. (1988). Adapting courseware to accommodate individual differences. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),Instructional designs for instructional courseware (pp. 203–226). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, C. A., & Sales, G. (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 

  • Carrier, C. A., & Williams, M. D. (1988). A test of one learner-control strategy with students of differing levels of task persistence.American Educational Research Journal, 25, 285–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1991, April).Classroom management and complex instruction. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

  • Dalton, D. W., Hannafin, M. J., & Hooper, S. (1989). The effects of individual versus cooperative computer-assisted instruction on student performance and attitudes.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federico, P.-A. (1980). Adaptive instruction: Trends and issues. In R. E. Snow, P.-A. Federico, & W. E. Montague (Eds.),Aptitude, learning, and instruction: Vol. 1, Cognitive process analysis of aptitude (pp. 1–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garhart, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (1986). The accuracy of cognitive monitoring during computer-based instruction.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 13, 88–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J. (1984). Guidelines for using locus of instructional control in the design of computer-assisted instruction.Journal of Instructional Development, 7(3), 6–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J., & Rieber, L. P. (1989). Psychological foundations of instructional design for emerging computer-based interactive technologies: Part II.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 102–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansell, S., & Slavin, R. E. (1981). Cooperative learning and the structure of interracial friendships.Sociology of Education, 54, 98–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hativa, N. (1988). Computer-based drill and practice in arithmetic: Widening the gap between high- and low-achieving students.American Educational Research Journal, 25, 366–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, G. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are N + 1 heads better than one?Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, S. (1992a). Cooperative learning and computer-based instruction.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(3), 21–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, S. (1992b). The effects of peer instruction on learning during computer-based mathematics instruction.Journal of Educational Research, 85, 180–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, S., Ward, T. W., Hannafin, M. J., & Clark, H. T. (1989). Factors influencing small group learning in a college age population.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16, 102–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981). Effects of cooperative and individualistic learning experiences on interethnic interaction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 444–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1986).Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989).Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Minneapolis: Interaction Book Co.

    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 

  • 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), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurillard, D. M. (1987). Computers and the emancipation of students: Giving control to the learner.Instructional Science, 16(1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968).Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mevarech, Z. R., Silber, O., & Fine, D. (1991). Learning with computers in small groups: Cognitive and affective outcomes.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7, 233–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milheim, W. D., & Martin, B. L. (1991). Theoretical bases for the use of learner control: Three different perspectives.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18(3), 99–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C. J., & Durden, W. G. (1992). Cooperative learning and ability grouping: An issue of choice.Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(1), 11–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulryan, C. M. (1992). Student passivity during cooperative small groups in mathematics.Journal of Educational Research, 85, 261–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Stein, F. S. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories anad models (pp. 335–382). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, A. (1990). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for talented students.Journal of Education of the Gifted, 14(3), 9–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (1988). Adapting instruction to learner performance and background variables. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),Instructional designs for instructional courseware (pp. 227–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1983). The differential investment of mental effort in learning from different sources.Educational Psychologist, 18(1), 42–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1985). Information technologies: What you see is not (always) what you get.Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 207–216.

    Article  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 

  • Shlechter, T. M. (1990). The relative instructional efficiency of small group computer-based training.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6, 329–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, R. N. (1978). Motor skills and learner strategies. In H. F. O'Neil, Jr. (Ed.),Learning strategies. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1983).Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1990). Point-counterpoint: Ability grouping, cooperative learning and the gifted.Journal for the Educational of the Gifted, 14(3), 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1979). School practices that improve race relations.American Educational Research Journal, 16, 169–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, R. E. (1980). Aptitude, learner control, and adaptive instruction.Educational Psychologist, 15, 151–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spurlin, J. E., Dansereau, D. F., Larson, C. O., & Brooks, L. W. (1984). Cooperative learning strategies in processing descriptive text: Effects of role and activity level of the learner.Cognition and Instruction, 1, 451–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, E. R. (1977). Review of student control in computer-assisted instruction.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 3(3), 84–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, E. R. (1984).Teaching computers to teach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, E. R. (1989). Cognition and learner control: A literature review, 1977–1988.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16(4), 117–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, R. E. (1991). Equity and computers in the schools: A decade of research.Review of Educational Research, 61, 475–503.

    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 

  • Tennyson, R. D., Christensen, D. L., & Park, O.-C. (1984). The Minnesota Adaptive Instructional System: A review of its theory and research.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 11(1), 2–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennyson, R. D., & Park, O. C. (1987). Artificial intelligence and computer-based learning. In R. M. Gagné (Ed.),Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 319–342). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S. (1987). Mandatory text review and interaction with student characteristics.Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 154–161.

    Article  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 small cooperative groups.Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 642–655.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1982c). Student interaction and learning in small groups.Review of Educational Research, 52, 421–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups.International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, S. (1990). Cooperative learning fallout.ASCD Update, 32(8), 6, 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yager, S., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Snider, B. (1986). The impact of group processing on achievement in cooperative learning groups.Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 389–397.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. the College of Education, the University of Minnesota, USA

    Simon Hooper, Chanchai Temiyakarn & Michael D. Williams

Authors
  1. Simon Hooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chanchai Temiyakarn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael D. Williams
    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

Hooper, S., Temiyakarn, C. & Williams, M.D. The effects of cooperative learning and learner control on high- and average-ability students. ETR&D 41, 5–18 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02297309

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02297309

Keywords

Search

Navigation