The effects of cued interaction and ability grouping during cooperative computer-based science instruction

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of verbal interaction cues and ability grouping within a cooperative learning computer-based program. We blocked 231 eighth graders in a required science class by ability and randomly assigned them to homogeneous lower-ability, homogeneous higher-ability, or heterogeneous mixed-ability dyads. Each dyad was randomly assigned to a computer program that either did or did not contain verbal interaction cues designed to facilitate summarizing and explaining between partners. Results indicated that students using the cued version of the program performed significantly better on the posttest than students using the noncued version. Direct observation of student interaction indicated that students in cued dyads exhibited significantly more summarizing and helping behaviors than noncued students. Furthermore, higher-ability dyads exhibited significantly less off-task behavior than the other dyads. Implications for designing computer-based instruction for cooperative settings are provided.

[1]  Donald F. Dansereau,et al.  Cognitive, social/affective, and metacognitive outcomes of scripted cooperative learning. , 1987 .

[2]  Donald F. Dansereau,et al.  Manipulating cooperative scripts for teaching and learning. , 1987 .

[3]  Henry Jay Becker,et al.  How Computers are Used in United States Schools: Basic Data from the 1989 I.E.A. Computers in Education Survey , 1991 .

[4]  Simon Hooper.  Effects of Peer Interaction during Computer-Based Mathematics Instruction. , 1992 .

[5]  Bethan Davies,et al.  To Cooperate Or Not to Cooperate - is That the Question? , 1995 .

[6]  Noreen M. Webb,et al.  Peer interaction and learning in cooperative small groups. , 1982 .

[7]  M. Cosden.  Cooperative Groups and Microcomputer Instruction: Combining Technologies , 1989 .

[8]  Simon Hooper,et al.  The effects of group composition on achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computer-based cooperative instruction , 1991 .

[9]  A. King.  Verbal Interaction and Problem-Solving within Computer-Assisted Cooperative Learning Groups , 1989 .

[10]  J. Keller.  Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design , 1987 .

[11]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Comparison Of Computer-Assisted Cooperative, Competitive, And Individualistic Learning , 1986 .

[12]  David W. Dalton,et al.  Effects of individual and cooperative computer-assisted instruction on student performance and attitudes , 1989 .

[13]  E. Cohen.  Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups , 1994 .

[14]  R. Gagne.  Conditions of Learning , 1965 .

[15]  Joseph R. Makuch,et al.  Effects of Individual versus Paired/Cooperative Computer-Assisted Instruction on the Effectiveness and Efficiency of an In-Service Training Lesson , 1992 .

[16]  David W. Johnson.  Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom , 1986 .

[17]  B. Fletcher,et al.  Group and Individual Learning of Junior School Children on a Microcomputer‐based Task: social or cognitive facilitation? , 1985 .

[18]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on computer-assisted instruction. , 1985 .

[19]  Gregory C. Sales,et al.  Pair versus individual work on the acquisition of concepts in a computer-based in structional lesson , 1987 .

[20]  Simon Hooper,et al.  Cooperative CBI: The Effects of Heterogeneous versus Homogeneous Grouping on the Learning of Progressively Complex Concepts , 1988 .

[21]  M. Maehr.  Continuing Motivation: An Analysis of a Seldom Considered Educational Outcome , 1976 .

[22]  Michael D. Williams,et al.  The effects of cooperative learning and learner control on high- and average-ability students , 1993 .

[23]  Donald F. Dansereau,et al.  Cooperative dyads: Impact on text learning and transfer , 1985 .

[24]  Robert J. Casey,et al.  Individualistic versus Paired/Cooperative Computer-Assisted Instruction: Matching Instructional Method with Cognitive Style , 1991 .

[25]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research , 1989 .

[26]  Angela M. O'Donnell,et al.  Amount and accuracy of information recalled by cooperative dyads: The effects of summary type and alternation of roles , 1987 .

[27]  David Trowbridge,et al.  Results from an Investigation of Groups Working at the Computer. , 1984 .

[28]  Stuart O. Yager,et al.  Oral Discussion, Group-to-individual Transfer, and Achievement in Cooperative Learning Groups , 1985 .

[29]  N. Webb.  Peer interaction and learning in small groups , 1989 .

[30]  Robert E. Slavin,et al.  Ability Grouping in the Middle Grades: Achievement Effects and Alternatives , 1993, The Elementary School Journal.

[31]  Zemira R. Mevarech,et al.  Learning with Computers in Small Groups: Cognitive and Affective Outcomes , 1991 .

[32]  N. Webb.  Group composition, group interaction, and achievement in cooperative small groups. , 1982 .

[33]  Shlomo Sharan,et al.  Small-group teaching , 1976 .