embedding cooperative learning into the design of integrated learning systems: rationale and...

Embedding Cooperative Learning into the Design of Integrated Learning Systems: Rationale and Guidelines

[] Thomas A. Brush

An Integrated Learning Systera (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.

[] 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, complex classroom management and reporting features, and supplementary materials (workbooks, audiotapes, manipula- rives) to be used by students when they are not engaged in the computer-based activities (Bec- ker & Hativa, 1994; Mills, 1994; Robinson, 1991; Wiburg, 1995). The ILS software is usually stored on a central file server and distributed to lab- or classroom-based workstations via the school'6 local area network (Roblyer, Edwards, & Havriluk, 1997; Sherry, 1990).

The design of most current TLSs is based on the theory that learning is best facilitated not by providing opportunities for social interaction and dialogue among learners, but by meeting the unique needs of each individual (Becker, 1992b; Hativa, 1994; Mevarech, 1994). Thus, ILSs are designed primarily to be used by students individually so that learners can receive instruction, feedback, and remediation that is tailored to individual levels optimal for learning. This approach perpetuates a design that includes components for determining student entry skills, placing students at a level of instruction consistent with their entry skills, providing opportunities to practice skills with immediate and appropriate feedback, and testing for mastery and providing remediation if needed (Bec- ker, 1992b).

For example, a typical ILS curriculum sequence begins by administering an individual placement test to each student in order to determine academic entry level. Once this is determined, the ILS places each student at the

ETR&D. Vol. 46. No. 3. 1998, pp. 5.-18 ISSN 1042-1629

6 ETR&D. Vo146. No 3

beginning of an instructional unit consistent with the appropriate level. This unit is divided into several sections or lessons comprised of interactive information presentation and practice activities. If the student is having difficulty with some of the content within a particular lesson, the ILS branches the student to additional remediation activities. Once the student has completed the sequence of lessons for the unit, a more extensive test is administered in order to provide both the student and the teacher with information regarding the student's mastery of the concepts included in the unit. Many systems also administer a comprehensive achievement test at the end of an entire curriculum sequence (e.g., the fifth-grade math sequence) in order to provide schools with data regarding students' academic growth throughout the year. Figure 1 illustrates a typical ILS design sequence.

ILS POTENTIAL AND PROBLEMS

The ILS has become increasingly popular with K-12 schools over the past five to ten years. Esti- mates are that between 11% and 25% of schools in the United States currently own ILSs (Brush & Bannon, 1998; Clariana, 1996; White, 1992), and that ILSs account for nearly 50% of total educational software purchases (Bailey, 1993). There are two explanations for the prevalence of these systems. First and foremost, school leaders believe ILSs are effective in raising standardized tests scores, particularly with older students and students who have difficulty learning from traditional classroom-based methods (i.e., low and high achievers). Several research studies have concluded that ILSs have a positive impact on academic achievement (Alfrangis, 1989; Bender, 1991; Clariana, 1994, 1996; Hativa, 1994; Van

F igure 1 [ ] Typ ica l ILS des ign sequence .

Courseware Sequence

Unit I ~ Unit 2

Louon 1

Lesson 2

Lesson 1 ..... LEmon 1 :' . o~ . . . . . . . . . . .

'." I..elNl~l 2 -."

, . . : . . ! . . . . . . ~

.. ~o .

:~" Unit ". : ' Test ; . . . .

- . . . . , ,,-

Test

COOPERATIVE LEARNING ILS DESIGN 7

Dusen & Worthen, 1994; Worthen, Van Dusen, & Sailor, 1994). Second, many school leaders believe these systems provide a "turnkey" implementation process for integrating computer-based instruction into the curriculum (Becket, 1994; Shockley, 1992; Wiburg, 1995). In fact, many ILS vendors use ease of implementation and the availability of courseware, training, and support from one source as major reasons for buying their products.

These perceived benefits of ILSs are not without their critics. Some researchers believe that the academic impact of ILSs is somewhat disap- pointing when compared to the investment in monetary and personnel resources needed to purchase and maintain these systems. Becker (1992, 1994) conducted meta-analyses of numerous studies examining the academic impact of ILSs. Although he found that ILSs had moder- ately positive effects on student achievement, he concluded that ILSs would have a greater impact if teachers and school leaders abandoned their "mindless adherence to the principle of individualized instruction" (Becker, 1994, p. 78), and explored alternative implementation strategies for these systems. Both Wiburg (1995) and Maddux and Willis (1992) also cautioned that research regarding ILSs and academic achievement was inconclusive and that further study was needed in this area.

From the standpoint of ease of implementation, studies have shown that, in many instances, a belief in the turnkey approach leads to lack of teacher involvement during ILS ses- sions. As Becker (1994) stated, "Because such programs can run with little intervention from the teacher.. , it is tempting for schools to allow ILS programs to run essentially unattended except for the technical support provided by systems managers . . ." (p.78). This lack of teacher involvement has led to improper coordi- nation between classroom-based and computer- based instructional activities, inadequate student support while they are completing ILS instruction, and lack of teacher understanding regarding effective strategies and procedures for using ILSs (Becket, 1992b, 1994; Brush, 1997; Hativa, 1994; Sherry, 1990).

In addition to the lack of clear evidence regarding the academic impact of ILSs and the

need for more teacher involvement when implementing these systems, researchers have cautioned that long-term individualized use of ILSs, which is generally the recommended method for using these systems in schools (Hativa, 1994; West & Marcotte, 1993-94), can have a variety of adverse effects on students (Becket, 1992b; Brush, 1997; Mevarech, 1994). Research on affective dimensions of ILSs has shown that long-term individualized usage of ILSs by students leads to anxiety and hostility toward the subject matter (Brush, 1997; Lepper, 1985), increased feelings of inadequacy and helplessness (Hativa, Swissa, & Lesgold, 1992; Mevarech, 1994), a general dislike of the ILS activities, particularly among low-achieving students (Brush, 1997; Hativa, 1994), and a decrease in teacher interaction with students (Becker, 1994).

A second concern is that, while ILSs appear to have a positive effect on achievement levels of low- and high-achieving students, they do little to foster academic growth of average students. Osin, Nesher, & Ram (1994) analyzed achievement results from 15 different schools using ILSs for math instruction and found a curvilinear relationship, with low and high achievers per- forming better than medium achievers. Similar results have been reported by Becker (1992b, 1994) and Hativa (1994). As Becker (1992b) stated, "[ILSs] are much less likely to help stu- "dents in the middle of the class distribution, who are less likely to need a different level or pace of instruction compared to what they receive in traditional whole-class teaching" (p.10). Thus, the traditional individualized delivery model for ILS instruction does not appear to equally address the individual needs of all students effectively.

The research reviewed above suggests that ILSs introduce several potential factors that, at the very least, impede the overall effectiveness of the systems and, at their worst, 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.

8 ETR&D. Vo146. No. 3

How might the design of ILSs and/or the delivery of ILS instruction be improved to address these problems while maintaining (or increasing) the benefits these systems provide to schools (i.e., improved test scores, ease of implementation)? One strategy that has been effective with computer-assisted instruction (CAI) but has not been widely researched with regard to ILSs is the use of cooperative learning groups (Brush, 1997; Hooper & Hannafin, 1991; Hooper, Temiyakarn, & Williams, 1993; Mevarech, 1994). Research has demonstrated that cooperative learning improves students' social interaction skills (Lloyd, Crowley, Kohler, & Strain, 1988, Mesch, Lew, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986), promotes more teacher involvement with individual students (Hertz-Lazarowitz & Schachar, 1990; Sharan & Sharan, 1992), and has positive academic affects for students of all ability levels (Simsek & Hooper, 1992; Slavin, 1991; Yager, Johnson, & Johnson, 1985). Thus, it is possible that the instructional issues associated with ILSs could be addressed through the integration of cooperative learning strategies with ILS instruction.

Although combining cooperative learning with ILSs appears to be a potential solution to many of the problems associated with ILSs, there are currently no ILS systems that overtly embed opportunities for cooperative learning into their courseware, additionally, few systems provide any procedures or materials to assist teachers with integrating cooperative learning activities into ILS instruction. Furthermore, while researchers have discussed the potential benefits of combining cooperative learning with CAI and ILS instruction and have provided limited strategies for incorporating cooperative learning into computerized instruction (e.g. Bec- ker, 1992b; Hooper, 1992; Rysavy & Sales, 1991), there has been little discussion regarding how to design computer-based instruction (and ILS instruction in particular) that integrates key components of cooperative learning. If design guidelines provided examples and strategies for embedding cooperative learning strategies into ILS instruction, many of the concerns and criticisms of long-term individualized exposure to ILSs could be addressed, As schools invest more resources into ILSs and push for longer and

more frequent student interactions with ILS courseware, alternative strategies for delivery and management of ILS instruction become more critical. This paper examines the research dealing with integrating cooperative learning strategies and computer-based instruction and provides guidelines and strategies for designing ILS instruction that enhances opportunities for cooperative learning.

OVERVIEW OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING

Cooperative learning is defined by Deutsch (1962) as a learning situation in which students working in groups can achieve the goals of an instructional activity only if the other students with whom they are working achieve the goals as well. This can be contrasted to individualistic learning, in which students' achievement of goals is not dependent on other students' work (Yager, Johnson, Johnson, & Snider, 1985). How- ever, there is still confusion as to what learning situations constitute cooperative learning. Plac- ing students in groups in order for them to complete an instructional activity does not in itself promote cooperation between and among the group members (Johnson & Johnson, 1991). In fact, unstructured group activities could dis- courage rather than encourage performance from the individual members of the group (Johnson & Johnson, 1991; Slavin, 1995). In some group activities, the "free rider" effect may occur, where less able members allow other group members to complete the majority of the activities (Hooper, 1992; Kerr & Bruun, 1983; Slavin, 1995). Such activities may also lead to the "sucker effect," where the more able members of the group expend less effort so that they avoid having to do all the work for the group (Hooper, 1992; Johnson & Johnson, 1991; Kerr, 1983).

Various cooperative learning strategies have been developed in an attempt to address these factors. Some of the more popular strategies include group investigation (Sharan & Sharan, 1992), learning together (Johnson & Johnson, 1987, 1991), and student team iearningmethods such as Jigsaw (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997), Jigsaw II (Slavin, 1986), and Team Accelerated Instruc-


tion (Slavin, Leavey, & Madden, 1986). While these models vary in implementation, several key components are present in each: positive interdependence, individual accountability, and collaborative skills.

Positive Interdependence

"Positive interdependence is the perception that you are linked with others in a way so that you cannot succeed unless they do (and vice versa); that is, their work benefits you, and your work benefits them" (Johnson & Johnson, 1991, p. 127). In other words, each group member believes he or she has a key role or responsibility within the group and that the success of the group depends upon each member succeeding in that role. Several types of positive interdependence are outlined by Johnson and Johnson (1991). These include positive goal interdependence, in which students perceive that they can achieve their goals only if all members of the group achieve their goals also; positive reward interdependence, where all group members receive the same reward for completing the task; positive resource interdependence, in which each group member has only a portion of the materials or information needed for the task and the resources must be combined to complete the task; positive role interdependence, in which each member of the group is assigned a unique role complementary to the roles of other group members; identity interdependence, in which the group establishes a unique identity through a group name or symbol; and environmental interdependence, in which the group members are forced to be together due to environmental constraints such as an assigned group meeting area.

Promoting positive interdependence. According to Johnson and Johnson (1991), positive interdependence begins with the establishment of group goals and rewards (i.e., establishing goal and reward interdependence). This goal/ reward structure helps maintain the cohesive- hess of the group and provides students with an incentive to help and encourage each other (Slavin, 1993). One of the most widely used goal/reward structures involves measuring the success of the group based on a combination of individual achievement measures of group

members. This may include giving bonus points to a group for each member scoring above 80% on a quiz (Johnson & Johnson, 1991); rewarding a group with additional free time when all members of the group pass a test (Johnson & Johnson, 1991; Slavin, 1995); computing a "team score" for a test by averaging the individual grades of all group members and providing achievement certificates to the group with the highest team score (Slavin, 1985,1990); and posting the names of all groups whose members score 100% on periodic unit tests (Brush, 1997).

Researchers have also developed strategies for promoting other forms of positive interdependence. Aronson and Patnoe (1997) promote positive role and resource interdependence by dividing resources and tasks among group members so that each member has unique information and responsibilities needed to complete the assignment or project. Positive identity interdependence can be established by constructing a competitive environment among groups in the class (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997; Johnson & John- son, 1991; Slavin, 1995) or by providing each group with a unique identity or meeting area (Johnson & Johnson, 1991).

Individual Accountabi l i ty

Individual accountability means that each member of the cooperative group should master the information for which the group is responsible (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997; Brush, 1997; Slavin, 1995). As Slavin (1995) stated, "From early on, reviewers of the cooperative learning literature have concluded that cooperative learning has its greatest effects on student learning when groups are recognized or rewarded based on the individual learning of their members" (p. 41).

Establishing individual accountability. The sim- plest method for incorporating individual accountability into cooperative learning is to require each group member to complete a test on the material individually after the cooperative learning activities have been concluded (Slavin, 1995). This measure of individual achievement may be used in a variety of ways. Student grades may be based on an average of individual test scores of all group members (Slavin, 1995). The teacher may also select one

10 I:TI~&D. Vol 46. No. 3

student at random and have that student's test score represent the score for the group (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997; Johnson & Johnson, 1991). Other methods for promoting individual accountability include randomly requiring a group member to explain an answer (Johnson & Johnson, 1991), determining individual grades based on peer evaluations of group members (Slavin, 1995), and evaluating students based on the unique tasks they needed to complete individually in order for an overall group product to be completed (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997).

Teaching and Reinforcing Collaborative Skills

Creating a cooperative learning structure that promotes positive interdependence and establishes individual accountability does not guarantee the success of the cooperative learning activity. Students also need to learn collaborative skills in order to work effectively with other members of a group. As Johnson & Johnson (1991) stated, "Students who have never been taught how to work effectively with others cannot be expected to do so" (p. 146). Collaborative skills include communicating ideas, building and maintaining trust among group members, providing leadership, and managing group con- flicts (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997; Johnson & John- son, 1990, 1991). Slavin (1995) also suggested training students on specific learning strategies such as prediction, summarization, and question generation, as well as providing structured methods for using these strategies with their partner(s).

Methods for teaching collaborative skills. Many of the methods for teaching and building collaborative skills employ preinstructional activities to introduce the skills and provide opportunities for students to practice them. For example, Aronson and Patnoe (1997) suggested several team building activities for students to complete prior to engaging in the target instructional activity: "Learning to Listen," which empha- sizes turn taking and listening to others; "Group Picture," which helps students understand the importance of each member's contribution to the group; and "Broken Squares," which promotes teamwork and encourages group members to

actively help one another Sharan and Sharan (1992) suggest that teachers promote and encourage student interaction prior to beginning cooperative group work through skill-building exercises that emphasize appropriate discussion behaviors. These exercises, which center around discussions of printed materials such as short stories, encourage students to participate in discussions and reach group consensus regarding an issue only after receiving input from all group members.

In addition to providing training on collaborative skills prior to beginning the instructional activity, theorists have also offered suggestions for encouraging and supporting collaborative skills during cooperative learning. Johnson and Johnson (1990, 1991) suggested awarding bonus points to either individual students or cooperative groups to recognize when students practice collaborative skills. These points could be used for either academic credit or other rewards. Another effective strategy is to have students reflect on their use of collaborative skills after the completion of a group activity in order for them to assess their performance and improve their 6se of these skills (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997; Sharan & Sharan, 1992). This assessment can be conducted as part of a culminating group activity or through individual use of a "collaborative skills checklist" (see Aronson & Patnoe, 1997, p. 40, for a sample checklist). Finally, prompts and

cues could be embedded into an instructional activity to remind students of their roles in the group and the collaborative skills they should be using while completing the activity (Kagan, 1985; Sherman & Klein, 1995; Slavin, 1995).

Benefits and Criticisms of Cooperatlve Learning

A number of studies have dealt with the effects of cooperative learning groups on the academic achievement of the group participants. Many of these studies compared the achievement of students participating in cooperative learning with students learning individually. Slavin (1983, 1987, 1995) has examined over 100 studies in which cooperative learning groups were compared with individual instruction and found that a vast majority (nearly 75%) reported a sig-


nificant increase in achievement levels for students participating in cooperative learning groups. Siavin further noted that the studies that did not show learning gains for students in cooperative learning groups did not incorporate one or more of the important aspects of cooperative learning discussed previously; that is, individual accountability, positive interdependence, and group training.

In addition to improving academic achievement, research has found that cooperative learning also has an impact on numerous other factors directly related to academic achievement. Cooperative learning activities have been shown to produce increased time on task (Cohen & Benton, 1988), increased motivation for learning activities (Garibaldi, 1979; Nastasi & Clements, 1991), increased school attendance (Janke, 1977), and improved self-esteem (John- son & Johnson, 1983; Slavin, 1983).

The positive effects of cooperative learning are not unanimously accepted, however. Tateyama-Sniezek (1990) reviewed 12 studies comparing cooperative learning to individual instruction. Based on the results of these studies, she concluded that enthusiasm for cooperative learning may not be warranted, particularly with students with special needs, because a number of the studies did not produce significant positive results. Of the 12 studies, she found only 6 that reported significant results favoring cooperative learning. This led her to conclude that " . . . the opportunity for students to study together does not guarantee gains in academic achievement" (p. 436), mainly because it was difficult for teachers to consistently integrate methods to ensure positive interdependence and individual accountability within the cooperative learning activities.

USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN CONJUNCTION WITH ILS

While much of the research regarding cooperative learning deals with its effectiveness in a classroom setting, with students completing such activities as studying for a test, delivering a group presentation, or completing a research paper, there is a growing research base focusing on the benefits of using cooperative learning strategies to help students complete computer-

based instructional activities (I-looper, 1992; Hooper & Hannafin, 1991; Hooper, Temiyakarn, & Williams, 1993; Mevarech, Stern, & Levita, 1987; Neuwirth & Wojahn, 1996). However, the research specifically investigating the effects of cooperative learning with advanced computer- based instruction such as ILSs is limited and does not provide a great deal of insight into the methods with which cooperative learning strategies can be effectively integrated into ILS activities. For example, Beyer (1993) conducted an evaluation of a three-year project to use ILSs for math and reading instruction in two Pennsylva- nia middle schools, and to integrate ILS instruction with computer- and classroom-based cooperative learning activities. The evaluation determined that the ILS activities did not have a significant effect on student achievement in reading or math and that neither school effectively used cooperative learning activities to enhance the ILS instruction. The latter factor was because of the logistical difficulties teachers had with implementing cooperative learning in the computer lab and the lack of knowledge and strategies for combining cooperative learning and |I_S-based instruction.

Other research specifically examining the effect of combining cooperative learning with ILS instruction suggests that the integration of cooperative [earning with ILSs has both academic and social benefits for students. Mevarech (1994) found that students completing ILS activities in dyads academically outperformed students completing the same activities individually. These differences were evident both on activities covering basic mathematics skills and on activities promoting higher cognitive processes. One drawback of this study is that the methods for integrating the key components of cooperative learning (i.e., positive interdependence, individual accountability, and collaborative skills) were not discussed; thus it is difficult to cull guidelines or procedures for promoting cooperative learning in an ILS setting from this methodology.

A second study that examined the academic and social impact of ILS instruction delivered to students in cooperative pairs was conducted by Brush (1997). In this study, students completed ILS activities either individually or in dyads.

12 ETR&D. Vol 46. No, 3

Positive interdependence was promoted through shared resources (the computer) and group goals; individual accountability was established with unit tests given periodically to all students; and training on collaborative skills was provided to all students assigned to the cooperative treatment before they began working on the ILS instruction. Results showed not only academic gains for the cooperative treatment but also significant differences in attitudes toward both the ILS activities and the content area in general. Students working in dyads reacted favorably toward the ILS instruction, had positive attitudes toward math, and believed that the computer-based activities were helping them perform better on classroom- based mathematics assignments. Students working individually did not enjoy the ILS activities, had extremely negative attitudes toward math, and did not see a relationship between the ILS instruction and their work in the classroom.

Based on the limited research above, delivering ILS instruction to students in cooperative groups may be a viable instructional strategy that can have positive effects on students' academic and social development. However, implementing this instructional strategy is not an easy task. ILSs do not incorporate any inher- ent cooperative learning components into their design. In fact, the design and implementation of ILSs more likely promotes student isolation

and competition (Becker, 1992b, 1994; Brush, 1997; Hativa, 1994). Thus, it is unlikely that sim- ply allowing students to complete ILS activities (as they are currently designed) in groups would have any academic or social benefits. Strategies and techniques that promote cooperative learning need to be embedded into the design and delivery of ILSs in order for schools to be able to use these systems effectively for other than long-term individualized instruction.

INTEGRATING COOPERATIVE LEARNING INTO ILS DESIGN

Because ILSs have traditionally been designed to promote individualized instruction, there are no embedded design constructs within ILSs per- taining to cooperative learning. The following section provides some guidelines for designing ILSs that promote positive interdependence, individual accountability, and collaborative skills. Table 1 presents a summary of these guidelines.

Positive Interdependence

Positive interdependence means that each member of the group believes that the success or fail- ure of the group depends upon individual success (Johnson & Johnson, 1991). Designing ILS software to facilitate this interdependence

Table I [] Methods for promoting cooperative learning within ILS courseware and management system.

CL Component ILS Courseware Addition

Positive Embed roles/tasks for Interdependence students.

Individual Accountability

Collaborative Skills

Design unit tests to be completed individually.

Include periodic individual assessment items within lessons.

On-line cooperative learning tutorial activities.

Embed prompts to reinforce use of collaborative skills.

ILS Management Addition

Options for group and individual tracking and reporting.

Prompt teacher when groups have met criteria for rewards.

Options for group and individual tracking and reporting.

Options for suspending or delaying feedback to allow for group discussion.


can be accomplished in a variety of ways. Within the ILS courseware itself, group members can be given specific roles and tasks, thus establishing positive role and resource interdependence (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997). "Coopera- tive" computer software such as The Great Ocean Rescue from Tom Snyder Productions (1996) has already been designed to promote positive role interdependence through the completion of unique off-line preinstructional activities by each group member. With this software, students are assigned roles (and tasks associated with those roles) as part of an environmental clean-up team. Each team member is responsible for specific information, and the team must decide which information is needed to develop a solution to the environmental problem presented in the software.

In a second example, Sherman and Klein (1995) designed a simple CAI activity in which the computer assigned roles to group members and consistently prompted and reminded them of those roles throughout the activity. They found that cooperative groups using CAI with these embedded interdependence cues per- formed significantly better on an individual posttest and demonstrated more helping behaviors (e.g., giving help and encouragement) than did groups who completed a similar CAI activity without the cues. Similar strategies for promoting positive interdependence within CAI are discussed by Cardelle-Elawar and Wetzel (1995), Holden, Holcolmb, and Wedman (1992), Neal (1994), Rysavy and Sales (1991), and Siowck-Lee (1994).

Positive interdependence could be integrated into ILS courseware in a similar fashion to the methods outlined for CAI activities. For example, at the beginning of an instructional activity, the ILS courseware could designate one group member to be responsible for reading and sum- marizing information and a second group member to record important information and review that information with the group. Throughout the computer-based activity, the courseware could remind group members of their responsibilities to the group, thus reinforcing the interdependence among the group members. After an activity was completed, the ILS could select different roles for the group members, thus provid-

ing each student with the opportunity to perform a unique and necessary function within the group for every activity.

Redesign of the ILS management system can also facilitate positive interdependence. Cur- rently, there are limited means for grouping students in the management system for reporting purposes (Becker, 1992b; Hativa & Becker, 1994). Providing options within the management system that would allow the teacher to designate student groupings in the class database and receive computer-generated performance reports for each within-class group would aid the establishment of positive goal interdependence (Johnson & Johnson, 1991; Slavin, 1995). The teacher could easily use the information from these reports to determine grades for each group based on performance on the courseware activities. In addition, the management system could provide teachers with the capability to assign unique names or icons to the groups, thus assisting with the establishment of identity interdependence (Johnson & Johnson, 1991).

The management system could also be designed either to distribute group rewards (such as achievement certificates, bonus points, or class recognition) based on criteria input by the teacher or to report electronically when a group has met the criteria for a reward so that it could be personally delivered by the teacher (Litchfield, 1993; Rysavy & Sales, 1991; Yeuh & Alessi, 1988). With either method, the ILS would handle some of the management tasks necessary for successful cooperative learning activities, thus freeing the teacher to concentrate on assisting the groups with the material presented in the courseware.

Individual Accountabi l i ty

One of the most effective methods for ensuring individual accountability is to require each student in a cooperative group to complete a test of the material presented in the lesson (Slavin, 1995). Within ILS courseware, this could be accomplished in several ways. Short quizzes could be embedded within the courseware, with the requirement that each student in the group complete the quizzes individually (Hooper, 1992). The difficulty with this method is that

14 ETF~&D. Vo146. NO 3

groups would need to disperse during the ILS activity in order to move to separate computers to complete the quizzes, then reconvene to complete the lesson. This could prove difficult from a classroom management perspective. An alternative method would be to have students complete individual assessment activities at logical points in the ILS courseware. For example, since the traditional design of ILS courseware breaks the instruction into units, students could be required to complete on-line unit tests individually. With this method, groups would disperse to separate computers at logical points within the instruction, complete the tests individually, then reconvene in their groups to begin a new unit of instruction. The ILS management system would have the ability to track both group progress on activities within the units and individual scores on unit tests. Ideally, the management system would allow the teacher to control how the individual test scores were used in the overall assessment of the group. The teacher could be provided with options for having the unit tests act as individual measures of achievement (Siowck-Lee, 1994; Yeuh & Alessi, 1988), averaging the scores together and using the average score as a group assessment (Slavin, 1995), or randomly selecting one score and using it as an assessment of the entire group (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997; Johnson & Johnson, 1991).

Another method for individual accountability that could be incorporated into ILS courseware would involve having the courseware periodically prompt individual students to respond to questions or short activities embedded in the lesson (Dockterman, 1995; Johnson & Johnson, 1991; Lookatch, 1996). Other members of the group would be told to allow that individual to complete the activity without assistance. The ILS management system would have the ability to track individual responses within the courseware and determine the next individual to be prompted (Lookatch, 1996).

Teaching and Reinforcing CoUaboratlve Skills

Design components could be added to ILSs that would introduce appropriate collaborative skills to group members prior to engaging in the

instructional activities, remind groups to use those skills once groups were engaged in the activities, and provide opportunities for group interaction within the activities. Several researchers have suggested that students complete on-line tutorials designed to introduce collaborative skills and stimulate students to use those skills once they begin the instructional activities (Hooper, 1992; Rysavy & Sales, 1991; Siowck-Lee, 1994). The ILS could include an on- line preinstructional activity that discusses the purpose and benefits of cooperative learning, provides guidelines for working effectively in groups, and gives group members opportunities to practice collaborative skills prior to beginning the instruction. A practice activity such as "The NASA Exercise" (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997, p. 129), in which students work together to develop a strategy for sending a mission to Mars, could easily be converted to a computer- based activity; this design not only would reinforce group processing and collaboration skills, but also would provide groups with the chance to become comfortable working cooperatively on the computer.

There are also numerous methods for reinforcing collaborative skills once groups are engaged in ILS courseware. Hooper (1992) and Rysavy and Sales (1991) suggested embedding prompts within the courseware reminding group members to practice appropriate collaborative skills. They also suggested providing time between computer-based activities for students to reflect on the effectiveness of their group and discuss methods for improving collaboration. Sherman and Klein (1995) embedded verbal interaction cues within their CAI activities in order to foster group interaction. These cues included prompts to ask questions about information that wasn't understood and reminders to review and summarize information. These embedded cues and reminders could easily be incorporated into the design of ILS courseware.

Finally, ILS courseware should provide opportunities for group discussion while com- ple0_ng activities. This approach may involve eliminating the immediate feedback provided by the ILS management system in order to allow time after a response has been made for further discussion among the group (Hooper, 1992;

COOPERATIVE LEARNING ILS DESIGN lS

Litchfield, 1993). For example, one student could enter a response to a problem, then the ILS management system could prompt the group to reconfirm that the response was agreed upon by all members of the group. Once the group has been given an opportunity to double-check the response and make sure that everyone in the group concurred, the management system could determine the accuracy of the response and provide appropriate feedback.

TOWARD A COOPERATIVE" ILS DESIGN

If the strategies for integrating cooperative learning with an ILS were incorporated into a new ILS design, what might that design look like? A major addition to this new design would involve integration of several on-line preinstructional activities to be completed both individually and in groups. In a typical ILS, the only on-line preinstructional activity completed by students is the placement test. In a cooperative ILS, students would still need to complete a

placement test individual ly. Based on the results of the placement test the teacher (ideally, w i th assistance from the ILS management system) would determine student groups and designate an init ial curricular placement for each group. After group assignments had been made, students would complete on-line collaborative training activities that would help prepare them to work cooperatively in the courseware.

In the ILS courseware itself, additions would need to be made to designate and rotate student roles/responsibilities within the groups and to provide prompts and cues to reinforce the assigned roles, to question individual students within the groups, and to remind groups to col- laborate effectively. These additions would help establish positive interdependence and individual accountability, thus providing consistent integration of these components within the instruction. For the most part, the activities within the units would be completed entirely in cooperative groups, with the exception of the tests administered at the end of each unit. For

Figure 2 [ ] Integrcrted ILS/CL design sequence.

Collaborative Training Activit ies

Courxwam Seque, nce

Un i t I ~ Un i t2

Lesson I i ~ I Lesson 1

Lesson 2 | lk~,~, : !1 Lesson 2

- , ' - , .

Uni t 3 ""' i '~;

..~ ": . Ro~es . :

': Lesson 1 ~ ? . !... . . . . ~ ' ,

, o , , * . , , ?~ o o o o o

~, Lesson2 ' ~; ........ ..

#

Teat

AcSvW

A,a,~ [ ] Teac~erl

Management System

16 ETI~&D. Vol 46. No. 3

these activities, the courseware would need to be designed so that it prompted students to move to separate computers, complete the tests individually, then reconvene in their groups and continue with the next unit. Figure 2 displays an ILS design integrating cooperative learning.

SUMMARY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This paper has both provided a rationale for combining cooperative learning strategies with ILS instruction and outlined some design guidelines for embedding components of cooperative learning into ILS courseware and management system functions. It is hoped that this paper will assist developers in considering designs that advance the "individualized instruction" model of most ILSs and promote more opportunities for social interaction and learning within these systems.

Based on the ideas presented in this paper, there are several lines of research that might be pursued. While there have been a few studies examining the academic and social impact of delivering ILS instruction to students in cooperative learning groups (Brush, 1997; Mevarech, 1994), there needs to be a continuation of this research in order to determine which cooperative learning models are most effective when used with ILSs and whether various strategies for combining cooperative learning and ILS instruction (whether those strategies are embedded within the on-line activities or are supplementary to those activities) are more or less effective.

Research also needs to examine various grouping strategies and structures to determine which are most effective for ILS instruction. Cur- rently, there are a wide variety of opinions regarding the optimal group size for cooperative learning activities, particularly when those activities are computer-based (e.g., Hooper, 1992; Rysavy & Sales, 1991; Yager, Johnson, & Johnson, 1985). In addition, researchers continue to debate which grouping structures (i.e., homo- geneous versus heterogeneous) are most effective with students completing computer-based activities cooperatively (Brush, 1997b; Slavin, 1995; Simsek & Hooper, 1992; Yager, Johnson, & Johnson, 1985). Continuing this line of research

will assist designers both with (a) providing guidelines for teachers wishing to integrate cooperative learning with ILS instruction and (b) developing features within the ILS management system to assist in defining student groups. []

Thomas A. Brush is Assistant Professor of Educational Technology at Arizona State University where he can be reached at Educational Media and Computers, Arizona State U., Box 870111, Tempe, AZ 85287-0111.

REFERENCES

Alfrangis, C.M. (1989). A Critical Analysis of the Compo- nents of an Integrated Learning System and a Measure of the System's Effect on Mathematics and Reading. Doc- toral dissertation, George Mason University.

Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). The Jigsaw Classroom. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Bailey, G.D. (1993). Wanted: A road map for understanding Integrated Learning Systems. In G.D. Bai- ley (Ed.), Computer-based Integrated Learning Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Pub- lications.

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.

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.

Becker, H.J. (1994). Mindless or mindful use of integrated learning systems. International Journal of Edu- cational Research, 21(1), 65-79.

Becket, H.J., & Hativa, N. (1994). History, theory, and research concerning integrated learning systems. International Journal of Educational Research, 21(1), 5-- 12.

Bender, P.V. (1991). The effectiveness of integrated computer learning systems in the elementary school. Contemporary Education, 63,19-23.

Beyer, F.S. (1993). The CAI/cooperative learning project: Third year evaluation report. ERIC Document Reproduction Service # ED374791.

Brush, T.A. (1997). The effects on student achievement and attitudes when using Integrated Learning Sys- tems with cooperative pairs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 51--64.

Brush, T.A. (1997b). The effects of group composition on achievement and t'iTne-on-task for students completing ILS activities in cooperative pairs. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(1), 2-17.

Brush, T., & Bannon, S. (1998, April). The integration of technology into K-12 classrooms: A five-state eompari-


son. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

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.

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.

Clariana, R.B. (1996). Differential achievement gains for mathematics computation, concepts, and appli- cations with an Integrated Learning System. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 15, 203-215.

Cohen, E.G., & Benton, J. (1988). Making groupwork work. American Educator, 12(3), 10-17, 45--46.

Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theo- retical notes. In M. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Dockterman, D. (1995). Interactive learning: It's push- ing the right buttons. Educational Leadership, 53(2), 58--59.

Garibaldi, A. (1979). Affective contributions of cooperative and group goal structures. Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, 71,788-794.

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.

Hativa, N., & Becker, H.J. (1994). Integrated learning systems: Problems and potential benefits. Interna- tional Journal of Educational Research, 21 (1), 113-119.

Hativa, N., Swissa, S., & Lesgold, A. (1992). Competi- tion in individualized CAI. Instructional Science, 21, 393-428.

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.

Holden, M.C., Holcolmb, C.M., & Wedman, J.E. (1992). Designing hypercard stacks for cooperative learning. The Computing Teacher, 19(5), 20-22.

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

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.

Hooper, S., Temiyakarn, C., & Williams, M.D. (1993). The effects of cooperative learning and learner control on high- and average-ability students. Educa- tional Technology Research and Development, 4(2), 5-18.

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 Amer- ican Educational Research Association, Toronto, Canada.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1983). The socializa- tion and achievement crisis: Are cooperative learning experiences the solution? In L. Bickman (Ed.). Applied Social Psychology Annual. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1987). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Indi- vidualistic Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooper- ative Learning: Theory and Research. New York: Prae- ger Publishers.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1991). Learning Together and Alone. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

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.

Kerr, N.L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 819-828.

Kerr, N.L., & Bruun, S.E. (1983). The dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free- rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 44, 78-94.

Lepper, M.R. (1985). Microcomputers in education: Motivational and social issues. American Psycholo- gist, 40, 1-18.

Litchfield, B.C. (1993, April). Design factors in multime- dia environments: Research findings and implications for instructional design. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

Lloyd, J.W., Crowley, E.P., Kohier, F.W., & Strain, P.S. (1988). Redefining the applied research agenda: Cooperative learning, prereferral, teacher consulta- tion, and peer-mediated interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 43-52.

Lookatch, R.P. (1996). Collaborative learning and mul- timedia: Are two heads still better than one? Tech- Trends, 41(4), 27-31.

Maddux, C.D., & Willis, J.W. (1992). Integrated learning systems and their alternatives: Problems and cautions. Educational Technology, 32(9), 51-57.

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.

Mevarech, Z.R. (1994). The effectiveness of individualized versus cooperative computer-based integrated learning systems. International Journal of Educational Research, 21 (1), 39-52.

18 ETI~&D. Vo146, No. 3

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.

Mills, 5.C. (1994). Integrated learning systems: New technology for classrooms of the future. TechTrends, 39(1), 27-28, 31.

Nastasi, B.K., & Clements, D.H. (1991). Research on cooperative learning: Implications for practice. School Psychology Review, 20, 110-131.

Neal, J.5. (1994). The interpersonal computer. Science Scope, 17(4), 24-27.

Neuwirth, C.M., & Wojahn, P.G. (1996). Learning to write: Computer support for a cooperative process. In T. Ko~damann (Ed.). CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Osin, L., Nesher, P., & Ram, I. (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, 2l(1), 53--64.

Robin.~on" 5. (1991). Integrated learning systems: From teacher-proof to teacher empowering. Contemporary Education, 63, 15-18.

Roblyer, M.D., Edwards, J., & Havriluk, M.A. (1997). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Rysavy, S., & Sales, G.C. (1991). Cooperative learning in computer-based instruction. Educational Technol- ogy Research and Development, 39(2), 70-79.

Sharan, Y., & 5haran, 5. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group investigation. New York: Columbia University.

Sherman, G.P., & Klein, J.D. (1995). The effects of cued interaction and ability grouping during cooperative computer-besed science instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(4), 5-24.

Sherry, M. (1990). Implementing an integrated instructional system: Critical issues. Phi Delta Kappon, 72, 118-120.

5hockley, H.A. (1992). Turnkey or turnkey.> Integrat- ing an integrated learning system. Educational Tech- nology, 32(9), 22-25.

Simsek, A., & Hooper, 5. (1992). The effects of cooperative versus individual videodisc learning on student Performance and attitudes. International Journal of Instructional Media, 19, 209-218.

Siowck-Lee, G. (1994, June). Developing and using coursewarefvr cooperative learning activities in the classroom. Paper presented at the Asia Pacific Informa- tion Technology in Teaching and Education Conference, Brisbane, Australia.

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

51avin, R.E. (1985). Team-assisted individualization: Combining cooperative learning and individualized instruction in mathematics. In R. 51avin, 5. Sharan, 5. Kagan, R. Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck

(Eds), Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn. New York: Plenum Press.

Slavin, R.E. (1986). Using Student Team Learning (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.

Slavin, R.E. (1987). Cooperative learning and the cooperative school. Educational Leadership, 45(3), 7-13.

Slavin, R.E. (1990). Learning together. The American School Board Journal, 177(8), 22-23.

Slavin, R.E. (1991). Are cooperative learning and "untracking" harmful to the gifted. > A response to Allan. Educational Leadership, 48(6), 68-71.

Slavin, R.E. (1993, April). Cooperative learning and achievement: An empirically-based theory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Edu- cational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Slavin, R.E., Leavey, M.B., & Madden, N.A. (1986). Team Accelerated Instruction: Mathematics. Water- town, MA: Charlesbridge.

Tateyama-Sniezek, K.M. (1990). Cooperative learning: Does it improve the academic achievement of students with handicaps? Exceptional Children, 56, 426- 437.

Tom 5nyder Productions. (1996). The Great Ocean Res- cue. [Computer Programl. Watertown, MA: Author.

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.

West, R.C., & Marcotte, D.R. (1993-94). The effects of an integrated learning system (ILS) using incremen- tal time allotments on ninth grade algebra achievement. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 22, 283-294.

White, M.A. (1992). Are ILSs good education? Educa- tional Technology, 32(9), 49-50.

Wiburg, K. (1995). Integrated learning systems: What does the research say? The Computing Teacher, 22(5), 7-10.

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, 2 I(1), 25-37.

Yager, 5., 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.

Yager, S., Johnson, R.T., Johnson, D.W., & 5hider, B. (1985). The effect of cooperative and individualistic learning experiences on positive and negative cross- handicap relationships. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10,127-138.

Yeuh, J., & Alessi, 5.M. (1988). The effects of reward structure and group ability composition on cooperative computer-besed instruction. Journal of Computer Based Instruction, 15, 18-22.

embedding cooperative learning into the design of integrated learning systems: rationale and...

Documents

cooperative learning

ils instruction

computerbased instruction

integrated learning

student entry skills

ils places

ils software

students academic level