0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
49 vues28 pages
People need to be able to work collaboratively in designing, using, and maintaining the tools of technology. Technology and teamwork will continuously play a larger role in most people's lives. Children, adolescents, and young adults have no choice but to develop and increase their technological and teamwork literacy.
People need to be able to work collaboratively in designing, using, and maintaining the tools of technology. Technology and teamwork will continuously play a larger role in most people's lives. Children, adolescents, and young adults have no choice but to develop and increase their technological and teamwork literacy.
People need to be able to work collaboratively in designing, using, and maintaining the tools of technology. Technology and teamwork will continuously play a larger role in most people's lives. Children, adolescents, and young adults have no choice but to develop and increase their technological and teamwork literacy.
PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0
COOPERATION AND THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson University of Minnesota 30.1 TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM We live in an historical period in which knowledge is the most critical resource for social and economic development and people need to be able to participate in a networked, information-based society. Whereas previously people engaged in manufacturing-based work where they generally competed with or worked independently of each other, now people en- gage in information- and technological-rich work where they work in teams. People need to be able to work collaboratively in designing, using, and maintaining the tools of technology. Technology and teamwork will continuously play a larger role in most peoples lives. Children, adolescents, and young adults have no choice but to develop and increase their technologi- cal and teamwork literacy. There is no better place for them to begin than in school. Learning in cooperative groups while utilizing the tools of technology should occur at all grade levels and in all subject areas. Because the nature of technology used by a society inu- ences what the society is and becomes, individuals who do not become technologically literate will be left behind. Inuences of a technology include the nature of the medium, the way the medium extends human senses, and the type of cognitive processing required by the medium. Harold Adam Innis (1964, 1972) proposed that media biased toward lasting a long time, such as stone hieroglyphics, lead to small, stable societies be- cause stone was difcult to edit and rewrite and was too heavy to distribute over great distances. In contrast, media biased to- ward traveling easily across distances, such as papyrus, enabled the Romans to build and run a large empire. Marshall McLuhan (1964) believed that the way the media technology balances the senses creates its own form of thinking and communicating and eventually alters the balance of human senses. He believed that oral communication makes hearing dominant and thought simultaneous and circular. Written communication makes sight dominant and thought may be linear (one thing follows an- other), rational (cause and effect), and abstract. Electronic tech- nology tends to recreate the village on a global scale through instantaneous and simultaneous communication in which phys- ical distance between people becomes irrelevant. On a more negative note, Neil Postman (1985) expressed fears that our ability to reason with rigor and self-discipline is being eroded as fewer people read systematically and more people watch and listen to electronic media. Their thinking may become more reactive and impressionistic. Given the pervasive and powerful effects media that tech- nologies can have on the nature of society and the thinking and communicating of its members, there can be little doubt that technology will increasingly be utilized in instructional sit- uations. In the past, however, teachers and schools have been very slow in adopting new technologies and very quick in dis- continuing their use (Cuban, 1986). There tends to be a cycle in which (a) the potential of a technology leads to fervent claims and promises by advocates, (b) its utility is demonstrated by academic research in a small set of classrooms rich with human and technical support, (c) teachers who have little or no re- sources adopt the technology and are frustrated by their failure to make it work, and (d) the use of the newtechnology gradually declines. With the invention of motion pictures, for example, Thomas Edison predicted that lms of great teachers would re- place live classroom teachers. When radio was invented the prediction was made that teachers would soon be obsolete be- cause all over the country students could sit and listen to great minds lecture via the radio. Similar predictions were made when television and computers were rst invented. The failure of schools to adopt available instructional tech- nologies and to maintain (let alone continuously improve) their use may be due at least in part to two barriers: (a) the individual assumption underlying most hardware and software develop- ment and (b) the failure to utilize cooperation learning as an in- herent part of using instructional technologies. The purpose of 785 P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 786
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON this chapter is to clarify the interdependence between instruc- tional technologies and cooperation among students in using the technologies. To understand how cooperative learning may be used with technologies, the nature of cooperative learning needs to be dened, the theoretical foundations on which it is based need to be claried, the research validating its use needs to be reviewed, distinctions between cooperative learning and other types of instructional groups need to be make, and the ba- sic elements that make cooperation work must be dened. At that point, the interrelationships between cooperative learning and technology-supported instruction can be noted and their complementary strengths delineated. The future of technology- assisted cooperative learning can then be discussed. 30.2 THE INDIVIDUAL ASSUMPTION Before the 1990s, most of the research on computer-supported learning was based on the single-learner assumption. The individual assumption is that instruction should be tailored to each students personal aptitude, learning style, personality characteristics, motivation, and needs. Computers were viewed as an important tool for individualizing learning experiences, especially for computer-assisted instruction programs based on programmed learning, but also for learning experiences derived from constructivist principles (Crook, 1994). Many hardware and software designers (as well as teachers) assumed that all technology-supported instruction should be structured individ- ualistically (one student to a computer) and computer programs were written accordingly. The ability of designers to adapt instruction sequences to the cognitive and affective needs of each learner, however, is limited by three factors. 1. Substantial variation exists in types of learning styles and per- sonality traits, and although many of themare sometimes cor- related with achievement, few have been shown to predict achievement consistently. 2. Little agreement exists on how to translate differences in learning styles and personal traits into instructional prescrip- tions. The only design rule that is widely accepted is that students should control the ow of information. 3. Creating algorithms to adapt instruction to individual needs and designing and producing multiple versions of lessons are both time-consuming and expensive. Thus, the potential for individualized instruction may be lim- ited due to the difculties associated with identifying individual differences and translating them into instructional prescrip- tions. In addition, individualized instruction has several short- comings: 1. Individual work isolates students and working alone for long periods may lower personal motivation by increasing bore- dom, frustration, anxiety, and the perception that learning is impersonal. 2. Individual instruction limits the resources available to them- selves and the technology. The support and encouragement of peers and the cognitive benets associated with ex- plaining to peers and developing shared mental models are lost. 3. Individualized instruction greatly increases development and hardware costs. A workstation is required for each learner, which entails considerable hardware expense. Considerable development and software expenses are required, as the lessons have to be designed to personalize instruction and to adapt the instructional sequenced to individual process- ing requirements. The difculties associated with identifying and accommodat- ing individual needs severely limit designers ability to individ- ualize instruction. The shortcomings of individualized instruc- tion call into question the wisdom of designing individualized programs. Despite these problems, however, much of the in- structional software has been and is designed, developed, and marketed for individual use. This omission of social interaction in computer-based learn- ing experiences worried many educators in the 1980s (Baker, 1985; Cuban, 1986; Hawkins, Sheingold, Gearhart, & Berger, 1982; Isenberg, 1992). Given the limitations of the individual assumption, and its shortcomings, technology may be more pro- ductively used when it is used in combination with cooperation learning. The spontaneous cooperation often reported around technology, in addition, both casts doubt on the individual as- sumption made by hardware and software designers and points toward the use of cooperative learning in technology-supported instruction (Dyer, 1994). To use cooperative learning, however, educators must understand its nature. 30.3 THE NATURE OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING There are advantages to embedding technology-supported in- struction in cooperative learning. Cooperative learning may be distinguished from traditional direct transfer models of instruction in which the instructor is assumed to be the dis- tributor of knowledge and skills. To understand technology- supported cooperative learning, you must understand the na- ture of cooperative learning, the theoretical foundations on which it is based, the research validating its use, the distinctions between cooperative learning and other types of instructional groups, and the basic elements that make cooperation work (Fig. 30.1). 30.3.1 Cooperative Learning Cooperation is working together to accomplish shared goals. Within cooperative activities individuals seek outcomes that are benecial to themselves and benecial to all other group mem- bers. Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each others learning. In cooperative learning situations there is a positive interdependence among students goal at- tainments; students perceive that they can reach their learning goals if and only if the other students in the learning group also P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 30. Cooperation and Technology
787 Social Interdependence Cooperative Competitive Individualistic Research: Why Use Cooperative Learning Effort To Achieve Positive Relationships Psychological Health Five Basic Elements Positive Inter- dependence Individual Accountability Promotive Interaction Social Skills Group Processing Cooperative Learning Formal Coop Learning Informal Coop Learning Coop Base Groups Make Preinstructional Decisions Conduct Introductory Focused Discussion Opening Class Meeting To Check Homework, Ensure Members Understand Academic Material, Complete Routine Tasks Such As Attendance Explain Task And Cooperative Structure Conduct Intermittent Pair Discussions Every Ten Or Fifteen Minutes Ending Class Meeting To Ensure Members Understand Academic Material, Homework Assignment Monitor Learning Groups And Intervene To Improve Taskwork & Teamwork Conduct Closure Focused Discussion Members Help And Assist Each Other Learn In-Between Classes Assess Student Learning And Process Group Effectiveness Conduct Semester Or Year Long School Or Class Service Projects Cooperative School Teaching Teams Site-Based Decision Making Faculty Meetings Constructive Conflict Students Faculty Academic Controversy Negotiating, Mediating Decision-Making Controversy Negotiating, Mediating Civic Values Work For Mutual Benefit, Common Good Equality Of All Members Trusting, Caring Relationships View Situations From All Perspectives Unconditional Worth Of Self, Diverse Others FIGURE 30.1. Cooperative learning. reach their goals (Deutsch, 1962; D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). Technology-supported cooperative learning exists when the instructional use of technology is combined with the use of cooperative learning groups. Cooperative learning is usu- ally contrasted with competitive learning (students working to achieve goals that only a fewcan attain; students can succeed if and only if the other students in the class fail to obtain their goals) and individualistic learning (students working alone on goals independent from the goals of others) (Deutsch, 1962; D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). 30.3.2 Collaborative Learning Cooperative learning is sometimes differentiated from collab- orative learning, which has its roots in the world of Sir James Britton (1990) and others in England in the 1970s. Quoting Vygotsky (1978), Britton notes that just as the individual mind is derived from society, a students learning is derived from the community of learners. Britton is quite critical of educators who wish to provide specic denitions of the teachers role. He rec- ommends placing students in groups and letting them gener- ate their own culture, community, and procedures for learning. P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 788
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON Britton believed in natural learning (learning something by making intuitive responses to whatever our efforts throw up) rather than training (the application of explanations, instruc- tions, or recipes for action). The source of learning is interper- sonal; learning is derived from dialogues and interactions with other students and sometimes the teacher. He viewed struc- ture provided by teachers as manipulation that creates training, not learning, and therefore teachers should assign students to groups, provide no guidelines or instructions, and stay out of their way until the class is over. As an educational procedure, therefore, collaborative learning has historically been much less structured and more student directed than cooperative learn- ing, with only vague directions given to teachers about its use. The vagueness in the role of the teacher and students results in a vagueness of denition of the nature of collaborative learn- ing. Although there is a clear denition of cooperative learning, there is considerable ambiguity about the meaning of collabora- tive learning. The two terms (cooperative learning and collab- orative learning) are, therefore, usually used as interchangeable and synonymous. 30.3.3 Types of Cooperative Learning There are four types of cooperative learning that may be used in combination with instructional technology: formal cooper- ative learning, informal cooperative learning, cooperative base groups, and academic controversy. Formal cooperative learning is students working to- gether, for one class period to several weeks, to achieve shared learning goals and complete jointly specic tasks and assign- ments (such as decision making or problem solving, complet- ing a curriculum unit, writing a report, conducting a survey or experiment, reading a chapter or reference book, learning vocabulary, or answering questions at the end of a chapter; D. W. Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1998a, 1998b). Any course requirement or assignment may be reformulated to be cooper- ative. In formal cooperative learning groups, teachers: 1. Make a number of preinstructional decisions. A teacher has to decide on the objectives of the lesson (both academic and social skills objectives), the size of groups, the method of assigning students to groups, the roles students will be assigned, the materials needed to conduct the lesson, and the way the room will be arranged. 2. Explain the task and the positive interdependence. A teacher clearly denes the assignment, teaches the required concepts and strategies, species the positive interdepen- dence and individual accountability, gives the criteria for suc- cess, and explains the expected social skills to be engaged. 3. Monitor students learning and intervene within the groups to provide task assistance or to increase stu- dents interpersonal and group skills. A teacher system- atically observes and collects data on each group as it works. When it is needed, the teacher intervenes to assist students in completing the task accurately and in working together effectively. 4. Evaluate students learning and help students process how well their groups functioned. Students learning is carefully assessed and their performances are evaluated. Members of the learning groups then process howeffectively they have been working together. Informal cooperative learning consists of having stu- dents work together to achieve a joint learning goal in tem- porary, ad-hoc groups that last from a few minutes to one class period (D. W. Johnson et al., 1998b; D. W. Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998). During a lecture, demonstration, or lm they can be used to focus student attention on the material to be learned, set a mood conducive to learning, help set expectations as to what will be covered in a class session, ensure that students cognitively process the material being taught, and provide clo- sure to an instructional session. Informal cooperative learning groups are often organized so that students engage in 3- to 5-min focused discussions before and after a lecture and 2- to 3-min turn-to-your-partner discussions interspersed every 15 min or so throughout a lecture. Cooperative base groups are long-term, heterogeneous cooperative learning groups with stable membership (D. W. Johnson et al., 1998b; D. W. Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998). The purposes of the base group are to give the support, help, encouragement, andassistance eachmember needs tomake aca- demic progress (attend class, complete all assignments, learn) and develop cognitively and socially in healthy ways. Base groups meet daily in elementary school and twice a week in secondary school (or whenever the class meets). The fourth type of cooperative learning is academic con- troversy, which exists when one students ideas, information, conclusions, theories, and opinions are incompatible with those of another, and the two seek to reach an agreement (D. W. John- son&R. Johnson,1979, 1995). Teachers structure academic con- troversies by choosing an important intellectual issue, assigning students to groups of four, dividing the group into two pairs, and assigning one pair the pro position and the other pair a con po- sition. Students then followthe ve-step controversy procedure of (a) preparing the best case possible for their assigned posi- tion, (b) persuasively presenting the best case possible for their position to the opposing pair, (c) having an open discussion in which the two sides argue forcefully and persuasively for their position while subjecting the opposing position to critical anal- ysis, (d) reversing perspectives, and (e) dropping all advocacy coming to a consensus as to their best reasoned judgment about the issue. In all four types of cooperative learning, repetitive lessons can be scripted so they become classroom routines. Cooper- ative learning scripts are standard cooperative procedures for conducting generic, repetitive lessons and managing class- room routines (D. W. Johnson et al., 1998a, 1998b). They are used to organize course routines and generic lessons that occur repeatedly. Some examples are checking homework, prepar- ing for and reviewing a test, drill-reviewing facts and events, reading textbooks and reference materials, writing reports and essays, giving presentations, learning vocabulary, learning con- cepts, doing projects such as surveys, and problem solving. All of these instructional activities may be done cooperatively and, P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 30. Cooperation and Technology
789 once planned and conducted several times, will become au- tomatic activities in the classroom. They may also be used in combination to form an overall lesson. Cooperative learning is being used throughout preschools, elementary and secondary schools, colleges, and adult educa- tion programs because of its blend of theory, research, and prac- tice. It is being used throughout the world, that is, throughout North America and Europe and in Central and South America, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the Pacic Rim. Cooperative learnings popularity is based on its theoretical basis, which has been validated by hundreds of research studies. 30.4 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING Whereas computers have been used as educational tools since the 1970s, integrating the design and deployment of comput- ers with educational theory has been difcult and largely ab- sent. Technology-supported instruction, for example, needs to be integrated into the theories underlying the use of co- operative learning. There are at least three general theoret- ical perspectives that have guided research on cooperative learningcognitive-developmental, behavioral, and social in- terdependence. The cognitive developmental or construc- tivist perspective is based largely on the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky. The work of Piaget and related theorists is based on the premise that when individuals cooperate on the environ- ment, sociocognitive conict occurs that creates cognitive dis- equilibrium, which in turn stimulates perspective-taking ability and cognitive development. The work of Vygotsky and related theorists is based on the premise that knowledge is social, con- structed fromcooperative efforts to learn, understand, and solve problems. The behavioral learning theory perspective fo- cuses on the impact of group reinforcers and rewards on learn- ing. Skinner focused on group contingencies, Bandura focused on imitation, and Homans as well as Thibaut and Kelley focused on the balance of rewards and costs in social exchange among interdependent individuals. While the cognitive-developmental and behavioral theoretical orientations have their follow- ings, the theory dealing with cooperation that has gener- ated by far the most research is the social interdependence theory. Social interdependence exists when individuals share common goals and each persons success is affected by the ac- tions of the others (Deutsch, 1962; D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). It may be differentiated from social dependence (i.e., the outcomes of one person, are affected by the actions of a sec- ond person, but not vice versa) and social independence (i.e., individuals outcomes are unaffected by each others actions). There are two types of social interdependence: cooperative and competitive. The absence of social interdependence and depen- dence results in individualistic efforts. Theorizing on social interdependence began in the early 1900s, when one of the founders of the Gestalt School of Psychology, Kurt Koffka, proposed that groups were dynamic wholes in which the interdependence among members could vary. One of his colleagues, Kurt Lewin, rened Koffkas notions in the 1920s and 1930s while stating that (a) the essence of a group is the interdependence among members (created by common goals), which results in the group being a dynamic whole, so that a change in the state of any member or sub- group changes the state of any other member or subgroup, and (b) an intrinsic state of tension within group members motivates movement toward the accomplishment of the de- sired common goals. In the late 1940s, one of Lewins graduate students, Morton Deutsch (1949, 1962), extended Lewins rea- soning about social interdependence and formulated a theory of cooperation and competition. Deutsch conceptualized three types of social interdependencepositive, negative, and none. Deutschs basic premise was that the type of interdependence structured in a situation determines how individuals interact with each other, which in turn largely determines outcomes. Positive interdependence tends to result in promotive interac- tion, negative interdependence tends to result in oppositional or contrient interaction, and no interdependence results in an absence of interaction. Depending on whether individuals pro- mote or obstruct each others goal accomplishments, there is substitutability, cathexis, and inducibility. The relationship be- tween the type of social interdependence and the interaction pattern it elicits is assumed to be bidirectional. Each may cause the other. Deutschs theory has served as a major conceptual structure for the study of social interdependence since the late 1940s. 30.5 RESEARCH ON SOCIAL INTERDEPENDENCE The research on social interdependence is notable for the sheer amount of work done, the long history of the work, the wide variety of dependent variables examined, the generalizability and external validity of the work, and the sophistication of the research reviews. A great deal of research on social interdependence has been conducted. In North America, the rst study was published in 1898. Between that time and 1989, over 550 experimental and 100 correlational studies were conducted on social interdepen- dence (see D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989, for a complete listing of these studies). Hundreds of other studies have used so- cial interdependence as the dependent rather than the indepen- dent variable. In our own research program at the Cooperative Learning Center at the University of Minnesota since the late 1960s we have conducted over 90 studies to rene our under- standing of how cooperation works. In terms of sheer quantity of research, social interdependence theory is one of the most examined aspects of human nature. The research on social interdependence has been conducted in 11 historical decades. Research subjects have varied as to age, sex, economic class, ethnicity, nationality, and cultural back- ground. A wide variety of research tasks, ways of structuring social interdependence, and measures of the dependent vari- ables has been used. Many researchers with markedly differ- ent theoretical and practical orientations working in different P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 790
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON P o s i t i v e I n t e r d e p e n d e n c e P o s i t i v e I n t e r d e p e n d e n c e P o s i t i v e I n t e r d e p e n d e n c e P r o m o tive Intera c tio n P r o m o t i v e I n t e r a c t i o n P r o m o t i v e I n t e r a c t i o n Effort to Achieve Positive Relationships Psychological Adjustment, Social Competence FIGURE 30.2. Outcomes of cooperation. From Coopration and Competition: Theory and Research, by D. W. Johnson and R. Johnson, 1989 Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Reprinted by permission. settings and even in different countries have conducted the research. The diversity of subjects, settings, age levels, and operationalizations of social interdependence and the depen- dent variables give this work an external validity and a general- izability rarely found in the social sciences. A wide variety of dependent variables has been examined in the research on social interdependence. These numerous de- pendent variable may be subsumed within the broad categories of (D. W. Johnson &R. Johnson, 1989) interaction pattern, effort to achieve, positive interpersonal relationships, and psycholog- ical health (Fig. 30.2). 30.5.1 Interaction Patterns Two heads are better than one. Heywood Positive interdependence creates promotive interaction. Promotive interaction occurs as individuals encourage and facilitate each others efforts to reach the groups goals (such as maximizing each members learning). Group members pro- mote each others success by (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989): 1. Giving and receiving help and assistance. In cooperative groups, members both give and receive work related and personal help and support. Hooper (1992a) found a positive and signicant correlation between achievement and helping behaviors. 2. Exchanging resources and information. Groupmembers seek information and other resources from each other, compre- hend information accurately and without bias, and make optimal use of the information provided (e.g., Cosden & English, 1987; Hawkins et al., 1982; Webb, Ender, & Lewis, 1986). There are a number of benecial results from(a) orally explaining, elaborating, and summarizing information and (b) teaching ones knowledge to others. Yueh and Alessi (1988) found that a combination of group and individual re- wards resulted in increased peer teaching. Explaining and teaching increase the degree to which group members cog- nitively process and organize information, engage in higher- level reasoning, attain insights, and become personally com- mitted to achieving. Listening critically to the explanations of groupmates provides the opportunity to utilize others re- sources. 3. Giving and receiving feedback on taskwork and teamwork behaviors. In cooperative groups, members monitor each others efforts, give immediate feedback on performance, and, when needed, give each other help and assistance. Car- rier and Sales (1987) found that students working in pairs chose elaborative feedback more frequently than did those working alone. 4. Challenging each others reasoning. Intellectual controversy promotes curiosity, motivation to learn, reconceptualization of what ones knows, higher-quality decision making, greater insight into the problem being considered, higher-level rea- soning, and cognitive development (D. W. Johnson &R. John- son, 1995). LOGO environments may especially engender conicts among ideas and subsequent negotiation and reso- lutionof that conict (Clements &Nastasi, 1985, 1988; Lehrer & Smith, 1986). 5. Advocating increased efforts to achieve. Encouraging others to achieve increases ones own commitment to do so. 6. Mutually inuencing each others reasoning and behavior. Group members actively seek to inuence and be inuenced by each other. If a member has a better way to complete the task, groupmates usually quickly adopt it. 7. Engaging in the interpersonal and small group skills needed for effective teamwork. 8. Processing how effectively group members are working to- gether andhowthe groups effectiveness canbe continuously improved. Negative interdependence typically results in oppositional interaction. Oppositional interaction occurs as individuals discourage and obstruct each others efforts to achieve. Indi- viduals focus both on increasing their own success and on pre- venting any one else from being more successful than they are. No interaction exists when individuals work independently without any interaction or interchange with each other. Indi- viduals focus only on increasing their own success and ignore as irrelevant the efforts of others. Each of these interaction patterns affects outcomes differ- ently. The outcomes of social interdependence may be orga- nized into three major areas. 30.5.1.1 Effort to Achieve. Between 1898 and 1989, re- searchers conducted over 375 experimental studies on social interdependence and achievement (D. W. Johnson&R. Johnson, P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 30. Cooperation and Technology
791 TABLE 30.1. Mean Effect Sizes for Impact of Social Interdependence on Dependent Variables Condition Achievement Interpersonal attraction Social Support Self-Esteem Total studies Coop vs. comp 0.67 0.67 0.62 0.58 Coop vs. ind 0.64 0.60 0.70 0.44 Comp vs. ind 0.30 0.08 0.13 0.23 High-quality studies Coop vs. comp 0.88 0.82 0.83 0.67 Coop vs. ind 0.61 0.62 0.72 0.45 Comp vs. ind 0.07 0.27 0.13 0.25 Mixed operationalizations Coop vs. comp 0.40 0.46 0.45 0.33 Coop vs. ind 0.42 0.36 0.02 0.22 Pure operationalizations Coop vs. comp 0.71 0.79 0.73 0.74 Coop vs. ind 0.65 0.66 0.77 0.51 Note: Coop, cooperation; comp, competition; ind, Individualistic. Form Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research, by D. W. Johnson and R. Johnson, 1989, Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Reprinted by permission. 1989). A metaanalysis of all studies indicates that cooperative learning results in signicantly higher achievement and reten- tion than do competitive and individualistic learning (see Table 30.1). The more conceptual and complex the task, the more problem solving required, and the more creative the answers need to be, the greater the superiority of cooperative over com- petitive and individualistic learning. When we examined only the methodological high-quality studies, the superiority of coop- erative over competitive or individualistic efforts was still pro- nounced. Some cooperative procedures contained a mixture of coop- erative, competitive, and individualistic efforts, whereas oth- ers contained pure cooperation. The original jigsaw procedure (Aronson, 1978), for example, is a combination of resource in- terdependence and an individualistic reward structure. Teams gamestournaments (DeVries & Edwards, 1974) and student teamsachievementdivisions (Slavin, 1986) are mixtures of cooperation and intergroup competition. Team-assisted instruc- tion (Slavin, Leavey, & Madden, 1982) is a mixture of individu- alistic and cooperative learning. When the results of pure and mixed operationalizations of cooperative learning were com- pared, the pure operationalizations produced higher achieve- ment. Besides higher achievement and greater retention, co- operation, compared with competitive or individualistic ef- forts, tends to result in more (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989): 1. Willingness to take on difcult tasks and persist, despite dif- culties, in working toward goal accomplishment. 2. Long-term retention of what is learned. 3. Higher-level reasoning (critical thinking) and metacognitive thought. Cooperative efforts promote a greater use of higher- level reasoning strategies and critical thinking than do com- petitive or individualistic efforts (effect sizes =0.93 and 0.97, respectively). Evenonwriting assignments, students working cooperatively show more higher-level thought. 4. Creative thinking (process gain). In cooperative groups, members more frequently generate newideas, strategies, and solutions that they would think of on their own. 5. Transfer of learning from one situation to another (group to individual transfer). What individuals learn in a group today, they are able to do alone tomorrow. 6. Positive attitudes toward the tasks being completed (job satis- faction). Cooperative efforts result in more positive attitudes toward the tasks being completed and greater continuing mo- tivation to complete them. The positive attitudes extend to the work experience and the organization as a whole. 7. Time on task. Cooperators spend more time on task than do competitors (effect size =0.76) or students working individ- ualistically (effect size = 1.17). Kurt Lewin often stated, I always found myself unable to think as a single person. Most efforts to achieve are a personal but social process that requires individuals to cooperate and to construct shared understandings and knowledge. Both compet- itive and individualistic structures, by isolating individuals from each other, tend to depress achievement. 30.5.2 Positive Interpersonal Relationships Heartpower is the strength of your corporation. Vince Lombardi (famous coach of the Green Bay Packers) Since 1940, over 180 studies have compared the impact of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts on inter- personal attraction (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). Coop- erative efforts, compared with competitive and individualistic experiences, promoted considerably more liking among indi- viduals (see Table 30.1). The effect sizes were higher for (a) high-quality studies and (b) studies using pure operationaliza- tions of cooperative learning than for studies using mixed oper- ationalizations. These positive feelings were found to extend to superiors in the organizational structure. Thus, individuals tend P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 792
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON to care more about each other and to be more committed to each others success and well-being when they work together cooperatively than when they compete to see who is best or work independently from each other. A major extension of social interdependence theory, is social judgment theory, which focuses on relationships among diverse individuals (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). Cooperators tend to like each other not only when they are homogeneous, but also when they differ in intellectual ability, handicapping conditions, ethnic membership, social class, culture, and gen- der. Individuals working cooperatively tendtovalue heterogene- ity and diversity more thando individuals working competitively or individualistically. The positive impact of heterogeneity re- sults from a process of acceptance that includes frequent and accurate communication, accurate perspective taking, mutual inducibility (openness to inuence), multidimensional views of each other, feelings of psychological acceptance and self- esteem, psychological success, and expectations of rewarding and productive future interaction. Besides liking each other, cooperators give and receive considerable social support, both personally and academically (D. W. Johnson &R. Johnson). Since the 1940s, over 106 studies comparing the relative impact of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts on social support have been conducted. Social support may be aimed at enhancing another persons success (task-related social support) or at providing support on a more personal level (personal social support). Cooperative experience promoted greater task-oriented and personal social support than did competitive (effect size = 0.62) or individu- alistic (effect size = 0.70) experiences. Social support tends to promote achievement and productivity, physical health, psycho- logical health, and successful coping with stress and adversity. 30.5.2.1 Psychological Health. Ashley Montagu was fond of saying, With few exceptions, the solitary animal is, in any species, an abnormal creature. Karen Horney said, The neu- rotic individual is someone who is inappropriately competitive and, therefore, unable to cooperate with others. Montagu and Horney recognized that the essence of psychological health is the ability to develop and maintain cooperative relationships. Psychological health may be dened, therefore, as the ability to develop, maintain, and appropriately modify interdependent relationships with others to succeed in achieving goals (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). To manage social interdepen- dence, individuals must correctly perceive whether interdepen- dence exists and whether it is positive or negative, be motivated accordingly, and act in ways consistent with normative expec- tations for appropriate behavior within the situation. The major variables related to psychological health studied by researchers interested in social interdependence are psychological adjust- ment, self-esteem, perspective-taking ability, social skills, and a variety of related attitudes and values. A number of studies have been conducted on the relation- ship between social interdependence and psychological health (D. W. Johnson&R. Johnson, 1989). Working cooperatively with peers and valuing cooperation results in greater psychological health than does competing with peers or working indepen- dently. Cooperativeness is positively related to a number of indexes of psychological health, such as emotional maturity, well-adjusted social relations, strong personal identity, ability to cope with adversity, social competencies, and basic trust in and optimism about people. Personal ego-strength, self-condence, independence, and autonomy are all promoted by being in- volved in cooperative efforts. Individualistic attitudes tend to be related to a number of indices of psychological pathol- ogy such as emotional immaturity, social maladjustment, delin- quency, self-alienation, and self-rejection. Competitiveness is related to a mixture of healthy and unhealthy characteristics. Cooperative experiences are not a luxury; they are an absolute necessity for healthy psychological development. Interested researchers have examined the relationship be- tween social interdependence and self-esteem. Since the 1950s there have been over 80 studies comparing the relative impact of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic experiences on self-esteem (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). Cooperative experiences promoted higher self-esteem than did competitive (effect size =0.58) or individualistic (effect size =0.44) experi- ences. Our research demonstrated that cooperative experiences tend to be related to beliefs that one is intrinsically worthwhile, others see one in positive ways, ones attributes compare fa- vorably with those of ones peers, and one is a capable, com- petent, and successful person. In cooperative efforts, students (a) realize that they are accurately known, accepted, and liked by ones peers, (b) know that they have contributed to own, others, and group success, and (c) perceive themselves and others in a differentiated and realistic way that allows for mul- tidimensional comparisons based on complementarity of own and others abilities. Competitive experiences tend to be re- lated to conditional self-esteem based on whether one wins or loses. Individualistic experiences tend to be related to basic self- rejection. Cooperative experiences tend to increase perspective-taking ability (the ability tounderstandhowa situationappears toother people) while competitive and individualistic experiences tend to promote egocentrism (being unaware of other perspectives other than your own [effect sizes of 0.61 and 0.44, respectively] D. W. Johnson &R. Johnson, 1989). Individuals who are part of a cooperative effort learn more social skills and become more so- cially competent thando persons competing or working individ- ualistically. Finally, it is through cooperative efforts that many of the attitudes and values essential to psychological health (such as self-efcacy) and learned and adopted. 30.5.2.2 Everything Affects Everything Else. Deutschs (1985) crude law of social relations states that the character- istic processes and effects elicited by a given type of social interdependence also tends to elicit that type of social inter- dependence. Thus, positive interdependence elicits promotive interaction and promotive interaction tends to elicit positive in- terdependence. Deutschs law may also be applied to the three types of outcomes resulting from cooperative experiences. The more individuals work together to achieve, the more caring and committed their relationships tend to be; the more individuals care about each other the harder they will work to achieve mu- tual goals. The more individuals work together to achieve, the greater their psychological adjustment, self-esteem, and social P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 30. Cooperation and Technology
793 competence; the healthier psychologically individuals are, the better able to they are to work with others to achieve mutual goals. The better individuals psychological health, the more caring and committed their relationships tend to be; the more caring and committed their relationships, the more healthy psy- chologically they tend to be. Because each outcome can induce the others, you are likely to nd them together. They are a pack- age, with each outcome a door into all three. Together they induce positive interdependence and promotive interaction. The research outcomes noted occur only when the efforts are truly cooperative. Not all groups are cooperative groups. To be cooperative, ve basic elements must be present in a group. 30.6 THE BASIC ELEMENTS OF COOPERATION 30.6.1 Potential Group Performance Not all groups are cooperative (D. W. Johnson & F. Johnson, 2003). Placing people in the same room, seating them together, telling them they are a group, does not mean they will coop- erate effectively. Project groups, lab groups, committees, task forces, departments, and councils are groups, but they are not necessarily cooperative. Many groups are ineffective and some are even destructive. Almost everyone has been part of a group that has wasted time and produced poor work. Ineffective and destructive groups are characterized by a number of dynamics (D. W. Johnson & F. Johnson) such as social loang, free riding, group immaturity, uncritical and quick acceptance of members dominant response, and group-think. Such hindering factors are eliminated by carefully structuring the ve essential elements of cooperation. Those elements are positive interdependence, individual and group accountability, promotive interaction, ap- propriate use of social skills, and group processing. 30.6.2 Positive Interdependence: We Instead of Me All for one and one for all. Alexander Dumas The heart of cooperation is positive interdependence (see D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989, 1992a, 1992b). Positive in- terdependence exists when one perceives that one is linked with others in a way so that one cannot succeed unless they do (and vice versa) and/or that one must coordinate ones ef- forts with the efforts of others to complete a task (Deutsch, 1962; D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). There are two major categories of interdependence: outcome interdependence and means interdependence (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson). When persons are in a cooperative or competitive situation, they are oriented toward a desired outcome, end state, goal, or reward. If there is no outcome interdependence (goal and reward interde- pendence), there is no cooperation or competition. In addition, the means through which the mutual goals or rewards are to be accomplished specify the actions required on the part of group members. Means interdependence includes resource, role, and task interdependence (which are overlapping and not indepen- dent from each other). The authors have conducted a series of studies investigat- ing the nature of positive interdependence and the relative power of the different types of positive interdependence (Frank, 1984; Hwong, Caswell, Johnson, & Johnson, 1993; D. W. John- son, Johnson, Stanne, & Garibaldi, 1990; Johnson, Johnson, Or- tiz, & Stanne, 1991; Lew, Mesch, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986a, 1986b; Mesch, Lew, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986; Mesch, John- son, & Johnson, 1988). Our research indicates that positive in- terdependence provides the context within which promotive interaction takes place, group membership and interpersonal interaction among students do not produce higher achieve- ment unless positive interdependence is clearly structured, the combination of goal and reward interdependence increases achievement over goal interdependence alone, and resource interdependence does not increase achievement unless goal in- terdependence is present also. 30.6.3 Individual Accountability/Personal Responsibility What children can do together today, they can do alone tomorrow. Vygotsky (1978) Using cooperative groups requires structuring group and in- dividual accountability. Groupaccountability exists when the overall performance of the group is assessed and the results are given back to all group members to compare against a standard of performance. Individual accountability exists when the performance of each individual member is assessed, the results given back to the individual and the group to compare against a standard of performance, and the member is held responsi- ble by groupmates for contributing his or her fair share to the groups success. On the basis of the feedback received, (a) ef- forts to learn and contribute to groupmates learning can be recognized and celebrated, (b) immediate remediation can take place by providing any needed assistance or encouragement, and (c) groups can reassign responsibilities to avoid any redun- dant efforts by members. The purpose of cooperative groups is to make each mem- ber a stronger individual in his or her own right. Individual ac- countability is the key to ensuring that learning cooperatively in fact strengthens all group members. There is a pattern to class- room learning. First, students learn knowledge, skills, strate- gies, or procedures in a cooperative group. Second, students apply the knowledge or performthe skill, strategy, or procedure alone to demonstrate their personal mastery of the material. Stu- dents learn it together and then perform it alone. Archer-Kath, Johnson, and Johnson (1994) found that individual feedback re- sulted in greater achievement and perceptions of cooperation, goal interdependence, and resource interdependence than did groupfeedback. Hooper, Ward, HannanandClark(1989) found that cooperative technology-supported instruction resulted in higher achievement when individual accountability was struc- tured than when it was not. P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 794
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON 30.6.4 Promotive Interaction In an industrial organization its the group effort that counts. Theres really no room for stars in an industrial organization. You need talented people, but they cant do it alone. They have to have help. John F. Donnelly (President, Donnelly Mirrors) Promotive interaction exists when individuals encourage and facilitate each others efforts to complete tasks in order to reach the groups goals. Through promoting each others success, group members build both an academic and a per- sonal support system for each member. Promotive interaction is characterized by individuals providing each other with ef- cient and effective help and assistance, exchanging needed resources such as information and materials and processing in- formation more efciently and effectively, providing each other with feedback in order to improve subsequent performance, challenging each others conclusions and reasoning in order to promote higher-quality decision making and greater insight into the problems being considered, advocating the exertion of ef- fort to achieve mutual goals, inuencing each others efforts to achieve the groups goals, acting in trusting and trustworthy ways, being motivated to strive for mutual benet, and having a moderate level of arousal characterized by low anxiety and stress. Traditionally, promotive interaction was viewed as being face-to-face. Technology, through the use of local and wide area networks and mediating tools such as e-mail, electronic bul- letin boards, conferencing systems that can include live video, and specialized groupware, enables individuals to promote each other success all across the world, in ways that were never possi- ble before. Such electronic communication is growing exponen- tially, but it does not always substitute for face-to-face interac- tion. Face-to-face communication has a richness that electronic communication may never match (Prusak & Cohen, 2001). There is evidence that up to 93% of peoples intent is con- veyed by facial expression and tone of voice, with the most important channel being facial expression (Druckman, Rozelle, & Baxter, 1982; Meherabian, 1971). Harold Geneen, the former head of ITT, believed that his response to requests was differ- ent face-to-face than through electronic means. In New York, I might read a request and say no. But in Europe, I could see that an answer to the same question might be yes. . . it became our policy to deal with problems on the spot, face- to-face (cited in Trevino, Lengel, & Draft, 1987). A number of businesses are building ofce facilities that maximize human interaction. The biggest complaint of students in a virtual high school was that interactions with on-line students just did not measure up to face-to-face context (Allen, 2001). On the other hand, Bonk and King (1998) suggest that promotive interac- tion in electronic environments has some advantages over live discussion in terms of engagement in learning, depth of discus- sion, time on task, and the promotion of higher-order thinking skills. Instructional programs, therefore, may be most effective when they include multiple ways for students to promote each others success, both electronically and face to face whenever possible. 30.6.5 Interpersonal and Small Group Skills I will pay more for the ability to deal with people than any other ability under the sun. John D. Rockefeller Using cooperative learning requires group members to mas- ter the small group and interpersonal skills they need to work effectively with each other and function as part of a group. The greater the members teamwork skills, the higher will be the quality and quantity of their learning. Cooperative learning is inherently more complex than competitive or individualis- tic learning because students have to engage simultaneously in taskwork and teamwork. To coordinate efforts to achieve mu- tual goals, students must (a) get to know and trust each other, (b) communicate accurately and unambiguously, (c) accept and support each other, and (c) resolve conicts constructively (D. W. Johnson, 1991, 2003; D. W. Johnson & F. Johnson, 2003). The more socially skillful students are, and the more atten- tion teachers pay to teaching and rewarding the use of social skills, the higher the achievement that can be expected within cooperative learning groups. In their studies on the long-term implementation of cooperative learning, Marvin Lewand Debra Mesch (Lewet al., 1986a, 1986b; Mesch et al., 1986, 1988) inves- tigated the impact of a reward contingency for using social skills as well as positive interdependence and a contingency for aca- demic achievement on performance within cooperative learn- ing groups. In the cooperative skills conditions students were trained weekly in four social skills and each member of a cooper- ative group was given two bonus points toward the quiz grade if all groupmembers were observedby the teacher todemonstrate three of four cooperative skills. The results indicated that the combination of positive interdependence, an academic contin- gency for high performance by all group members, and a social skills contingency promoted the highest achievement. Archer- Kath et al. (1994) found that individual feedback was more effec- tive in teaching students social skills than was group feedback. Putnam, Rynders, Johnson, and Johnson (1989) demonstrated that, when individuals were taught social skills, were observed by their superior, and were given individual feedback as to how frequently they engaged in the skills, their relationships became more positive. 30.6.6 Group Processing Take care of each other. Share your energies with the group. No one must feel alone, cut off, for that is when you do not make it. Willi Unsoeld (renowned mountain climber) Group processing occurs when members discuss how well they are achieving their goals and maintaining effective working relationships among members. Cooperative groups need to describe what member actions are helpful and unhelp- ful and make decisions about what behaviors to continue or change. The purposes of group processing are to clarify and improve the effectiveness of members in contributing to the cooperative efforts to achieve the groups goals by (a) enabling P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 30. Cooperation and Technology
795 groups to improve continuously the quality of members work, (b) facilitating the learning of teamwork skills, (c) ensuring that members receive feedback on their participation, and (d) en- abling groups to focus on group maintenance (D. W. Johnson, 2003; D. W. Johnson et al., 1998a). Groups that process how ef- fectively members are working together tend to achieve higher than do groups that do not process or individuals working alone, the combination of teacher and student processing resulted in greater problem-solving success than did the other cooperative conditions, and the combination of group and individual feed- back resulted in higher achievement (Archer-Kath et al., 1994; D. W. Johnson et al., 1990; Yager, Johnson, & Johnson, 1985). Group processing leads to self-monitoring and self-efcacy. Discussing the observations of members actions results in (a) a heightened self-awareness of the effective and ineffective actions taken during the group meetings, (b) public commit- ment to increase the frequency of effective actions and decrease the frequency of ineffective actions, and (c) an increased sense of having the ability to be more effective if appropriate effort is exerted (i.e., self-efcacy). Sarason and Potter (1983) exam- ined the impact of individual self-monitoring of thoughts on self-efcacy and successful performance and found that having individuals focus their attention on self-efcacious thoughts is related to greater task persistence and less cognitive interfer- ence. They concluded that the more that people are aware of what they are experiencing, the more aware they will be of their own role in determining their success. The greater the sense of self- and joint efcacy promoted by group processing, the more productive and effective group members and the group as a whole become. Effective processing focuses group members on positive rather than negative behaviors. Sarason and Potter (1983) found that when individuals monitored their stressful experiences they were more likely to perceive a program as having been more stressful than did those who did not, but when individu- als monitored their positive experiences they were more likely to perceive the group experience as involving less psychologi- cal demands, were more attracted to the group and had greater motivation to remain members, and felt less strained during the experience and more prepared for future group experiences. When individuals are anxious about being successful and are then told that they have failed, their performance tends to de- crease signicantly, but when individuals anxious about being successful are told that they have succeeded, their performance tends to increase signicantly (Turk & Sarason, 1983). 30.7 THE COOPERATIVE SCHOOL The new electronic tools are radically changing the way people access and use information and, therefore, have profound im- plications for the educational process. Education, on the other hand, is stuck with organizational patterns and professional tra- ditions that negate many of the advantages of the newtechnolo- gies. For technology to be fully utilized in schools, the organi- zational structure of the school has to change, as well as the organizational structure of the classroom. To utilize the new technologies most effectively, schools need to change from a mass-manufacturing organizational structure to a team-based, high-performance organizational structure. This new organiza- tional structure is created when cooperative learning is used the majority of the time in the classroom and cooperation is used to structure faculty and staff work in (a) colleagial teaching teams, (b) school-based decision making, and (c) faculty meetings (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1994). Just as the heart of the classroom is cooperative learning, the heart of the school is colleagial teaching teams. Collea- gial teaching teams are small cooperative groups in which members work to improve continuously each others (a) in- structional expertise and success in general and (b) expertise in using cooperative learning in specic. Administrators may also be organized into colleagial support groups to increase their administrative expertise and success. School-based decision making may be structured through the use of two types of cooperative teams. A task force considers a school problem and proposes a solution to the faculty as a whole. The faculty is then divided into ad hoc decision-making groups and considers whether to accept or modify the proposal. The decisions made by the ad hoc groups are summarized, and the entire faculty then decides on the ac- tion to be taken to solve the problem. Faculty meetings represent a microcosm of what adminis- trators think the school should be. The clearest modeling of co- operative procedures in the school may be in faculty meetings and other meetings structured by the school administration. All four types of cooperative learning (formal, informal, base groups, and controversy) may be used in faculty meetings to increase their productivity, build faculty cohesion, and improve the facultys social competence. Technological innovation lags in schools. A key obstacle to the use of technology in schools is the limited support teach- ers have for integrating unfamiliar technologies into instruction. Just as students group together to learn cooperatively how to use newsoftware or hardware, teachers need to group together to learn how to use the new technologies and then how to inte- grate theminto the instruction. As long as each teacher works in isolation from his or her peers, the implementation of technol- ogy represents a personal decision on the part of each teacher, rather than an organizational change at the school and district levels. Many teachers are unfamiliar with the new technologies and feel unable to master them. To implement technology fully, the organizational structure of the school has to change from the old mass-manufacturing organizational structure to a team- based, high-performance organizational structure where teams of teachers can explore the new technologies, learn how to use them, and implement them together. 30.8 COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND TECHNOLOGY-SUPPORTED INSTRUCTION To enhance learning, technology must promote cooperation among students and create a shared experience. Crook (1996) has widely analyzed how computers can facilitate collaborative learning in schools. He makes a distinction between: P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 796
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON 1. Interacting around computers. The rst perspective stresses the use of computers as tools to facilitate face-to-face com- munication between student pairs or in a small group. Crook (1996, pp. 189193) states that technology may serve to sup- port cooperation by providing students with points of shared reference. He states that the traditional classroom does not have enough available anchor points at which action and at- tention can be coordinated. The capabilities of computers can be used as mediating tools that help students to focus their attention on mutually shared objects. 2. Interacting through computers. This refers to the use of net- works. Local area networks (LAN) and wide area networks (WAN) and the global version of the latter (Internet) provide education with a variety of mediating tools for cooperation (email, electronic bulletin boards, conferencing systems, and specialized groupware). 30.8.1 Interacting Around Computers 30.8.1.1 Single-User Programs Reapplied to Coopera- tive Learning. Many computer programs were developed to tailor learning situations to individual students. Field experi- ments, however, indicate several advantages of the importance of cooperation among students in using these programs (Crook, 1994; Hawkins et al., 1982). The technical extension of the tra- dition LOGO (Papert, 1980) to legoLOGO, where Lego bricks robots can be controlled by LOGO programs has been an espe- cially promising tool for creating cooperation among students (e.g., Eraut, 1995; Jarvela, 1996). Cooperative learning has been promoted by many different program types, such as databases, spreadsheets, math programs, programming languages, simu- lations, multimedia authoring tools, and so forth (Amigues & Agostinelli, 1992; Brush, 1997; Eraut, 1995; Lehtinen & Repo. 1996). 30.8.1.2 Programs Developed To Promote Cooperation. For cooperation to take place, students must have a joint workspace. One of the promises of the computer is to allow students to create shared spaces. Instead of sharing a black- board or a worktable, students can share a computer screen. Such groupware (aimed at supporting group rather than indi- vidual work) has expanded dramatically the past ten years. Nu- merous programs in a variety of subject areas have been devel- oped to externalize the problem-solving process by displaying the students solution or learning paths on the screen, and they generally tend to be helpful for both individual reection and co- operative problemsolving (Lehtinen, Hamalainen, &Malkonen, 1998). The ways in which technology and cooperative learning have been integrated are so numerous that even a small fraction cannot be mentioned. Some of the more widely used methods of computer-supported cooperative learning (CSCL) are CSILE, the Belvedere System, and CoVis. CSILE (Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environ- ment) was originally developed in the late 1980s (Scardamalia, Bereiter, McLearn, Swallow, & Woodruff, 1989) and uses a net- work to help students build, articulate, explore, and struc- ture knowledge. The system contains tools for text and chart processing and a communal database for producing, searching, classifying, and linking knowledge. The Belvedere system was developed by Lesgold, Weiner, and Suthers (1995) and it fo- cuses and prompts students cognitive activity by giving them a graphical language to express the steps of hypothesizing, data gathering, and weighing of information. CoVis (Learning Through Collaborative Visualization Project) focuses on coop- erative project work in high-school science (Pea, Edelson, & Gomez, 1994), with advanced networking technologies, collab- orative software, and visualization tools to enable students and others to work together in classrooms and across the country at the same time (synchronously) or at different times (asyn- chronously). These and many other groupware systems are pro- viding new and powerful opportunities for cooperative learn- ing. 30.8.2 Cooperation Through Computers There has been a rapid expansion of computer network tech- nology that allows students all over the world to create pow- erful shared spaces on the computer screen. The future of technology-supported cooperative learning may depend on the software and hardware that creates workspaces that network group members and groups throughout the world. Network- ing has had a strong inuence on the tools and methods of technology-supported cooperative learning. In a network-based environment, students and teachers can interact through the computer free of the limitations of time and place. The speed at which asynchronous and distance communication may be completed opens new opportunities for cooperative learning. It makes more intensive cooperative possible with the out- of-school experts, brings students from different schools into contact with each other, and creates powerful tools for joint writing and knowledge sharing. There are, however, different levels at which the network environment supports coopera- tion. From a series of studies, Bonk and King (1995) concluded that networks can (a) change the way students and instruc- tors interact, (b) enhance cooperative learning opportunities, (c) facilitate class discussion, and (d) move writing fromsolitary to more active, social learning. The network tools include the following. 1. Local Area Network-Based Client-Server Systems. There are many software programs based on local area networks and clientserver architecture, such as CSILE, the Belvedere Sys- tem, and CoVis. 2. E-Mail for Cooperative Learning. E-mail is used to deliver in- formation to students, supervise students, and support na- tional and international communication between coopera- tive learning groups and schools located far away from each other. With the help of mailing lists, groups of students can use e-mail to share joint documents and comment on each others work. 3. The Internet and World Wide Web and Cooperative Learn- ing. Internet-based conferencing systems and e-mail systems are very similar. Computer conferencing has existed since the rst computer networks but has only recently been P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 30. Cooperation and Technology
797 FIGURE 30.3. Outcomes of technology-supported cooperative learning. implemented as part of cooperative learning. Web-based cooperative learning is time independent and location inde- pendent, thus allowing a combination of synchronous and asynchronous discussions. It is similar to e-mail lists but, in addition, has user-control, document structures, shared databases, and interaction styles that make it especially effec- tive for cooperative work (Bates, 1995; Harasim et al., 1995; Malikowski, 1998). Creating and using shared databases is es- pecially helpful for network-based cooperative-learning sys- tems. On the World Wide Web, conferencing may require threading (the ability to sequentially read the messages that make up one discussion). Woolley (1995) listed about 150 internet conferencing systems. It is now possible to have live video of individuals and groups conferencing with each other. Adding technology to a lesson inherently increases the les- sons complexity. When students participate in technology- supported instruction, they have the dual tasks of (a) learning how to use the technology (i.e., the hardware and soft- ware required by the lesson) and (b) mastering the informa- tion, skills, procedures, and processes being presented within the technology. When cooperative learning groups are used, students have the additional task of learning teamwork proce- dures and skills. Consequently, the initial use of technology- supported cooperative learning may take more time, but once students and teachers master the new systems, the results will be worth the effort. Technology-supported cooperative learn- ing tends to be cost effective way of teaching students how to use technology. In addition, increasing academic achievement, giving learners control over their learning, creating positive at- titudes toward technology-based instruction and cooperative learning, promoting cognitive development, and increasing so- cial skills. Computers themselves promote cooperative interac- tion among learners. The composition of the group and the gender of the learners are factors that have been hypothesized to affect the success of technology-supported cooperative learn- ing (see Fig. 30.3). 30.8.3 Achievement 30.8.3.1 Academic Achievement. Two large metaanalysis on the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction concluded that the use of technology markedly improved learning out- comes (e.g., Fletcher-Finn & Gravatt, 1995; Khalili & Shashaani, 1994). These metaanalysis, however, didnot differentiate among P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 798
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON teaching practices and the ways technology was implemented in classrooms. It is not possible, therefore, to draw any conclu- sions about the effectiveness of technology-supported cooper- ative learning from these metaanalysis. We conducted several studies examining the use of cooper- ative, competitive, and individualistic learning activities at the computer (D. W. Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne, 1989; D. W. John- son et al., 1990; R. Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne, 1985, 1986; R. Johnson, Johnson, Stanne, Smizak, & Avon, 1987; Johnson, Johnson, Richards, 1986). The studies included eighth-grade stu- dents through college freshmen and lasted from 3 to 30 instruc- tional hr. The tasks were a computerized navigational and map reading problem-solving task and word processing assignments. Computer-assisted cooperative learning, compared with com- petitive and individualistic efforts at the computer, promoted (a) a higher quantity of daily achievement, (b) a higher quality of daily achievement, (c) greater mastery of factual information, (d) greater ability to apply ones factual knowledge in test questions requiring application of facts, (e) greater ability to use factual in- formation to answer problem-solving questions, and (f) greater success in problem solving. Cooperation at the computer pro- moted greater motivation to persist on problem-solving tasks. Students in the cooperative condition were more successful in operating computer programs. In terms of oral participation, students in the cooperative condition, compared with students in the competitive and individualistic conditions, made fewer statements to the teacher and more to each other, made more task-oriented statements and fewer social statements, and gen- erally engaged in more positive, task-oriented interaction with each other (especially when the social skill responsibilities were specied and group processing was conducted). Finally, the studies provided evidence that females were perceived to be of higher status in the cooperative than in the competitive or individualistic conditions. In addition to our work, there are a number of studies that have found that students using a combination of cooperative learning and computer-based instruction learn better than do students using computer-based instruction while working in- dividualistically (Anderson, Mayes, & Kibby, 1995; Cockayne, 1991; Cox & Berger, 1985; Dalton, 1990a, 1990b; Dalton, Han- nan, & Hooper, 1987; Dees, 1991; Hooper, 1992b; Hooper, Temiyakarn, & Williams, 1993; Hythecker et al., 1985; Inkpen, Booth, Klawe, & Upitis, 1995; Lin, Wu, & Liu, 1999; Love, 1969; McInerney, McInerney, & Marsh, 1997; Mevarech, 1993; 1987; Mevarech, Silber, &Fine, 1991; Mevarech, Stern, &Levita, Okey & Majer, 1976; Postthast, 1995; Reglin, 1990; Repman, 1993; Rocklin et al., 1985; Shlecter, 1990; Stephenson, 1992; Under- wood, McCaffrey, 1990; Webb, 1984; Whitelock, Scanlon, Tay- lor, & OShea, 1995; Yeuh & Alessi, 1988). There are also a number of studies that found no statistically signicant differ- ences in achievement between subjects who worked in groups and subjects who worked alone (Carrier & Sales, 1987; Cos- den & English, 1987; Hooper & Hannan, 1988; Trowbridge & Durnin, 1984). No study has reported signicantly greater learn- ing when students work alone. Many of these studies, however, are short-term experiments focused on a small number of stu- dents. Several experiments provide evidence that well-known CSCL programs like CSIKE and Belvedere have proved to be helpful for higher-order social interaction and, subsequently, for better learning in terms of deep understanding (Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Lamon, 1994; Suthers, 1998). What is still lacking is evidence that the same results could be found in normal class- rooms. There are CSCL projects like CoVis that are widely imple- mented (Pea, Edelson, & Gopmez, 1994), but there have been few well-controlled follow-up evaluations published. Simon Hooper and his colleagues have conducted a series of studies on technology-supported cooperative learning involv- ing fth through eighth-grade and college students (Dyer, 1993; Hooper, 1991; Hooper & Hannan, 1988, 1991; Hooper et al., 1989; Huang, 1993; McDonald, 1993). They found that (a) co- operative group members achieved signicantly higher than did students working under individualistic conditions, (b) coopera- tive learning groups in which individual accountability was care- fully structured achieved higher than did cooperative learning groups in which no individual accountability was structured, (b) the achievement of low-ability students in heterogeneous cooperative groups was consistently higher than the achieve- ment of low-ability students in homogeneous groups, (c) there was a positive and signicant correlation between achievement and helping behaviors, and increases in achievement and coop- eration were signicantly related within heterogeneous groups, and (d) cooperative (compared with individualistic) learning resulted in greater willingness to learn the material, options se- lection, time on task, perceived interdependence, and support- iveness for partners. Carlson and Falk (1989) and Noell and Car- nine (1989) found that students in cooperative groups perform higher than students working alone on learning tasks involv- ing interactive videodiscs. Adams, Carson, and Hamm (1990) suggest that cooperative learning can inuence attention, mo- tivation, and achievement when students use the medium of television. Fletcher (1985), on the other hand, investigating cognitive facilitation, found on a computer task calling for solving equa- tions in an earth spaceship game that individuals who were told to verbalize their decisions did as well in problem-solving performance on the game as groups told to come to consen- sus (both of which had results superior to those of individuals working silently). King (1989) asked groups of fourth graders to reproduce a stimulus design using LOGO computer graphics after they had watched a videotape modeling of think aloud problem solving. The groups were instructed to think aloud as they performed their task. More successful groups asked more task-related questions, spent more time on strategy, and reached higher levels of strategy elaboration than did groups who were less successful on the task. 30.8.3.2 Learning How to Use Technology. Cooperative learning may reduce hardware and software problems that in- terfere with achievement when students work alone (Hativa, 1988). Students naturally formgroups when learning howto use a newtechnology or software program(Becker, 1984). In his de- scription of the implementation of the Apple Classrooms of To- morrow, Dwyer (1994) notes that the cooperative, task-related interaction among students was spontaneous and more exten- sive than in traditional classrooms, with students interacting with one another while working at computers, spontaneously P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 30. Cooperation and Technology
799 helping each other, showing curiosity about each others activi- ties, wanting to share what they had just learned to do, working together to build multimedia presentations about diverse topics, and combining their groups work into whole class, interdisci- plinary projects. When technology-supported lessons require new, complex procedures (such as learner-controlled lessons), cooperative learning tends to promote quicker and more thorough mastery of the procedures than competitive or individualistic learning. Trowbridge and Durnin (1984) found that students working in groups of two or three seemed more likely to interpret pro- gram questions as the authors of the materials intended. Discus- sions of multiple interpretations tended to converge on the cor- rect interpretation. Hooper (1992a) reported that students were frustrated and could not master the computer-assisted, learner- controlled lesson when they worked alone. Keeler and Anson (1995) used cooperative learning in a software application lab course and found that both students performance and their retention were signicantly improved. Dyer (1993) compared structured cooperative pairs, unstructured cooperative pairs, and individuals working alone to solve computer-assisted math problem solving lessons. Structured cooperative pairs commu- nicated more frequently and used the computer more efciently and skillfully than did the unstructured cooperative pairs or the students in the individualistic condition. McDonald (1993) found that students in the learner-controlled/cooperative learn- ing condition selected more options during the lesson and spent more time interacting with the tutorial than did the learner- controlled/individual learning condition. Hooper et al. (1993) found that cooperative learning established a mutually support- ive learning environment among group members in which both cognitive difculties and navigational disorientation were over- come in using the computer to complete a symbolic-reasoning task. Students studying alone had greater difculty reading and understanding lesson directions, used the help option more of- ten, and required more attempts to master embedded quizzes than did students in cooperative learning groups. In learning how to use computers, Webb (1984) and Webb et al. (1986) found that in cooperative groups, explaining how to do com- puter programming was not related to skill in doing so and receiving explanations inuenced only the learning of basic commands (not the interpretation of programs or the ability to generate programs). Generally, this evidence indicates that students will learn how to use hardware and software more quickly and effectively when they learn in cooperative groups rather than alone. When teachers wish to introduce new tech- nology and new software programs of some complexity, they will be well advised to use cooperative learning. 30.8.4 Cognitive and Social Development 30.8.4.1 Cognitive Development: Cooperation and Con- troversy. Social-cognitive theory posits that cognitive devel- opment is facilitated by (Bearison, 1982; D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1979, 1995; Perret-Clermont, 1980) (a) individuals working cooperatively with peers on tasks that require coor- dination of actions or thoughts, (b) cooperators contradicting and challenging each others intuitively derived concepts and points of view(i.e., engaging in academic controversy), thereby creating cognitive conict within and among group members, and (c) the successful and equitable (members contributing approximately equally) resolution of those conicts (learners have to go beyond mere disagreement to benet from cogni- tive conict; [Bearison, Magzament, & Filardi, 1986; Damon & Killen, 1982). To create the conditions under which cognitive development takes place, students must work cooperatively, challenge each others points of view, and resolve the resulting cognitive conicts. Clements and Nastasi conducted a series of studies on the occurrence of cooperation and controversy in technology-supported instruction (Battista & Clements, 1986; Clements &Nastasi, 1985, 1988; Nastasi &Clements, 1992; Nas- tasi, Clements, & Battista, 1990). They have found that both LOGO and CAI/CBI-W computer environments promoted con- siderable cooperative work and conict (both social and cogni- tive). The LOGO environment (compared to CAI/CBI-W com- puter and traditional classroom tasks environments) promoted (a) more peer interaction focused on learning and problem solving, (b) self-directed problem solving (i.e., learners solve problems they themselves have posed) in which there is mu- tual ownership of the problem, (c) more frequent occurrence and resolution of cognitive conicts, (d) greater development of executive-level problem-solving skills (planning, monitoring, decision making), higher-level reasoning, and cognitive devel- opment. The development of higher-level cognitive processes seemed to be facilitated by the resolution of cognitive conict that arises out of cooperating. They also found that the LOGO (compared with the CAI) computer environment resulted in more learner satisfaction and expressions of pleasure at the dis- covery of new information and their work, variables reective of intrinsic and competence motivation. More recently, Bell (2001) has developed a software pro- gram to create arguments to be used in discussions with other students (the SenseMaker argumentation tool). It is designed to support a rhetorical construction of arguments by individuals by connecting evidence dots with claim frames. The intent is to teach students the nature of scientic inquiry by coordinating emerging evidence with an existing set of theories. The use of SenseMaker to develop arguments to be used in an academic controversy could signicantly advance students level of rea- soning and learing. 30.8.4.2 Learner Control. Combining cooperative learning and technology-supported instruction results in students hav- ing more control over their learning. Hooper and his associates (Hooper, 1992a; Hooper et al., 1993) note that three forms of lesson control are used in the design of technology-based in- struction: learner, program, and adaptive control. Learner con- trol involves delegating instructional decisions to learners so that they can determine what help they need, what difculty level or content density of material they wish to study, in what sequence they wish to learn the material, and how much they want to learn. Learner-controlled environments include simu- lations, hypermedia, and online databases. Program or linear control prescribes an identical instructional sequence for all stu- dents regardless of interest or need. Adaptive control modies P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 800
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON lesson features according to student aptitude (e.g., Snow, 1980), prior performance (e.g., Tobias, 1987), or ongoing lesson needs (e.g., Tennyson, Christensen, & Park, 1984). Linear or program control may impose an inappropriate lesson sequence on learn- ers and thereby lower their motivation, and adaptive instruction may foster learner dependence (Hannan & Rieber, 1989). As learner control increases so does (a) instructional effectiveness and efciency (Reigeluth & Stein, 1983) and (b) learner inde- pendence, efciency, mental effort, and motivation (Federico, 1980; Salomon, 1983, 1985; Steinberg, 1984). Technology-supported cooperative learning tends to in- crease the effectiveness of learner control. When students work alone, in isolation from their peers, they tend not to control the learning situation productively, making ineffective instruc- tional decisions and leaving instruction prematurely (Carrier, 1984; Hannan, 1984; Milheim&Martin, 1991; Steinberg, 1977, 1989). Students working cooperatively tend to motivate each other to seek elaborative feedback to their responses to prac- tice items during learning control and to seek a greater vari- ety of feedback types more frequently than did those working alone (Carrier & Sales, 1987). Cooperative pairs spent longer times inspecting information on the computer screen as they discussed which level of feedback they needed and the answers topractice items. Students inthe learner-controlled/cooperative learning condition selected more options during the lesson, and spent more time interacting with the tutorial, than did students in the learner-controlled/individual learning condition (McDon- ald, 1993). Hooper et al. (1993) found that students in the program-control conditions attempted more than four times as many examples and nearly twice as many practice questions as did the students in the learner-control conditions. The LOGO computer environment tends to promote more actual learner control over the task structure and the making of rules to gov- ern it than does the CAI computer environment (Battista & Clements, 1986; Clements & Nastasi, 1985, 1988; Nastasi et al., 1990). Learner control seems to be most effective when prior knowledge is high or when students possess well-developed metacognitive abilities (Garhart & Hannan, 1986). What these studies imply is that cooperative learning is an important vari- able in improving the effectiveness of learner controlled envi- ronments. 30.8.4.3 Increasing Social Competencies. If students are to work effectively in cooperative groups they must have the teamwork skills to do so. To examine the importance of social skills training on the productiveness of cooperative groups, it is possible to compare studies that have included cooperative skills training and those that have not. Numerous studies on technology-supported cooperative learning have demonstrated positive effects on the amount and quality of social interaction (e.g., Amigues & Agostinelli, 1992; Crook, 1994; Davis & Hut- tenlocher, 1995; Fishman & Gomez, 1997; McConnell, 1994; Rysavy & Sales, 1991). A number of studies have found that when teamwork procedures and skills are present, cooperative learning results in higher achievement in technology-supported instructional lessons than individualistic learning (Hooper & Hannan, 1991; Hooper & Hannan, 1988, 1991; R. Johnson et al., 1985, 1986; Susman, 1998). In studies where teamwork procedures and skills were not emphasized, reliable differences in achievement in cooperative and individualistic technology- assisted instruction tend not to be found (Mevarech et al., 1987; Hooper et al., 1989; Susman, 1998; Underwood & McCaffrey, 1990). Software designers may be able to facilitate the development use of the interpersonal and small group skills required for team- work in several ways. 1. Before students engage in the actual instruction, they might rst be required to complete a tutorial activity designed to introduce or refreshtheir understanding of cooperative skills. This could include a discussion of each members role and its value in determining the overall group success. 2. Teachers guides could suggest roles to assign to each group member to perform in the group (keyboarder, recorder, checker for understanding, encourager of participation). 3. Time for group processing to analyze and discuss how effec- tively they are working together and how they might work together more effectively in the future could be provided. Software could be designed to include pauses during which group members are directed to focus on their progress, dis- cuss the records they are keeping, or reect onimprovements or changes they might make to increase performance. 4. The software could periodically remind students to monitor their own performance and to assist in optimizing group per- formance. 5. Yeuh and Alessi (1988) suggest that group reward is cru- cial to provide a group goal motivating everyone to work well together and individual accountability is needed to cre- ate a feelings of fairness among group members. Tangible prizes are recognition for individual successes and for group achievement offers motivation to succeed on both levels. One computer-generated reward would be a printout of col- lective characters, coupons, or certicates that are assigned points or a relative value or are valued based on the num- ber accumulated. These items could be displayed by students where they would be acknowledged by the teacher and other classmates. 30.8.5 Attitudes 30.8.5.1 Attitudes Toward Technology-Based Instruc- tion. Students are more likely to learn from and to use technology-based instruction in the future when their self- efcacy toward technology and attitudes about technology- based instruction are positive. Sutton (1991) found that students developed more positive attitudes toward the computer-based instructional lesson and learning with a computer when they worked in cooperative learning groups than when they worked individually (Hooper et al., 1993; Huang, 1993; McDonald, 1993). Students tend to enjoy using the computer to engage in cooperative activities. 30.8.5.2 Attitudes Toward Cooperative Learning. Mevarech et al. (1985) found that students who learned in pairs were more positive in their attitudes toward cooperative P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 30. Cooperation and Technology
801 learning than were students who worked individually with the computer. Evaluations obtained by Rocklin et al. (1985) from students involved in computer-based cooperative learning were more positive toward cooperative learning and how it affected them personally than were subjects who worked individually. Hooper et al. (1993) found that students working in cooperative pairs developed more positive attitudes toward cooperative learning than did students working alone, that is, students rated cooperative learning in a computer-assisted lesson almost a point higher on a 5-point scale than did students who worked alone. A number of studies found that students in the structured cooperative learning conditions developed more positive attitudes toward working cooperatively than did students in the unstructured cooperative learning or the individualistic learning condition (Dyer, 1993; Hooper et al., 1993; Huang, 1993; McDonald, 1993). 30.8.5.3 Preference for Using Technology Coopera- tively. There is a natural partnership between technology and cooperation. The introduction of computers into classrooms tends to increase cooperative behavior and task-oriented ver- bal interaction (Chernick & White, 1981, 1983; Hawkins et al., 1982; Levin & Kareev, 1980; Rubin, 1983; Webb, 1984). Indi- viduals prefer to work cooperatively at the computer (Hawkins et al., 1982; Levin & Kareev, 1980; Muller & Perlmutter, 1985). Students are more likely to seek each other out at the computer than they normally would for other schoolwork. Even when students play electronic games they prefer to have partners and associates. Working at a computer cooperatively withclassmates seems to be more fun and enjoyable as well as more effective for most students. 30.8.6 Individual Differences 30.8.6.1 Group Composition. A factor hypothesized to af- fect the success of technology-supported cooperative learning is whether members of cooperative groups are homogeneous or heterogeneous. There is considerable disagreement as to which is the most effective composition. Advocates of heterogeneous grouping point out that (a) students are more likely to gain sophistication and preparation for life in a heterogeneous soci- ety by working cooperatively with classmates from diverse cul- tures, attitudes, and perspectives, (b) high-achieving students benet from the cognitive restructuring that occurs when pro- viding in-depth explanations to peers, and (c) less academically successful students benet from the extra attention, alternative knowledge representations, and modeling that more academi- cally successful students provide (D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989; Webb, 1989). Students in heterogeneous ability groups tend to learn more than students in homogeneous ability groups (Yager, Johnson, & Johnson, 1985; Yager, Johnson, Johnson, & Snider, 1986). Beane and Lemke (1971) found that high abil- ity students beneted more from heterogeneous than homoge- neous grouping. The academic discussion and peer interaction in heterogeneous (compared with homogeneous) groups pro- mote the discovery of more effective reasoning strategies (John- son & Johnson, 1979; Berndt, Perry, & Miller, 1988). Proponents of homogeneous ability grouping, however, state that heterogeneous ability grouping may fail to challenge high- ability students (Willis, 1990) and that less academically success- ful students benet at the expense of their more successful part- ners (Mills & Durden, 1992; Robinson, 1990). Many of the most carefully conducted studies aimed are resolving this contro- versy have been focused on ability grouping in technologically- assisted instruction. In a week-long study on the learning of LOGO, Webb (1984) investigated whether the higher-ability stu- dents in cooperative groups of three would try to monopolize the computer. She found that (a) student ability did not relate to contact time with the computer and (b) student success in programming was predicted by different proles of abilities and by group process variables such as verbal interaction. Yeuh and Alessi (1988) used group ability composition as one of their treatments for students utilizing the computer to learnthree top- ics in algebra. They formed groups of medium-ability students and groups of mixed-ability students and found that group com- position had no signicant effect on achievement. Hooper and Hannan (1988), in a study with 40 eighth-grade students, found that on a computer task low ability students working with high- ability partners achieved higher than did low ability students studying in homogeneous groups or alone, without lowering the achievement of high-ability students. In a subsequent study involving 125 sixth- and seventh-grade students, Hooper and Hannan (1991) randomly assigned students to homogeneous or heterogeneous pairs, and pairs to cooperative or individual- istic conditions. High-ability students interacted equally across treatments, but low-ability students interacted 30% more when placed in heterogeneous pairs. Students in the heterogeneous groups achieved and cooperated signicantly more than did stu- dents in the homogeneous pairs (or the individualistic condi- tion). Simsek and Hooper (1992) compared the effects of cooper- ative and individual learning on student performance and atti- tudes during interactive videodisc instruction. Thirty fth- and sixth-grade students were classied as high or low ability and randomly assigned to cooperative or individual treatments. Stu- dents completed a level II interactive video disc science lesson. The achievement, attitudes, and time on task of high- and low- ability students working alone or in cooperative groups were compared. Results indicated that both high- and low-ability stu- dents performed better on the posttest when they learned in cooperative groups than did their counterparts who learned alone. Students who worked individually spent less time on task. Members of cooperative groups developed more positive attitudes toward instruction, teamwork, and peers than did stu- dents studying alone. Simsek and Tsai (1992) compared the effects of homoge- neous versus heterogeneous ability grouping on performance and attitudes of students working cooperatively during interac- tive videodisc instruction. After two cooperative training ses- sions, 80 fourth- through sixth-grade students, classied as high and low ability, were randomly assigned to treatments. Stu- dents completed a level II interactive video disc science les- son. The amount of instructional time for each group was also recorded. Homogeneous low-ability groups scored signicantly lower than the other three groups, while the difference in P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 802
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON achievement of high-ability students in homogeneous versus heterogeneous groups was not statistically signicant. Homo- geneous low-ability groups consistently used the least amount of time. Low-ability students inheterogeneous groups had signif- icantly more positive attitudes than did their high-ability group- mates. Hooper (1992b) compared individual and cooperative learn- ing in an investigation of the effects of ability grouping on achievement, instructional efcacy, and discourse during computer-based mathematics instruction. A total of 115 fth- and sixth-grade students were classied as having high or average ability and were randomly assigned to group or indi- vidual treatments. Students in the cooperative condition were assigned to either heterogeneous or homogeneous dyads, ac- cording to ability. Results indicated that students completed the instruction more effectively in groups than alone. In groups, achievement and efciency were highest for high-ability homo- geneously grouped students and lowest for average-ability ho- mogeneously grouped students. Generating and receiving help were signicant predictors of achievement, and average-ability students generated and received signicantly more help in het- erogeneous groups than in homogeneous ones. Hooper et al. (1993) compared cooperative and individualis- tic learning on academically high- and average/low-performing students. They classied 175 fourth-grade students as high or average/low performing academically and randomly assigned them to pairs or individualistic conditions strategies by perfor- mance level. Performance level was determined by scores on the mathematics subscale of the California Achievement Test. All cooperative pairs consisted of one high- and one average/low- performing student. They found that the students in the co- operative conditions performed higher on a computer-assisted symbolic reasoning task than did the students in the individual- istic conditions. The greatest benefactors from the group learn- ing experience appeared to be the highest-performing students. Overall achievement increased by almost 20%for high-academic ability students but only 4% for average-ability students. High- ability students may have beneted from generating explana- tions of their less able partners and less able partners might have adopted more passive roles. Mulryan (1992) found that the highest-achieving students adopted the more active roles in cooperative learning groups and the least able students demon- strated high levels of passive behavior, a pattern that, according to Webb (1989), further decreases the achievement of the pas- sive students. The results of these studies indicate that cooperative learn- ing may be used effectively with both homogeneous and hetero- geneous groups but that the greatest educational benets may be derived when heterogeneous groups work with technology- supported instruction. In heterogeneous cooperative learning groups, low-ability students increased their achievement consid- erably and high-ability students generally either increased their achievement or achieved at the same level as did their counter- parts in homogeneously high groups. 30.8.6.2 Gender. The gender of group members has been hy- pothesized to be an important factor in determining the success of technology-supported cooperative learning. D. W. Johnson, Johnson, Richards, and Buckman (1986) found that computer- assisted cooperative learning, compared with competitive and individualistic computer-assisted learning, increased the posi- tiveness of female students attitudes toward computers, equal- ized the status and respect among group members regardless of gender, and resulted in a more equal participation pattern between male and female members. Whereas females in co- operative groups liked working with the computer more than males did, there was no signicant difference in oral inter- actions between males and females. Dalton et al. (1987) ex- amined interactions between instructional method and gender and found that cooperative learning was rated more favorably by low-ability females than by low-ability males. Other stud- ies noted no signicant differences in performance between males and females in computer-based instruction cooperative learning settings (Mevarech et al., 1987; Webb, 1984). Carrier and Sales (1987) compared female pairs, male pairs, and mixed pairs among college juniors and noted that female pairs verbal- ized the most, whereas male pairs verbalized the least, and that malefemale pairs demonstrated the most off-task behavior. Lee (1993) found that males tended to become more verbally active and females tended to become less verbally active in equal-ratio, mixed-gender groups. A study that looked at mixed-gender groups versus single- gender groups was done by Underwood and McCaffrey (1990) in England. Two classes of students between 10.5 and 11.4 years of age from a single school participated in the study. The 40 females and 40 males were randomly assigned to male/male, fe- male/female, or male/female pairs. The study was divided into three sessions. The rst session had the subjects working in- dividually. In the second session subjects worked in pairs. The thirdsessionalsoinvolvedpairs, but subjects whowere inmixed pairs were shifted to single-gender pairs and single-gender pairs were assigned to mixed pairs. The subjects worked with a com- puter program in language tasks that required them to place missing letters into text. The results showed that single-gender pairs completed more stories and had more correct responses than did mixed-gender pairs. When subjects were shifted from single-gender pairs to mixed-gender pairs, their level of activity decreased but there was no change in their overall performance. The study found no overall differences for gender on any of the measures. No cooperative training was given and mixed pairs rarely discussed their answers. Rather, one subject operated the keyboard and the other gave directions. Overall, there is mixed evidence concerning the impact of technology-supported instruction on males and females. A con- servative interpretation of the existing research is that there will be no performance differences between males and females on technology-supported cooperative learning, but females will have more positive attitudes toward using technology when they learn in cooperative groups. 30.8.7 Relationships: Networking into Teams Technology such as electronic mail, bulletin boards, and confer- ences can be used to create teams of individuals who are widely separated geographically. In an electronically networked team, P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 30. Cooperation and Technology
803 interaction no longer has to be face-to-face, team members can be anywhere in the world. Meetings require only that members be at their terminals. Communication between meetings can be asynchronous and extremely fast in comparison with telephone conversations and interofce mail. Participation may be more equalized and less affected by prestige and status (McGuire, Kiesler, & Siegel, 1987; Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986). The egalitarian network structures may coexist with substantial hierarchy and centralization in patters of communi- cation. Electronic communications inuence interaction style and work ow. The use of electronic mail compared to telephones, for example, enables workers to control the pace of their re- sponse and thus facilitates multitasking. Digital conferencing may make employees less risk averse and render group decision making less predictable, more time-consuming, and more egal- itarian (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991; Wellman et al. 1996). Whether these effects on decision making enhance organizational perfor- mance or will continue as the technologies develop and change is uncertain in part because they depend on the specic ways in which the technological systems are designed and implemented (OMahony & Barley, 1999; Sproull & Kiesler, 1991). Electronic communication, however, relies almost entirely on plain text for conveying messages, text that is often ephemeral, appearing on and disappearing from a screen with- out any necessary tangible artifacts. It becomes easy for a sender to be out of touch with his or her audience. And it is easy for the sender to be less constrained by conventional norms and rules for behavior in composing messages. Communicators can feel a greater sense of anonymity, detect less individuality in others, feel less empathy, feel less guilt, be less concerned over how they compare with others, and be less inuenced by social con- ventions (Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976). Such inuences can lead both to more honesty and more aming (name calling and epithets). Hara, Bonk, and Angeli and his associates (2000) conducted a content analysis of on-line discussions. They examined par- ticipation rates, interaction patterns, social cues within student messages, cognitive and metacognitive components, and depth of processing. They concluded that messages became more lengthy and cognitively deeper over time. The messages were also embedded with peer references, became more interactive over time, and were thus indicative of a student-oriented envi- ronment. 30.8.8 Other Factors 30.8.8.1 Cost Effectiveness. The use of cooperative learn- ing increases the cost effectiveness of technology. Although the range of technology that could be used in schools is increasing yearly (Hancock & Betts, 1994), the cost of adopting new tech- nologies is an inhibiting factor to its use. Ensuring that every student is provided with the latest technology is beyond the - nancial resources of most school districts. Giving each coopera- tive learning group access to the latest technology is much more cost effective. An historical example is the adoption of comput- ers by schools. By having groups work at computers (instead of individuals) schools were able to reduce signicantly the cost of obtaining and maintaining computers (Johnson & Johnson, 1985; Wizer, 1987). 30.8.8.2 Innovation in Groupware and Hardware. In creating joint workspaces for team members to work together, and in creating hardware and communication networks that fa- cilitates teamwork, considerable innovation has taken, is taking, and will take place. The promise of the current technology is that in the future, more effective, efcient, and productive ways of teaming will be created through technology. Of special interest for technology-supported cooperative learning is the use of self-powered, palm-sized computers and low-cost, high-bandwidth wireless communications. Just as computers made communication asynchronous, these mo- bile innovations make communication independent of place. The ability to communicate with anyone at anytime and any- where geometrically increases the possibilities of technology- supportedcooperative learning. Andthe widespreaduse of such technologies will undoubtedly inspire even more effective ways to use hardware and software to enhance human cooperation. Both students and teachers, furthermore, benet from high- bandwidth, as it allows various technologies (i.e., high-quality video, sophisticated teleconferencing, and Internet-based com- munication and assessment tools) to converge and be delivered together, thereby providing richer content and stimulating co- operative interaction. 30.9 QUESTIONS ABOUT TECHNOLOGY-SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE LEARNING Given the powerful effects of cooperation on achievement, re- lationships, and psychological health, and given the numerous advantages of using technology-supportedcooperative learning, there are a number of questions about the use of technology that may tentatively be answered. First, Does technology effect achievement or is it merely a means of delivering instruction? In a reviewof research, Clark (1983) concluded that technology is merely a means of delivering instruction. There are cognitive consequences of discussing what one is learning with class- mates that technology may not be able to duplicate. The extent to which social interaction is essential for effective learning, the transformation of the mind, and the development of expertise is unclear. Second, Is a dialogue with a computer as effective in promoting achievement, higher-level reasoning, and ability to apply learning as a dialogue with a peer? The answer is probably no. It takes more than the presentation of information to have a dialogue. There needs to be an exchange of knowledge that leads to epistemic conict and intellectual challenge and curiosity. Such an exchange is personal as well as informational. It involves respect for and belief in each others abilities and commitment to each others learning. Our results and the results of other researchers indicate that a dialogue with a peer is far more powerful than one with a computer. P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 804
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON Third, Can a computer pass as a person? The answer, again, is probably no. A person interacts quite differently with a com- puter than he or she does with another person. Machines and people are not equally interesting or persuasive. With other peo- ple there is a commitment to their learning and well-being. It is rare to feel the same emotions toward a machine. Fourth, Is the effectiveness of a message separate from the medium? Generally, the research on cognitive development in- dicates that the same information, presented in other formats (especially nonsocial formats) is only marginally effective in pro- moting genuine cognitive development (Murray, 1983; D. W. Johnson & R. Johnson, 1989). Fifth Is technology an amplier or a transformer of the mind? An amplier serves a tool function like note taking or measuring. A transformer leads to the discovery and invention of principles. If technological learning devices are transform- ers, the habitual technology users eventually will be in a new stage of mental functioning. Postman (1985) believes that the introduction into a culture of a technique such as writing or a clock is not merely an extension of humans power to record information or bind time but a transformation of their way of thinking and the content of human culture. Generally, therefore, it may be concluded that technology such as the computer is a tool to amplify the minds of students. As a tool, the computer (as well as the calculator) can free students from the rote mem- orization of methods of mathematical formulation and formula- driven science, allowing more time for underlying concepts to be integrated with physical examples. A danger of the computer is that student will know what button to push to get the right answer without understanding the underlying process or devel- oping the ability to solve the problemon his or her own without the computer. There is far more to expertise than knowing how to run hardware and software. Finally, Can technology such as computers prepare a stu- dent for the real world? Technological expertise is helpful in nding and holding a job. Working in a modern organization, however, requires team skills such as leadership and conict management and the ability to engage in interpersonal prob- lem solving. Although it is clear that cooperative learning is an analogue to modern organizational life, experience in using technology in and of itself may only marginally improve em- ployability and job success. A person has to have interpersonal competence as well as technical competence. 30.10 THE FUTURE OF TECHNOLOGY-SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE LEARNING The interdependence between the use of technology-supported instruction and cooperative learning is relatively unexplored. Technologies can either facilitate or obstruct cooperation. The ways in which technology may enhance or interfere with co- operative efforts have not been conceptualized, placed in a theoretical framework, researched, and applied in classrooms. Cooperative learning has a well-formulated theory validated by hundreds of research studies, translated into a set of practical procedures that teachers and administrators may use, and actu- ally implemented in tens of thousands of classrooms through- out the world. Technology is transforming the way in which work and communication are conducted. Despite the success of cooperative learning and technology, there are a number of shortcomings of the work on technology-supported coopera- tive learning. First, there is a lack of theorizing. If technology-supported cooperative learning is to continue to develop, it needs to be- come more articulate about the theories that underlie its use. Currently, social interdependence theory is the most clearly spelled out theoretical base for cooperative learning, but the way in which technology provides unique opportunities for co- operation have not been tied to social interdependence theory. John Dewey has been widely quoted, but his work does not provide a precise theory on which to base either cooperative learning or technology-supported instruction. The same may be said for Vygotsky. Conceptual models of how technology and teamwork may be productively integrated are practically nonexistent. The variables unique to the combination of tech- nology and cooperation have not been identied and dened. Two theoretical perspectives are needed that can be contrasted and compared inresearchstudies. The eld needs suchrivalry to develop. Second, relatively little research has been done. Overall, the quality of the existing research is quite high. Only a few of the potential outcomes, however, have been studied. There are many gaps in the researchon technology-supported cooperative learning. The unique strengths of technology-supported coop- erative learning have not been assessed and documented. The impact of technology-based cooperative learning on relation- ships among students (especially in face-to-face and non-face- to-face situations and among diverse individuals) has not been studied. The specic ways that use of technology affects vari- ous aspects of psychological health (such as social adjustment, personal happiness, self-esteem, anxiety levels, social compe- tencies, and ability to cope with stress and diversity) is largely unknown. Almost all of the research that has been conducted has focused on the effectiveness of technology-based computer instruction or specic software programs without testing the- ory. In the future, theoretically oriented research needs to be conducted. Third, the lack of conceptual models and the scarcity of re- search have created a corresponding lack of operational pro- cedures for practice. Operational procedures are needed for designing and implementing instructional procedures that op- timize the impact of technology-supported cooperative learn- ing. Equivalent procedures need to be designed for work envi- ronments where technology and teamwork are used together. Once the operational procedures are claried, decisions about training teachers and students can be made. Teachers can be trained to implement cooperative learning, but training in the specic procedures for implementing technology-supported co- operative learning is underdeveloped. The nature and amount of training students need to work together cooperatively while utilizing technology are largely unknown. Whereas the social skills required to cooperate have been clear for some time (D. W. Johnson, 1991, 2003; D. W. Johnson & F. Johnson, 2003), P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 30. Cooperation and Technology
805 the social skills requiredtoutilize technology cooperatively have generally been ignored. More needs to be known about the skills students need to maximize the constructiveness of technology- supported cooperative learning. In addition to using validated theory to operationalize teacher and student procedures, new software development should be more closely tied to validated theory. Effective co- operation depends on the existence of ve basic elements (pos- itive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive in- teraction, appropriate use of social skills, and group processing) in operational procedures (D. W. Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Whereas there are many groupware programs, the extent to which groupware incorporates the ve basic elements of coop- erationhas not beendiscussed or researched, and whether there are other elements essential to technology-supported cooper- ative learning programs has not been determined by research. Attention to ensuring that the groupware developed is based on social interdependence theory as well as on technology hard- ware and software potentialities is needed. In summary, what is needed is a theory to stimulate research that, in turn, will validate and modify the theory. The results need to be used to design specic procedures for operational- izing technology-supported cooperative learning at every grade level and in every subject area. Groupware needs to be tied more closely to theory. Without this combination of theory, re- search, and operational procedures and software, proponents of technology-supported cooperative learning cannot present a persuasive case for adoption or an effective training programfor teachers. On the positive side, there has been so little research on technology-supported cooperative learning that the future is wide open to interested social scientists. There are, however, several areas on which researchers can focus. First, there is a need for long-term studies that track the use of technology-supported cooperative learning across at least 1 school year and, ideally, several years. Short-termstudies of ini- tial use are not enough. The real question is whether the use of technology-supported cooperative learning will be maintained over several years. Second, the critical factors that result in technology and co- operative learning enhancing each other need to be identied and researched. One important factor may be epistemic con- ict, that is, the collision of adverse opinion. Cognitive growth and the development of problem-solving skills depend on epi- stemic conict (D. W. Johnson &R. Johnson, 1979, 1995; Piaget, 1950). Students need the opportunity to experience and resolve academic controversies. Technology rarely engages students in intellectual conict the same way other students can. The role of technology in promoting and facilitating intellectual conicts among students has not been thoroughly investigated. Third, there is a question whether technology-supported instruction will increase inequality in educational outcomes (Becker &Sterling, 1987). Students who have access to the new technologies in their homes will be more skilled and sophisti- cated in their uses than will students who do not. Equality in the classroommay require heterogeneous grouping where students who are skilled in the use of instructional technologies work with students who are not. Cooperative learning is an essential aspect of such equalization. New studies need to be conducted on group composition focusing on the ability of students to use instructional technologies. Fourth, the implementation process by which technology- supported cooperative learning is institutionalized within schools needs to be documented and studied. Whereas advo- cates of technology see a revolutioncoming ininstruction, histo- rians point to the virtual absence of lasting or profound changes in classroom practice over the past 100 years. Despite brief periods of popularity, new instructional technologies such as educational television, language laboratories, and programmed learning were tried and dropped. Life in classrooms remains largely unchanged. Lepper and Gurtner (1989) argue that the last technology to have had a major impact on the way schools are run is the blackboard. Most often newtechnologies are used in ways that do not disrupt regular classroom practices, which means that they can be dropped with no disruption to ongoing classroom life. Similarly, software selection is often conducted with the intention of supporting existing classroom practices rather than transforming them. Considerably more research is needed on the implementation process by which the combina- tion of cooperative learning and learning technologies becomes integrated and institutionalized in classroom and schools. Fifth, studies need to focus on the role of teachers and ad- ministrators in the implementation process. No matter how good technology is, unless teachers decide to use it and gain some expertise in how to implement it, the technology will not be adopted by schools. Sixth, studies need to examine the support services re- quired for technology to be used in the classroom. Who re- pairs the technology and how often repairs are needed are important questions. Teachers, for example, cannot be ex- pected to be computer technicians. As the quantity of research on technology-supported cooperative learning has grown, so has the networking among interested social scientists and ed- ucators. In 1996 an international conference on computer- supported cooperative learning took place, followed by similar conferences in Toronto in 1997, at Stanford University in 1999, in The Netherlands in 2001, and in Boulder, Colorado, in 2002. Conferences such as these are helpful in advancing the develop- ment of relevant theory, research, and operational procedures and software. 30.11 SUMMARY We live in a networked, information-based society in which teams and technology are needed to manage the complexity of learning, work, and living. Schools have become a strategic place. For educationtodevelopthe technological andteamwork competencies of children, adolescents, andyoung adults, if must overcome the individualistic assumption historically connected with technology-supported instruction and utilize cooperative learning as an inherent part of instruction. The individual as- sumption is that instruction should be tailored to each stu- dents personal aptitude, learning style, personality characteris- tics, motivation, and needs. Computers were originally viewed as an important tool for providing individualized learning ex- periences. The difculties and shortcomings of individualizing P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 806
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON instruction call into question the wisdom of focusing technol- ogy on delivering individualized instruction. Technology may be more productively used when it is used in combination with cooperation learning. Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each others learning. There are four types of co- operative learningformal cooperative learning, informal co- operative learning, base groups, and academic controversies. Technology-supported cooperative learning exists when the instructional use of technology is combined with the use of cooperative learning groups. What underlies cooperative learn- ings worldwide use is that it is based on a well-formulated theory that has been validated by numerous research studies and operationalized into practical procedures that can be used at any level of education. The three theoretical perspectives that have contributed to cooperative learning are cognitive- developmental theory, behavioral learning theory, and social interdependence theory. The latter has had the most profound inuence on the development of cooperative learning. Between 1898 and 1989, over 550 experimental and 100 correlational studies were conducted comparing the relative effectiveness of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic efforts. Generally, cooperative efforts result in higher achievement, more positive relationships, and greater psychological health than do compet- itive or individualistic efforts. Not all groups, however, are coop- erative groups. To be a cooperative group, ve basic elements must be structured within the learning situationpositive inter- dependence, promotive interaction, individual accountability, social skills, and group processing. For schools to adopt tech- nology and maintain its use over time, the school organizational structure must change from a mass-manufacturing structure to a team-based, high-performance structure (which is known as the cooperative school). There is a growing body of research on technology- supported cooperative learning. The results indicate that compared with technology-supported instruction, coopera- tive learning tends to increase achievement (both academic achievement and learning how to use technology), promote positive attitudes (toward technology and cooperation), pro- mote development (cognitive development, learning control, social competencies), promote positive relationships with team members, promote positive effects on both high- and low-performing students and both male and female students, be cost effective, and promote innovation in groupware and hardware. What this research illuminates is that cooperative learning and technology-supported instruction have comple- mentary strengths. The more technology is used to teach, the more necessary cooperative learning is. The computer, for example, can control the ow of work, monitor accuracy, give electronic feedback, and do calculations. Cooperative learning provides a sense of belonging, the opportunity to explain and summarize what is being learned, social models, respect and approval for efforts to achieve, encouragement of divergent thinking, and interpersonal feedback on academic learning and the use of the technology. A number of questions must be asked about technology- supported instruction. Does technology affect achievement, or is it only a means for delivering instruction? Current evidence in- dicates that computers deliver instruction but they do not effect achievement in and of themselves. Is a dialogue with the com- puter as effective as a dialogue with another person in promot- ing achievement and higher-level reasoning? The answer seems to be no. Can the computer pass as a person? The answer seems to be no. Cooperators are people, not machines. Is the effective- ness of a message separate fromthe medium? The answer seems to be yes, messages from other people are more powerful and inuential than are messages from machines. Is technology an amplier or a transformer of the mind? The answer seems to be an amplier. Technology amplies communication, but it takes other people to transform each others minds. The future of technology-supported cooperative learning depends largely on the cycle of theoryresearchpractice. The unique opportunities of technology-supported cooperative learning need to be tied to social interdependence theory (or an- other theory underlying cooperative learning), research needs to be conducted to validate or disconrm the theoretical pre- dictions, and operational procedures and groupware need to be developed directly based on the validated theory. Finally, technologies can either facilitate or obstruct cooper- ation. The ways in which technology may enhance or inter- fere with cooperative efforts have not been conceptualized, placed in a theoretical framework, researched, and applied in classrooms. Despite the success of cooperative learning and technology, there are a number of shortcomings of the work on technology-supported cooperative learning. Among other issues, long-term studies of the use of technology-supported co- operative learning are needed, the role of factors that enhance or interfere with cooperation (such as epistemic conict) need to be studied, the impact of implementation on equality of op- portunity needs to be researched, and the role of the teacher and support services needed to be investigated. Few educational innovations hold the promise that technology-supported cooperative learning does. The combi- nation of cooperation and technology has a potential that is changing the way courses are being delivered and instruction is taking place. More theorizing, research, and renement of practice is needed to help the eld actualize its possibilities. References Adams, D., Carson, H., & Hamm, M. (1990). Cooperative learning and educational media. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Tech- nology. Allen, R. (2001, Fall). Technology and learning. Curriculum Update, 13, 68. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop- ment. P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 30. Cooperation and Technology
807 Ames, R., & Lau, S. (1982). An attributional analysis of student help- seeking in academic settings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 414423. Amigues, R., & Agostinelli, S. (1992). Collaborative problem-solving with computer: Howcan an interactive learning environment be de- signed? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 7(4), 325 337. Anderson, A., Mayes, T., & Kibby, M. (1995). Small group collaborative discovery learning from hypertext. In C. OMalley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning, NATO ASI Series F: Computer and systems sciences (Vol. 129, pp. 2328). Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Archer-Kath, J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1994). Individual versus groupfeedback incooperative groups. Journal of Social Psychology, Aronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Baker, C. (1985). The microcomputer and the curriculum. A critique. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17, 449451. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren- tice Hall. Bates, A. (1995). Tecnology, open learning and distance education. London: Routledge. Battista, M., &Clements, D. (1986). The effects of LogoandCAI problem- solving environments on problem-solving abilities and mathematics achievement. Computers in Human Behavior, 2, 183193. Beane, W., & Lemke, E. (1971). Group variables inuencing the transfer of conceptual behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(3), 215218. Bearison, D. (1982). New directions in studies of social interaction and cognitive growth. In F. Seraca (Ed.), Social-cognitive development in context (pp. 199221). New York: Guildford Press. Bearison, D., Magzamen, S., &Filardo, E. (1986). Socio-cognitive conict and cognitive growth in young children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 32, 5172. Becker, H. (1984). School uses of microcomputers: Reports from a national survey (Issue No. 6). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Uni- versity, Center for Social Organization of Schools. Becker, H. (1985). The second national U.S. school users of microcom- puters survey. Paper presented at the Second World Conference on Computers in Education, Norfolk, VA. Becker, H., & Sterling, C. (1987). Equity in schools computer use: Na- tional data and neglected considerations. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, 289311. Bell, P. (2001). Using argument map representations to make thinking visible in the classroom. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 449485). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Berndt, T., Perry, T., & Miller, K. (1988). Friends and classmates inter- actions on academic tasks. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 506513. Bonk, C., & King, K. (Eds.). (1998). Electronic collaborators: Learner- centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bonk, C., Medury, P., &Reynolds, T. (in press). Cooperative hypermedia: The marriage of collaborative writing and mediated environments. Computers in the Schools, Britton, J. (1990). Research currents: Second thoughts on learning. In Brubacher, M., Payne, R., & Richett, K. (Eds.), Perspectives on small group learning: Theory and practice (pp. 311). Oakville, Ontario: Rubicon. Brush, T. (1997). The effects onstudent achievement and attitudes when using integrated learning systems with cooperative pairs. Educa- tional Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 5164. Carlson, H., & Falk, D. (1989). Effective use of interactive videodisc instruction in understanding and implementing cooperative group learning with elementary pupils in social studies. Theory and Re- search in Social Education, 17(3), 241158. Carrier, C. (1984). Do learners make good choices? A reviewof research on learner control in instruction. Instructional Innovator, 29(2), 1517. Carrier, C., & Sales, G. (1987). Pair versus individual work on the acqui- sition concepts in a computer-based instructional lesson. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14(1), 1117. Chernick, R., & White, M. (1981). Pupils interaction with microcom- puters vs. interaction in classroom settings. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, Electronic Learning Laboratory. Chernick, R., & White, M. (1983, May). Pupil cooperation in computer learning vs. learning with classroom materials. Paper presented at the New York State Psychological Association, Liberty, NY. Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Re- view of Educational Research, 53, 445459. Clements, D. (1986). Research on Logo and social development. Logo Exchange, 5(3), 2224. Clements, D., & Nastasi, B. (1985). Effects of computer environments on social-emotional development: Logo and computer-assisted in- struction. Computers in the Schools, 2(2/3), 1131. Clements, D., & Nastasi, B. (1988). Social and cognitive interaction in educational computer environments. American Educational Re- search Journal, 25, 87106. Cockayne, S. (1991, February). Effects of small group sizes on learning with interactive videodisc. Educational Technology, 4345. Cohen, E. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for heterogeneous classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Cosden, M., & English, J. (1987). The effects of grouping, self-esteem, and locus of control on microcomputer performance and help seek- ing by mildly handicapped students. Journal of Educational Com- puting Research, 3, 443460. Cox, D., & Berger, C. (1985). The importance of group size in the use of problem-solving skills on a microcomputer. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1, 459468. Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. London: Routledge. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of tech- nology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press. Dalton, D. (1990a). The effects of cooperative learning strategies on achievement and attitudes during interactive video. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 17, 816. Dalton, D. (1990b, April). The effects of prior learning on learner in- teraction and achievement during cooperative computer-based in- struction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA. Dalton, D., Hannan, M., & Hooper, S. (1987). Effects of individual and cooperative computer-assisted instruction on student performance and attitudes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 1524. Damon, W., & Killen, M. (1982). Peer interaction and the process of change in childrens moral reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 28, 347367. Davis, J., & Huttenlocher, D. (1995). Shared annotation for cooperative learning. Proceedings of CSCL95: First International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dees, R. (1991). The role of cooperative learning in increasing problem- solving ability in a college remedial course. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 409421. Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129152. P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 808
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 275 319). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. DeVries, D., & Edwards, K. (1974). Student teams and learning games: Their effects on cross-race and cross-sex interaction. Journal of Ed- ucational Psychology, 66(5), 741749. Dickson, W., & Vereen M. (1985). Two students at one microcomputer. Theory into Practice, 22(4), 296300. Druckman, D., Rozelle, R., & Baxter, J. (1982). Nonverbal communica- tion: Survey, theory, and research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Dwyer, D. (1994). Apple classrooms of tomorrow: What weve learned. Educational Leadership, 51(7), 410. Dyer, L. (1993). An investigation of the effects of cooperative learn- ing on computer monitored problem solving. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Minnesota. Eraut, M. (1995). Groupwork withcomputers inBritishprimary schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(1), 6187. Federico, P. (1980). Adaptive instruction: Trends and issues. In R. Snow, P. Federico, & W. Montague (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruc- tion: Vol. 1. Cognitive process analysis of aptitude (pp. 126). Hills- dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fishman, B., & Gomez, L. (1997, December). How activities foster CMC tool use in classrooms. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Computer support for cooperative learning 1997. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 3744). Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Fletcher, B. (1985). Group and individual learning of junior high school children on a micro-computer-based task. Educational Review, 37, 252261. Fetcher-Flinn, C., &Gravatt, B. (1995). The efcacy of computer assisted instruction (CAI): A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Comput- ing Research, 12(3), 219241. Frank, M. (1984). A comparison between an individual and group goal structure contingency that differed in the behavioral contingency and performance-outcome components (Doctoral dissertation, Uni- versity of Minnesota). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45(05), 1341A. Garhart, C., Hannan, M. (1986). The accuracy of cognitive monitoring during computer-based instruction. Journal of Computer-Based In- struction, 13, 8893. Hancock, V., & Betts, F. (1994). From the lagging to the leading edge. Educational Leadership, 51(7), 2429. Hannan, M. (1984). Guidelines for using locus of instructional control in the design of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Instruc- tional Development, 7(3), 610. Hannan, M., & Rieber, L. (1989). Psychological foundations of instruc- tional design for emerging computer-based interactive technologies: Part II. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 102114. Hara, N., Bonk, C., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online dis- cussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115152. Harasim, L., Hiltz, R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A eld guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. Hawkins, S., Sheingold, K., Gearhart, M., &Berger, C. (1982). Microcom- puters in schools: Impact on the social life of elementary classrooms. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 3, 361373. Hill, G. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are N + 1 heads better than one? Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517539. Hooper, S. (1992a). Effects of peer interaction during computer-based mathematics instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 85(3), 180189. Hooper, S. (1992b). Cooperation learning and computer-based instruc- tion. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(3), 2138. Hooper, S., & Hannan, M. (1988). Cooperative CBI: The effects of het- erogeneous versus homogeneous groups on the learning of progres- sively complex concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Re- search, 4(4), 413424. Hooper, S., &Hannan, M. (1991). The effects of group composition on achievement, interaction, and learning efciency during computer- based cooperative instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 2740. Hooper, S., Ward, T., Hannan, M., & Clark, H. (1989). The effects of aptitude composition on achievement during small group learning. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16, 102109. Hooper, S., Temiyakarn, C., & Williams, M. (1993). The effects of coop- erative learning and learner control on high- and average-ability stu- dents. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(2), 518. Hwong, N., Caswell, A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1993). Effects of cooperative and individualistic learning on prospective elemen- tary teachers music achievement and attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 133(1), 5364. Huang, C. (1993). The effects of feedback on performance and atti- tude in cooperative and individualized computer-based instruc- tion. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota. Hythecker, V., Rocklin, T., Dansereau, D., Lambiotte, J., Larson, C., & ODonnell, A. (1985). A computer-based learning strategy training module: Development and evaluation. Journal of Educational Com- puter Research, 1(3), 275283. Inkpen, K., Booth, K., Klawe, M., & Upitis, R. (1995). Playing together beats playing apart, especially for girls. In J. Schnase & E. Cunnius (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 1995: The First International Confer- ence on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 177 181). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Innis, H. (1964). The bias of communication. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Innis, H. (1972). Empire and communication. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Isenberg, R. (1992). Social skills at the computer. The Cooperative Link, 2(6), 12. Jarvela, S. (1996). New models of teacher-student interaction: A critical review. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 6(3), 246 268. Johnson, D. W. (1991). Human relations and your career. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Johnson, D. W. (2003). Reaching out: Interpersonal effectiveness and self-actualization. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. (2003). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1979). Conict in the classroom: Controversy and learning. Review of Educational Research, 49, 5170. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986). Computer-assisted cooperative learning. Educational Technology, 26(1), 1218. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1992a). Positive interdependence: Key to effective cooperation. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Ed.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 174199). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer- sity Press. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1992b). Positive interdependence: The heart of cooperative Learning. Edina, MN: Interaction Book. P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 30. Cooperation and Technology
809 Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1994). Leading the cooperative school (2nd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book. Johnson, D. W., &Johnson, R. (1995). Creative controversy: Intellectual challenge in the classroom (3rd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1998a). Cooperation in the classroom (6th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1998b). Advanced cooper- ative learning (2nd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Richards, P. (1986). A scale for assessing student attitudes toward computers: Preliminary ndings. Comput- ers in the Schools, 3(2), 3138. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998). Active learning: Coop- eration in the college classroom (2nd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Stanne, M. (1989). Impact of goal and resource interdependence on problem-solving success. Journal of Social Psychology, 129(5), 621629. 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, 507516. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Richards, S., & Buckman, L. (1986). The effect of prolongedimplementationof cooperative learning onsocial support within the classroom. Journal of Psychology, 119, 405411. Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. W. (1979). Type of task and student achieve- ment and attitudes in interpersonal cooperation, competition, and individualization. Journal of Social Psychology, 116, 211219. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Ortiz, A., & Stanne, M. (1991). Impact of positive goal and resouce interdependence on achievement, inter- action, and attitudes. Journal of General Psychology, 118(4), 341 347. Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., &Stanne, M. (1985). Effects of cooperative, competitive, andindividualistic goal structures oncomputer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 668677. Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. (1986). A comparison of computer-assisted cooperative, competitive, and individualis- tic learning. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 382 392. Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., Stanne, M., Smizak, B., & Avon, J. (1987). Effect of composition pairs at the word processor on quality of writing and ability to use the word processor. Minneapolis: Coop- erative Learning Center, University of Minnesota. Keeler, C., & Anson, R. (1995). An assessment of cooperative learning used for basic computer skills instruction in the college classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19(4), 379393. Khalili, A., & Shashaani, L. (1994). The effectiveness of computer ap- plications: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27(1), 4862. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., &McGuire, T. (1984, October). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychol- ogist, 39(10), 11231134. King, A. (1989). Verbal interaction and problem solving within computer-assisted cooperative learning groups. Journal of Educa- tional Computing Research, 5(1), 115. Lee, M. (1993). Gender, group composition, and peer interaction in computer-based cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Com- puting Research, 9(4), 549577. Lehrer, R., &Smith, P. (1986, April). Logo learning: Are two heads better than one? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Lehtinen, E., &Repo, S. (1996). Activity, social interaction and reective abstraction: Learning advanced mathematics in a computer environ- ment. In S. Vosniadou, E. DeCorte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology supported learning environments (pp. 105128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl- baum. Lehtinen, E., Hamalainen, S., & Malkonen, E. (1998, April). Learning experimental research methodology and statistical inference in a computer environement. Paper presented at the American Educa- tional Research Association Annual Meeting, San Diego. Lepper, M., & Gurtner J. (1989). Children and computers: Approaching the twenty-rst century. American Psychologist, 44(2), 170178. Lesgold, A., Weiner, A., & Suthers, D. (1995, August). Tools for thinking about complex issues. Paper presented at the 6th European Con- ference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Levin, J., & Kareev, Y. (1980). Problem-solving in everyday situations. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 2, 4751. Lew, M., Mesch, D., Johnson, D. W., &Johnson, R. (1986a). Positive inter- dependence, academic and collaborative-skills group contingencies and isolated students. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 476488. Lew, M., Mesch, D., Johnson, D. W., &Johnson, R. (1986b). Components of cooperative learning: Effects of collaborative skills and academic group contingencies on achievement and mainstreaming. Contem- porary Educational Psychology, 11, 229239. Lin, J., Wu, C., & Liu, H. (1999). Using SimCPU in cooperative learning laboratories. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20(3), 259277. Love, W. (1969). Individual versus paired learning of an abstract alge- bra presented by computer assisted instruction. Ph.D. Dissertation, Florida State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 034 403). Malikowski, S. (1998). WEB-based conferencing for education. The Center for Excellence in Education. McConnell, D. (1994). Managing open learning in computer supported collaborative learning environments. Studies in Higher Education, 19(3), 175191. McDonald, C. (1993). Learner-controlled lesson in cooperative learn- ing groups during computer-based instruction. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Minnesota. McGuire, T., Kiesler, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer- mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 52, 917930. McInerey, V., McInerney, D., & Marsh, H. (1997). Effects of metacogni- tive strategy training within a cooperative group learning context on computer achievement and anxiety: An aptitude-treatment inter- action study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 686695. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: New American Library. Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Mesch, D., Lew, M., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1986). Isolated teenagers, cooperative learning and the training of social skills. Jour- nal of Psychology, 120, 323334. Mesch, D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1988). Impact of positive in- terdependence and academic group contingencies on achievement. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 345352. Mevarech, Z. (1993). Who benets from cooperative computer-assisted instruction? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9(4), 451464. Mevarech, Z., Stern, D., &Levita, I. (1987). To cooperate or not to coop- erate in CAI: That is the question. Journal of Educational Research, 80(3), 164167. Mevarech, Z., Silber, O., & Fine, D. (1991). Learning with computers in small groups: Cognitive and affective outcomes. Journal of Educa- tional Computing Research, 7(2), 233243. P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 810
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON Milheim, W., &Martin, B. (1991). Theoretical bases for the use of learner control: Three different perspectives. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18(3), 99105. Mills, C., & Durden, W. (1992). Cooperative learning and ability groups: An issue of choice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(1), 1116. Muller, A., & Perlmutter, M. (1985). Preschool childrens problem- solving interactions at computers and jigsaw puzzles. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 6, 173186. Mulryan, C. (1992). Student passivity during cooperative small groups in mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 261 273. Murray, F. (1983). Cognitive benets of teaching on the teacher. Pa- per presented at American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Montreal, Quebec. Nastasi, B., & Clements, D. (1992). Social-cognitive behaviors and higher-order thinking in educational computer environments. Learning and Instruction, 2, 215238. Nastasi, B., Clements, D., & Battista, M. (1990). Social-cognitive interac- tions, motivation, and cognitive growth in logo programming and CAI problem-solving environments. Journal of Educational Psy- chology, 82, 150158. Noell, J., & Carnine, D. (1989). Group and individual computer-based video instruction. Educational Technology, 29(1), 3637. Okey, J., & Majer, K. (1976). Individual and small-group learning with computer-assisted instruction. AV Communication Review, 24(1), 7986. OMahony, S., & Barley, S. (1999). Do digital telecommunications affect work and organization? The state of our knowledge. Research on Organizational Behavior, 21, 125161. Pea, R., Edelson, E., & Gomez, L. (1994, April). The CoVis Collabora- tory: High school science learning supported by a broadband edu- cational network with scientic visualization, videoconferencing, and collaborative computing. Paper presented at the Annual Meet- ing of the American Educational Research Association, NewOrleans, LA. Perret-Clermont, A. (1980). Social interaction and cognitive develop- ment in children. New York: Academic Press. Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. New York: Harcourt. Postman, N. (1985). Ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. New York: Viking Penguin. Postthast, M. (1995, April). Cooperative learning experiences in in- troductory statistics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Putnam, J., Rynders, J., Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. W. (1989). Collabo- rative skills instruction for promoting positive interactions between mentally handicapped and nonhandicapped children. Exceptional Children, 55, 550557. Reglin, G. (1990). The effects of individualized and cooperative com- puter assisted instruction on mathematics achievement and math- ematics anxiety for prospective teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 22, 404412. Reigeluth, C., & Stein, F. (1983). The elaborative theory of instruction. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (pp. 335382). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Repman, J. (1993). Collaborative, computer-based learning: Cognitive and affective outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Re- search, 9(2), 149163. Riel, M. (1990). Cooperative learning across classrooms in electronic learning circles. Instructional Science, 19, 445466. Robinson, A. (1990) Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for talented students. Journal of Education of the Gifted, 14(3), 927. Rocklin, T., ODonnell, A., Dansereau, D., Lambiotte, J., Hythecker, Va., & Larson, C. (1985). Training learning strategies with computer-aided cooperative learning. Computers in Education, 9(1), 6771. Rubin, A. (1983). The computer confronts language arts: Cans and shoulds for education. In A. Wilkinson (Ed.), Classroom comput- ers and cognitive science (pp. 201218). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Rysavy, D., & Sales, G. (1991). Cooperative learning in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(2), 7079. Salomon, G. (1983). The differential investment of mental effort in learn- ing from different sources. Educational Psychologist, 18(1), 4250. Salomon, G. (1985). Information technologies: What you see is not (al- ways) what you get. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 207216. Sarason, I., & Potter, E. (1983). Self-monitoring: Cognitive processes, and performance. Seattle: University of Washington, Research Re- port. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLearn, R., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, D. (1989). Computer supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 5168. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, K., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroominto world 3. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Class- roomlessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroompractice (pp. 201228). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press. Sherman, L. (2000). Cooperative learning and computer-supported in- tentional learning experiences. In C. Wolfe (Ed.), Learning and teaching on the world wide web (pp. 113130). New York: Aca- demic Press. Shlechter, T. (1990). The relative instructional efciency of small group computer-based training. Journal of Educational Computing Re- search, 6, 329341. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley. Showers, C., & Cantor, N. (1985). Social cognition: A look at motivated strategies. In M. Rosenzweig & L. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology, (Vol. 36, pp. 275306). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Siann, G., & MacLeod, G. (1986). Computers and children of primary school age: Issues and questions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 17, 133144. Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. (1986). Group pro- cesses in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Be- havior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157187. Simpson, J. (1986). Computers and collaborative work among students. Educational Technology, 26(10), 3744. Simsek, A., & Hooper, S. (1992). The effects of cooperative versus in- dividual videodisc learning on student performance and attitudes. International Journal of Instructional Media, 19(3), 209218. Simsek, A., & Tsai, B. (1992). The impact of cooperative group com- position on student performance and attitudes during interac- tive videodisc instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(3), 8691. Slavin, R. (1986). Using student team learning. Baltimore, MD: Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University. Slavin, R., Leavey, M., & Madden, N. (1982). Team-assisted individu- alization: Mathematics teachers manual. Baltimore: Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University. Snow, R. (1980). Aptitude, learner control, and adaptive instruction. Educational Psychologist, 15, 151158. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Computers, networks and work. Scien- tic American, 65, 116123. Steinberg, E. (1977). Review of student control in computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 3(3), 8490. Steinberg, E. (1984). Teaching computers to teach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 30. Cooperation and Technology
811 Steinberg, E. (1989). Cognition and learner control: A literature review, 19771988. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16(4), 117 124. Stephenson, S. (1992). Effects of student-instructor interaction and paired/individual study on achievement in computer-based training (CBT). Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(1), 2226. Susman, E. (1998). Cooperative learning: A review of factors that in- crease the effectiveness of cooperative computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18(4), 303332. Suthers, D. (1998, January). Computer aided education and training initiative. Technical Report 12. Swing, S., & Peterson, P. (1982). The relationship of student ability and small group interaction to student achievement. American Educa- tional Research Journal, 19, 259274. Tennyson, R., Christensen, D., & Park, O. (1984). The Minnesota Adap- tive Instructional System: A review of its theory and research. Jour- nal of Computer-Based Instruction, 11(1), 213. Trevino. L., Lengel, R., & Daft, R. (1987). Media symbolism, media rich- ness, and media choice in organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Communication Research, 14, 553574. Tobias, S. (1987). Mandatory text review and interaction with stu- dent characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 154 161. Trowbridge, D., & Durnin, R. (1984). Results from an investigation of groups working at the computer. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Turk, S., & Sarason, I. (1983). Test anxiety and causal attributions. Seattle: University of Washington, Department of Psychology. Underwood, G., & McCaffrey, M. (1990). Gender differences in a coop- erative computer-based language task. Educational Research, 32, 4449. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- sity Press. Webb, N. (1982). Group composition, group interaction, and achieve- ment in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychol- ogy, 74(4), 475484. Webb, N. (1984). Microcomputer learning in small groups: Cognitive re- quirements and group processes. Journal of Educational Psychol- ogy, 76, 10761088. Webb, N. (1987). Peer interaction and learning with computers in small groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 3, 193209. Webb, N. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. Inter- national Journal of Educational Research, 13, 2139. Webb, N., Ender, P., & Lewis, S. (1986). Problem solving strategies and group processes in small group learning computer programming. American Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 243261. Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., & Haythorn- waite, C. (1996). Computer networks as social networks: collabo- rative work, telework, and virtual community. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 213238. Whitelock, D., Scanlon, E., Taylor, J., & OShea, T. (1995). Computer support for pupils collaborating: A case study on collisions. In J. Schnase & E. Cunnius (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 1995: The First International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 380384). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Willis, S. (1990). Cooperative learning fallout. ASCD Update, 32(8), 6, 8. Woolley, J. (1995). Childrens understanding of ctional versus episte- mic mental representation: Imagination and belief. Child Develop- ment, 66(4), 10111021. Yager, S., Johnson, D. W., &Johnson, R. (1985). Oral discussion, group-to- individual transfer, and achievement in cooperative learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 6066. Yager, S., Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., &Snider, B. (1986). The impact of group processing on achievement in cooperative learning groups. Journal of Social Psynology, 126, 389397. Yeuh, J., & Alessi, S. (1988). The effects of reward structure and group ability composition on cooperative computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15, 1822. Zimmerman, B. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 303313. P1: MRM/FYX P2: MRM/UKS QC: MRM/UKS T1: MRM PB378-30 PB378-Jonassen-v3.cls September 8, 2003 15:11 Char Count= 0 812