-
Embedding Cooperative Learning into the Design of Integrated
Learning Systems: Rationale and Guidelines
[] Thomas A. Brush
An Integrated Learning Systera (ILS) is an advanced
computer-based instructional sys- tem, generally consisting of a
set of computer- ized courseware covering several grade levels and
content areas, and complex classroom management and reporting
features. Although ILSs have become increasingly popular in schools
over the past five to ten years, they introduce several potential
factors that could have negative effects on students' academic and
social growth. These factors include: (a) de-emphasis of affective
outcomes and increased student isolation, (b) lack of teacher
involvement in curriculum planning and deliv- ery, and (c)
disparate effects on student achievement based on students'
academic level. One possible strategy for addressing these concerns
is integrating cooperative learning with ILS instruction. This
paper will examine the research dealing with integrating coopera-
tive learning strategies and computer-based instruction and provide
guidelines and strategies for designing ILS instruction that
enhances opportunities for cooperative learning.
[] An Integrated Learning System (ILS) is an advanced
computer-based instructional system, generally consisting of a set
of computerized courseware covering several grade levels and
content areas, complex classroom management and reporting features,
and supplementary materials (workbooks, audiotapes, manipula-
rives) to be used by students when they are not engaged in the
computer-based activities (Bec- ker & Hativa, 1994; Mills,
1994; Robinson, 1991; Wiburg, 1995). The ILS software is usually
stored on a central file server and distributed to lab- or
classroom-based workstations via the school'6 local area network
(Roblyer, Edwards, & Havriluk, 1997; Sherry, 1990).
The design of most current TLSs is based on the theory that
learning is best facilitated not by providing opportunities for
social interaction and dialogue among learners, but by meeting the
unique needs of each individual (Becker, 1992b; Hativa, 1994;
Mevarech, 1994). Thus, ILSs are designed primarily to be used by
students individually so that learners can receive instruc- tion,
feedback, and remediation that is tailored to individual levels
optimal for learning. This approach perpetuates a design that
includes components for determining student entry skills, placing
students at a level of instruction consistent with their entry
skills, providing opportunities to practice skills with immediate
and appropriate feedback, and testing for mas- tery and providing
remediation if needed (Bec- ker, 1992b).
For example, a typical ILS curriculum sequence begins by
administering an individual placement test to each student in order
to deter- mine academic entry level. Once this is deter- mined, the
ILS places each student at the
ETR&D. Vol. 46. No. 3. 1998, pp. 5.-18 ISSN 1042-1629
-
6 ETR&D. Vo146. No 3
beginning of an instructional unit consistent with the
appropriate level. This unit is divided into several sections or
lessons comprised of interactive information presentation and prac-
tice activities. If the student is having difficulty with some of
the content within a particular les- son, the ILS branches the
student to additional remediation activities. Once the student has
completed the sequence of lessons for the unit, a more extensive
test is administered in order to provide both the student and the
teacher with information regarding the student's mastery of the
concepts included in the unit. Many systems also administer a
comprehensive achievement test at the end of an entire curriculum
sequence (e.g., the fifth-grade math sequence) in order to provide
schools with data regarding students' academic growth throughout
the year. Figure 1 illustrates a typical ILS design sequence.
ILS POTENTIAL AND PROBLEMS
The ILS has become increasingly popular with K-12 schools over
the past five to ten years. Esti- mates are that between 11% and
25% of schools in the United States currently own ILSs (Brush &
Bannon, 1998; Clariana, 1996; White, 1992), and that ILSs account
for nearly 50% of total educa- tional software purchases (Bailey,
1993). There are two explanations for the prevalence of these
systems. First and foremost, school leaders believe ILSs are
effective in raising standardized tests scores, particularly with
older students and students who have difficulty learning from tra-
ditional classroom-based methods (i.e., low and high achievers).
Several research studies have concluded that ILSs have a positive
impact on academic achievement (Alfrangis, 1989; Bender, 1991;
Clariana, 1994, 1996; Hativa, 1994; Van
F igure 1 [ ] Typ ica l ILS des ign sequence .
Courseware Sequence
Unit I ~ Unit 2
Louon 1
Lesson 2
Lesson 1 ..... LEmon 1 :' . o~ . . . . . . . . . . .
'." I..elNl~l 2 -."
, . . : . . ! . . . . . . ~
.. ~o .
:~" Unit ". : ' Test ; . . . .
- . . . . , ,,-
Test
-
COOPERATIVE LEARNING ILS DESIGN 7
Dusen & Worthen, 1994; Worthen, Van Dusen, & Sailor,
1994). Second, many school leaders believe these systems provide a
"turnkey" implementation process for integrating com- puter-based
instruction into the curriculum (Becket, 1994; Shockley, 1992;
Wiburg, 1995). In fact, many ILS vendors use ease of implementa-
tion and the availability of courseware, training, and support from
one source as major reasons for buying their products.
These perceived benefits of ILSs are not with- out their
critics. Some researchers believe that the academic impact of ILSs
is somewhat disap- pointing when compared to the investment in
monetary and personnel resources needed to purchase and maintain
these systems. Becker (1992, 1994) conducted meta-analyses of
numer- ous studies examining the academic impact of ILSs. Although
he found that ILSs had moder- ately positive effects on student
achievement, he concluded that ILSs would have a greater impact if
teachers and school leaders abandoned their "mindless adherence to
the principle of individualized instruction" (Becker, 1994, p. 78),
and explored alternative implementation strate- gies for these
systems. Both Wiburg (1995) and Maddux and Willis (1992) also
cautioned that research regarding ILSs and academic achieve- ment
was inconclusive and that further study was needed in this
area.
From the standpoint of ease of implementa- tion, studies have
shown that, in many instances, a belief in the turnkey approach
leads to lack of teacher involvement during ILS ses- sions. As
Becker (1994) stated, "Because such programs can run with little
intervention from the teacher.. , it is tempting for schools to
allow ILS programs to run essentially unattended except for the
technical support provided by systems managers . . ." (p.78). This
lack of teacher involvement has led to improper coordi- nation
between classroom-based and computer- based instructional
activities, inadequate student support while they are completing
ILS instruction, and lack of teacher understanding regarding
effective strategies and procedures for using ILSs (Becket, 1992b,
1994; Brush, 1997; Hativa, 1994; Sherry, 1990).
In addition to the lack of clear evidence regarding the academic
impact of ILSs and the
need for more teacher involvement when implementing these
systems, researchers have cautioned that long-term individualized
use of ILSs, which is generally the recommended method for using
these systems in schools (Hativa, 1994; West & Marcotte,
1993-94), can have a variety of adverse effects on students
(Becket, 1992b; Brush, 1997; Mevarech, 1994). Research on affective
dimensions of ILSs has shown that long-term individualized usage of
ILSs by students leads to anxiety and hostility toward the subject
matter (Brush, 1997; Lepper, 1985), increased feelings of
inadequacy and helplessness (Hativa, Swissa, & Lesgold, 1992;
Mevarech, 1994), a general dislike of the ILS activities,
particularly among low-achieving stu- dents (Brush, 1997; Hativa,
1994), and a decrease in teacher interaction with students (Becker,
1994).
A second concern is that, while ILSs appear to have a positive
effect on achievement levels of low- and high-achieving students,
they do little to foster academic growth of average students. Osin,
Nesher, & Ram (1994) analyzed achieve- ment results from 15
different schools using ILSs for math instruction and found a
curvilinear relationship, with low and high achievers per- forming
better than medium achievers. Similar results have been reported by
Becker (1992b, 1994) and Hativa (1994). As Becker (1992b) stated,
"[ILSs] are much less likely to help stu- "dents in the middle of
the class distribution, who are less likely to need a different
level or pace of instruction compared to what they receive in
traditional whole-class teaching" (p.10). Thus, the traditional
individualized delivery model for ILS instruction does not appear
to equally address the individual needs of all students
effectively.
The research reviewed above suggests that ILSs introduce several
potential factors that, at the very least, impede the overall
effectiveness of the systems and, at their worst, could have
negative effects on students' academic and social growth. These
factors include: (a) de- emphasis of affective outcomes and
increased student isolation, (b) lack of teacher involvement in
curriculum planning and delivery, and (c) disparate effects on
student achievement based on students' academic level.
-
8 ETR&D. Vo146. No. 3
How might the design of ILSs and/or the delivery of ILS
instruction be improved to address these problems while maintaining
(or increasing) the benefits these systems provide to schools
(i.e., improved test scores, ease of implementation)? One strategy
that has been effective with computer-assisted instruction (CAI)
but has not been widely researched with regard to ILSs is the use
of cooperative learning groups (Brush, 1997; Hooper & Hannafin,
1991; Hooper, Temiyakarn, & Williams, 1993; Mevarech, 1994).
Research has demonstrated that cooperative learning improves
students' social interaction skills (Lloyd, Crowley, Kohler, &
Strain, 1988, Mesch, Lew, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986), promotes
more teacher involvement with individual students (Hertz-Lazarowitz
& Schachar, 1990; Sharan & Sharan, 1992), and has positive
academic affects for students of all abil- ity levels (Simsek &
Hooper, 1992; Slavin, 1991; Yager, Johnson, & Johnson, 1985).
Thus, it is pos- sible that the instructional issues associated
with ILSs could be addressed through the integration of cooperative
learning strategies with ILS instruction.
Although combining cooperative learning with ILSs appears to be
a potential solution to many of the problems associated with ILSs,
there are currently no ILS systems that overtly embed opportunities
for cooperative learning into their courseware, additionally, few
systems provide any procedures or materials to assist teachers with
integrating cooperative learning activities into ILS instruction.
Furthermore, while researchers have discussed the potential
benefits of combining cooperative learning with CAI and ILS
instruction and have provided lim- ited strategies for
incorporating cooperative learning into computerized instruction
(e.g. Bec- ker, 1992b; Hooper, 1992; Rysavy & Sales, 1991),
there has been little discussion regarding how to design
computer-based instruction (and ILS instruction in particular) that
integrates key components of cooperative learning. If design
guidelines provided examples and strategies for embedding
cooperative learning strategies into ILS instruction, many of the
concerns and criti- cisms of long-term individualized exposure to
ILSs could be addressed, As schools invest more resources into ILSs
and push for longer and
more frequent student interactions with ILS courseware,
alternative strategies for delivery and management of ILS
instruction become more critical. This paper examines the research
dealing with integrating cooperative learning strategies and
computer-based instruction and provides guidelines and strategies
for designing ILS instruction that enhances opportunities for
cooperative learning.
OVERVIEW OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING
Cooperative learning is defined by Deutsch (1962) as a learning
situation in which students working in groups can achieve the goals
of an instructional activity only if the other students with whom
they are working achieve the goals as well. This can be contrasted
to individualistic learning, in which students' achievement of
goals is not dependent on other students' work (Yager, Johnson,
Johnson, & Snider, 1985). How- ever, there is still confusion
as to what learning situations constitute cooperative learning.
Plac- ing students in groups in order for them to com- plete an
instructional activity does not in itself promote cooperation
between and among the group members (Johnson & Johnson, 1991).
In fact, unstructured group activities could dis- courage rather
than encourage performance from the individual members of the group
(Johnson & Johnson, 1991; Slavin, 1995). In some group
activities, the "free rider" effect may occur, where less able
members allow other group members to complete the majority of the
activities (Hooper, 1992; Kerr & Bruun, 1983; Slavin, 1995).
Such activities may also lead to the "sucker effect," where the
more able members of the group expend less effort so that they
avoid having to do all the work for the group (Hooper, 1992;
Johnson & Johnson, 1991; Kerr, 1983).
Various cooperative learning strategies have been developed in
an attempt to address these factors. Some of the more popular
strategies include group investigation (Sharan & Sharan, 1992),
learning together (Johnson & Johnson, 1987, 1991), and student
team iearningmethods such as Jigsaw (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997),
Jigsaw II (Slavin, 1986), and Team Accelerated Instruc-
-
COOPERATIVE LEARNING ILS DESIGN 9
tion (Slavin, Leavey, & Madden, 1986). While these models
vary in implementation, several key components are present in each:
positive interdependence, individual accountability, and
collaborative skills.
Positive Interdependence
"Positive interdependence is the perception that you are linked
with others in a way so that you cannot succeed unless they do (and
vice versa); that is, their work benefits you, and your work
benefits them" (Johnson & Johnson, 1991, p. 127). In other
words, each group member believes he or she has a key role or
responsibility within the group and that the success of the group
depends upon each member succeeding in that role. Several types of
positive interde- pendence are outlined by Johnson and Johnson
(1991). These include positive goal interdepend- ence, in which
students perceive that they can achieve their goals only if all
members of the group achieve their goals also; positive reward
interdependence, where all group members receive the same reward
for completing the task; positive resource interdependence, in
which each group member has only a portion of the materi- als or
information needed for the task and the resources must be combined
to complete the task; positive role interdependence, in which each
member of the group is assigned a unique role complementary to the
roles of other group mem- bers; identity interdependence, in which
the group establishes a unique identity through a group name or
symbol; and environmental interdepend- ence, in which the group
members are forced to be together due to environmental constraints
such as an assigned group meeting area.
Promoting positive interdependence. According to Johnson and
Johnson (1991), positive interde- pendence begins with the
establishment of group goals and rewards (i.e., establishing goal
and reward interdependence). This goal/ reward structure helps
maintain the cohesive- hess of the group and provides students with
an incentive to help and encourage each other (Slavin, 1993). One
of the most widely used goal/reward structures involves measuring
the success of the group based on a combination of individual
achievement measures of group
members. This may include giving bonus points to a group for
each member scoring above 80% on a quiz (Johnson & Johnson,
1991); rewarding a group with additional free time when all mem-
bers of the group pass a test (Johnson & Johnson, 1991; Slavin,
1995); computing a "team score" for a test by averaging the
individual grades of all group members and providing achievement
certificates to the group with the highest team score (Slavin,
1985,1990); and posting the names of all groups whose members score
100% on periodic unit tests (Brush, 1997).
Researchers have also developed strategies for promoting other
forms of positive interde- pendence. Aronson and Patnoe (1997)
promote positive role and resource interdependence by dividing
resources and tasks among group members so that each member has
unique infor- mation and responsibilities needed to complete the
assignment or project. Positive identity inter- dependence can be
established by constructing a competitive environment among groups
in the class (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997; Johnson & John- son,
1991; Slavin, 1995) or by providing each group with a unique
identity or meeting area (Johnson & Johnson, 1991).
Individual Accountabi l i ty
Individual accountability means that each mem- ber of the
cooperative group should master the information for which the group
is responsible (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997; Brush, 1997; Slavin,
1995). As Slavin (1995) stated, "From early on, reviewers of the
cooperative learning literature have concluded that cooperative
learning has its greatest effects on student learning when groups
are recognized or rewarded based on the indi- vidual learning of
their members" (p. 41).
Establishing individual accountability. The sim- plest method
for incorporating individual accountability into cooperative
learning is to require each group member to complete a test on the
material individually after the coopera- tive learning activities
have been concluded (Slavin, 1995). This measure of individual
achievement may be used in a variety of ways. Student grades may be
based on an average of individual test scores of all group members
(Slavin, 1995). The teacher may also select one
-
10 I:TI~&D. Vol 46. No. 3
student at random and have that student's test score represent
the score for the group (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997; Johnson &
Johnson, 1991). Other methods for promoting individual accountabil-
ity include randomly requiring a group member to explain an answer
(Johnson & Johnson, 1991), determining individual grades based
on peer evaluations of group members (Slavin, 1995), and evaluating
students based on the unique tasks they needed to complete
individually in order for an overall group product to be com-
pleted (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997).
Teaching and Reinforcing Collaborative Skills
Creating a cooperative learning structure that promotes positive
interdependence and estab- lishes individual accountability does
not guar- antee the success of the cooperative learning activity.
Students also need to learn collabora- tive skills in order to work
effectively with other members of a group. As Johnson & Johnson
(1991) stated, "Students who have never been taught how to work
effectively with others can- not be expected to do so" (p. 146).
Collaborative skills include communicating ideas, building and
maintaining trust among group members, providing leadership, and
managing group con- flicts (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997; Johnson
& John- son, 1990, 1991). Slavin (1995) also suggested training
students on specific learning strategies such as prediction,
summarization, and ques- tion generation, as well as providing
structured methods for using these strategies with their
partner(s).
Methods for teaching collaborative skills. Many of the methods
for teaching and building collab- orative skills employ
preinstructional activities to introduce the skills and provide
opportunities for students to practice them. For example, Aronson
and Patnoe (1997) suggested several team building activities for
students to complete prior to engaging in the target instructional
activity: "Learning to Listen," which empha- sizes turn taking and
listening to others; "Group Picture," which helps students
understand the importance of each member's contribution to the
group; and "Broken Squares," which promotes teamwork and encourages
group members to
actively help one another Sharan and Sharan (1992) suggest that
teachers promote and encourage student interaction prior to
beginning cooperative group work through skill-building exercises
that emphasize appropriate discussion behaviors. These exercises,
which center around discussions of printed materials such as short
stories, encourage students to participate in dis- cussions and
reach group consensus regarding an issue only after receiving input
from all group members.
In addition to providing training on collabo- rative skills
prior to beginning the instructional activity, theorists have also
offered suggestions for encouraging and supporting collaborative
skills during cooperative learning. Johnson and Johnson (1990,
1991) suggested awarding bonus points to either individual students
or coopera- tive groups to recognize when students practice
collaborative skills. These points could be used for either
academic credit or other rewards. Another effective strategy is to
have students reflect on their use of collaborative skills after
the completion of a group activity in order for them to assess
their performance and improve their 6se of these skills (Aronson
& Patnoe, 1997; Sharan & Sharan, 1992). This assessment can
be conducted as part of a culminating group activ- ity or through
individual use of a "collaborative skills checklist" (see Aronson
& Patnoe, 1997, p. 40, for a sample checklist). Finally,
prompts and
cues could be embedded into an instructional activity to remind
students of their roles in the group and the collaborative skills
they should be using while completing the activity (Kagan, 1985;
Sherman & Klein, 1995; Slavin, 1995).
Benefits and Criticisms of Cooperatlve Learning
A number of studies have dealt with the effects of cooperative
learning groups on the academic achievement of the group
participants. Many of these studies compared the achievement of
stu- dents participating in cooperative learning with students
learning individually. Slavin (1983, 1987, 1995) has examined over
100 studies in which cooperative learning groups were com- pared
with individual instruction and found that a vast majority (nearly
75%) reported a sig-
-
COOPERATIVE LEARNING ILS DESIGN 11
nificant increase in achievement levels for stu- dents
participating in cooperative learning groups. Siavin further noted
that the studies that did not show learning gains for students in
cooperative learning groups did not incorporate one or more of the
important aspects of coopera- tive learning discussed previously;
that is, indi- vidual accountability, positive interdependence, and
group training.
In addition to improving academic achieve- ment, research has
found that cooperative learn- ing also has an impact on numerous
other factors directly related to academic achieve- ment.
Cooperative learning activities have been shown to produce
increased time on task (Cohen & Benton, 1988), increased
motivation for learning activities (Garibaldi, 1979; Nastasi &
Clements, 1991), increased school attendance (Janke, 1977), and
improved self-esteem (John- son & Johnson, 1983; Slavin,
1983).
The positive effects of cooperative learning are not unanimously
accepted, however. Tateyama-Sniezek (1990) reviewed 12 studies
comparing cooperative learning to individual instruction. Based on
the results of these studies, she concluded that enthusiasm for
cooperative learning may not be warranted, particularly with
students with special needs, because a number of the studies did
not produce signifi- cant positive results. Of the 12 studies, she
found only 6 that reported significant results favoring cooperative
learning. This led her to conclude that " . . . the opportunity for
students to study together does not guarantee gains in academic
achievement" (p. 436), mainly because it was difficult for teachers
to consistently integrate methods to ensure positive
interdependence and individual accountability within the cooper-
ative learning activities.
USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN CONJUNCTION WITH ILS
While much of the research regarding coopera- tive learning
deals with its effectiveness in a classroom setting, with students
completing such activities as studying for a test, delivering a
group presentation, or completing a research paper, there is a
growing research base focusing on the benefits of using cooperative
learning strategies to help students complete computer-
based instructional activities (I-looper, 1992; Hooper &
Hannafin, 1991; Hooper, Temiyakarn, & Williams, 1993; Mevarech,
Stern, & Levita, 1987; Neuwirth & Wojahn, 1996). However,
the research specifically investigating the effects of cooperative
learning with advanced computer- based instruction such as ILSs is
limited and does not provide a great deal of insight into the
methods with which cooperative learning strate- gies can be
effectively integrated into ILS activi- ties. For example, Beyer
(1993) conducted an evaluation of a three-year project to use ILSs
for math and reading instruction in two Pennsylva- nia middle
schools, and to integrate ILS instruc- tion with computer- and
classroom-based cooperative learning activities. The evaluation
determined that the ILS activities did not have a significant
effect on student achievement in reading or math and that neither
school effec- tively used cooperative learning activities to
enhance the ILS instruction. The latter factor was because of the
logistical difficulties teachers had with implementing cooperative
learning in the computer lab and the lack of knowledge and
strategies for combining cooperative learning and |I_S-based
instruction.
Other research specifically examining the effect of combining
cooperative learning with ILS instruction suggests that the
integration of cooperative [earning with ILSs has both aca- demic
and social benefits for students. Mevarech (1994) found that
students completing ILS activ- ities in dyads academically
outperformed stu- dents completing the same activities
individually. These differences were evident both on activities
covering basic mathematics skills and on activities promoting
higher cogni- tive processes. One drawback of this study is that
the methods for integrating the key compo- nents of cooperative
learning (i.e., positive inter- dependence, individual
accountability, and collaborative skills) were not discussed; thus
it is difficult to cull guidelines or procedures for pro- moting
cooperative learning in an ILS setting from this methodology.
A second study that examined the academic and social impact of
ILS instruction delivered to students in cooperative pairs was
conducted by Brush (1997). In this study, students completed ILS
activities either individually or in dyads.
-
12 ETR&D. Vol 46. No, 3
Positive interdependence was promoted through shared resources
(the computer) and group goals; individual accountability was
established with unit tests given periodically to all students; and
training on collaborative skills was provided to all students
assigned to the cooperative treatment before they began work- ing
on the ILS instruction. Results showed not only academic gains for
the cooperative treat- ment but also significant differences in
attitudes toward both the ILS activities and the content area in
general. Students working in dyads reacted favorably toward the ILS
instruction, had positive attitudes toward math, and believed that
the computer-based activities were helping them perform better on
classroom- based mathematics assignments. Students work- ing
individually did not enjoy the ILS activities, had extremely
negative attitudes toward math, and did not see a relationship
between the ILS instruction and their work in the classroom.
Based on the limited research above, deliver- ing ILS
instruction to students in cooperative groups may be a viable
instructional strategy that can have positive effects on students'
aca- demic and social development. However, implementing this
instructional strategy is not an easy task. ILSs do not incorporate
any inher- ent cooperative learning components into their design.
In fact, the design and implementation of ILSs more likely promotes
student isolation
and competition (Becker, 1992b, 1994; Brush, 1997; Hativa,
1994). Thus, it is unlikely that sim- ply allowing students to
complete ILS activities (as they are currently designed) in groups
would have any academic or social benefits. Strategies and
techniques that promote coopera- tive learning need to be embedded
into the design and delivery of ILSs in order for schools to be
able to use these systems effectively for other than long-term
individualized instruction.
INTEGRATING COOPERATIVE LEARNING INTO ILS DESIGN
Because ILSs have traditionally been designed to promote
individualized instruction, there are no embedded design constructs
within ILSs per- taining to cooperative learning. The following
section provides some guidelines for designing ILSs that promote
positive interdependence, individual accountability, and
collaborative skills. Table 1 presents a summary of these
guidelines.
Positive Interdependence
Positive interdependence means that each mem- ber of the group
believes that the success or fail- ure of the group depends upon
individual success (Johnson & Johnson, 1991). Designing ILS
software to facilitate this interdependence
Table I [] Methods for promoting cooperative learning within ILS
courseware and management system.
CL Component ILS Courseware Addition
Positive Embed roles/tasks for Interdependence students.
Individual Accountability
Collaborative Skills
Design unit tests to be completed individually.
Include periodic individual assessment items within lessons.
On-line cooperative learning tutorial activities.
Embed prompts to reinforce use of collaborative skills.
ILS Management Addition
Options for group and individual tracking and reporting.
Prompt teacher when groups have met criteria for rewards.
Options for group and individual tracking and reporting.
Options for suspending or delaying feedback to allow for group
discussion.
-
COOPERATIVE LEARNING ILS DESIGN 13
can be accomplished in a variety of ways. Within the ILS
courseware itself, group mem- bers can be given specific roles and
tasks, thus establishing positive role and resource interde-
pendence (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997). "Coopera- tive" computer
software such as The Great Ocean Rescue from Tom Snyder Productions
(1996) has already been designed to promote positive role
interdependence through the completion of unique off-line
preinstructional activities by each group member. With this
software, stu- dents are assigned roles (and tasks associated with
those roles) as part of an environmental clean-up team. Each team
member is responsible for specific information, and the team must
decide which information is needed to develop a solution to the
environmental problem pre- sented in the software.
In a second example, Sherman and Klein (1995) designed a simple
CAI activity in which the computer assigned roles to group members
and consistently prompted and reminded them of those roles
throughout the activity. They found that cooperative groups using
CAI with these embedded interdependence cues per- formed
significantly better on an individual posttest and demonstrated
more helping behav- iors (e.g., giving help and encouragement) than
did groups who completed a similar CAI activ- ity without the cues.
Similar strategies for pro- moting positive interdependence within
CAI are discussed by Cardelle-Elawar and Wetzel (1995), Holden,
Holcolmb, and Wedman (1992), Neal (1994), Rysavy and Sales (1991),
and Siowck-Lee (1994).
Positive interdependence could be integrated into ILS courseware
in a similar fashion to the methods outlined for CAI activities.
For exam- ple, at the beginning of an instructional activity, the
ILS courseware could designate one group member to be responsible
for reading and sum- marizing information and a second group mem-
ber to record important information and review that information
with the group. Throughout the computer-based activity, the
courseware could remind group members of their responsi- bilities
to the group, thus reinforcing the interde- pendence among the
group members. After an activity was completed, the ILS could
select dif- ferent roles for the group members, thus provid-
ing each student with the opportunity to per- form a unique and
necessary function within the group for every activity.
Redesign of the ILS management system can also facilitate
positive interdependence. Cur- rently, there are limited means for
grouping stu- dents in the management system for reporting purposes
(Becker, 1992b; Hativa & Becker, 1994). Providing options
within the management sys- tem that would allow the teacher to
designate student groupings in the class database and receive
computer-generated performance reports for each within-class group
would aid the establishment of positive goal interdepend- ence
(Johnson & Johnson, 1991; Slavin, 1995). The teacher could
easily use the information from these reports to determine grades
for each group based on performance on the courseware activities.
In addition, the management system could provide teachers with the
capability to assign unique names or icons to the groups, thus
assisting with the establishment of identity interdependence
(Johnson & Johnson, 1991).
The management system could also be designed either to
distribute group rewards (such as achievement certificates, bonus
points, or class recognition) based on criteria input by the
teacher or to report electronically when a group has met the
criteria for a reward so that it could be personally delivered by
the teacher (Litchfield, 1993; Rysavy & Sales, 1991; Yeuh &
Alessi, 1988). With either method, the ILS would handle some of the
management tasks necessary for successful cooperative learning
activities, thus freeing the teacher to concentrate on assist- ing
the groups with the material presented in the courseware.
Individual Accountabi l i ty
One of the most effective methods for ensuring individual
accountability is to require each stu- dent in a cooperative group
to complete a test of the material presented in the lesson (Slavin,
1995). Within ILS courseware, this could be accomplished in several
ways. Short quizzes could be embedded within the courseware, with
the requirement that each student in the group complete the quizzes
individually (Hooper, 1992). The difficulty with this method is
that
-
14 ETF~&D. Vo146. NO 3
groups would need to disperse during the ILS activity in order
to move to separate computers to complete the quizzes, then
reconvene to com- plete the lesson. This could prove difficult from
a classroom management perspective. An alter- native method would
be to have students com- plete individual assessment activities at
logical points in the ILS courseware. For example, since the
traditional design of ILS courseware breaks the instruction into
units, students could be required to complete on-line unit tests
individu- ally. With this method, groups would disperse to separate
computers at logical points within the instruction, complete the
tests individually, then reconvene in their groups to begin a new
unit of instruction. The ILS management system would have the
ability to track both group prog- ress on activities within the
units and individual scores on unit tests. Ideally, the management
system would allow the teacher to control how the individual test
scores were used in the over- all assessment of the group. The
teacher could be provided with options for having the unit tests
act as individual measures of achievement (Siowck-Lee, 1994; Yeuh
& Alessi, 1988), averag- ing the scores together and using the
average score as a group assessment (Slavin, 1995), or randomly
selecting one score and using it as an assessment of the entire
group (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997; Johnson & Johnson,
1991).
Another method for individual accountabil- ity that could be
incorporated into ILS courseware would involve having the
courseware periodically prompt individual stu- dents to respond to
questions or short activities embedded in the lesson (Dockterman,
1995; Johnson & Johnson, 1991; Lookatch, 1996). Other members
of the group would be told to allow that individual to complete the
activity without assistance. The ILS management system would have
the ability to track individual responses within the courseware and
determine the next individual to be prompted (Lookatch, 1996).
Teaching and Reinforcing CoUaboratlve Skills
Design components could be added to ILSs that would introduce
appropriate collaborative skills to group members prior to engaging
in the
instructional activities, remind groups to use those skills once
groups were engaged in the activities, and provide opportunities
for group interaction within the activities. Several researchers
have suggested that students com- plete on-line tutorials designed
to introduce col- laborative skills and stimulate students to use
those skills once they begin the instructional activities (Hooper,
1992; Rysavy & Sales, 1991; Siowck-Lee, 1994). The ILS could
include an on- line preinstructional activity that discusses the
purpose and benefits of cooperative learning, provides guidelines
for working effectively in groups, and gives group members
opportunities to practice collaborative skills prior to beginning
the instruction. A practice activity such as "The NASA Exercise"
(Aronson & Patnoe, 1997, p. 129), in which students work
together to develop a strategy for sending a mission to Mars, could
easily be converted to a computer- based activity; this design not
only would rein- force group processing and collaboration skills,
but also would provide groups with the chance to become comfortable
working cooperatively on the computer.
There are also numerous methods for rein- forcing collaborative
skills once groups are engaged in ILS courseware. Hooper (1992) and
Rysavy and Sales (1991) suggested embedding prompts within the
courseware reminding group members to practice appropriate collabo-
rative skills. They also suggested providing time between
computer-based activities for students to reflect on the
effectiveness of their group and discuss methods for improving
collaboration. Sherman and Klein (1995) embedded verbal interaction
cues within their CAI activities in order to foster group
interaction. These cues included prompts to ask questions about
infor- mation that wasn't understood and reminders to review and
summarize information. These embedded cues and reminders could
easily be incorporated into the design of ILS courseware.
Finally, ILS courseware should provide opportunities for group
discussion while com- ple0_ng activities. This approach may involve
eliminating the immediate feedback provided by the ILS management
system in order to allow time after a response has been made for
further discussion among the group (Hooper, 1992;
-
COOPERATIVE LEARNING ILS DESIGN lS
Litchfield, 1993). For example, one student could enter a
response to a problem, then the ILS man- agement system could
prompt the group to reconfirm that the response was agreed upon by
all members of the group. Once the group has been given an
opportunity to double-check the response and make sure that
everyone in the group concurred, the management system could
determine the accuracy of the response and pro- vide appropriate
feedback.
TOWARD A COOPERATIVE" ILS DESIGN
If the strategies for integrating cooperative learning with an
ILS were incorporated into a new ILS design, what might that design
look like? A major addition to this new design would involve
integration of several on-line pre- instructional activities to be
completed both individually and in groups. In a typical ILS, the
only on-line preinstructional activity completed by students is the
placement test. In a coopera- tive ILS, students would still need
to complete a
placement test individual ly. Based on the results of the
placement test the teacher (ideally, w i th assistance from the ILS
management system) would determine student groups and designate an
init ial curricular placement for each group. After group
assignments had been made, stu- dents would complete on-line
collaborative training activities that would help prepare them to
work cooperatively in the courseware.
In the ILS courseware itself, additions would need to be made to
designate and rotate student roles/responsibilities within the
groups and to provide prompts and cues to reinforce the assigned
roles, to question individual students within the groups, and to
remind groups to col- laborate effectively. These additions would
help establish positive interdependence and individ- ual
accountability, thus providing consistent integration of these
components within the instruction. For the most part, the
activities within the units would be completed entirely in
cooperative groups, with the exception of the tests administered at
the end of each unit. For
Figure 2 [ ] Integrcrted ILS/CL design sequence.
Collaborative Training Activit ies
Courxwam Seque, nce
Un i t I ~ Un i t2
Lesson I i ~ I Lesson 1
Lesson 2 | lk~,~, : !1 Lesson 2
- , ' - , .
Uni t 3 ""' i '~;
..~ ": . Ro~es . :
': Lesson 1 ~ ? . !... . . . . ~ ' ,
, o , , * . , , ?~ o o o o o
~, Lesson2 ' ~; ........ ..
#
Teat
AcSvW
A,a,~ [ ] Teac~erl
Management System
-
16 ETI~&D. Vol 46. No. 3
these activities, the courseware would need to be designed so
that it prompted students to move to separate computers, complete
the tests individually, then reconvene in their groups and continue
with the next unit. Figure 2 displays an ILS design integrating
cooperative learning.
SUMMARY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
This paper has both provided a rationale for combining
cooperative learning strategies with ILS instruction and outlined
some design guide- lines for embedding components of cooperative
learning into ILS courseware and management system functions. It is
hoped that this paper will assist developers in considering designs
that advance the "individualized instruction" model of most ILSs
and promote more opportunities for social interaction and learning
within these systems.
Based on the ideas presented in this paper, there are several
lines of research that might be pursued. While there have been a
few studies examining the academic and social impact of delivering
ILS instruction to students in cooper- ative learning groups
(Brush, 1997; Mevarech, 1994), there needs to be a continuation of
this research in order to determine which coopera- tive learning
models are most effective when used with ILSs and whether various
strategies for combining cooperative learning and ILS instruction
(whether those strategies are embed- ded within the on-line
activities or are supple- mentary to those activities) are more or
less effective.
Research also needs to examine various grouping strategies and
structures to determine which are most effective for ILS
instruction. Cur- rently, there are a wide variety of opinions
regarding the optimal group size for cooperative learning
activities, particularly when those activities are computer-based
(e.g., Hooper, 1992; Rysavy & Sales, 1991; Yager, Johnson,
& Johnson, 1985). In addition, researchers continue to debate
which grouping structures (i.e., homo- geneous versus
heterogeneous) are most effec- tive with students completing
computer-based activities cooperatively (Brush, 1997b; Slavin,
1995; Simsek & Hooper, 1992; Yager, Johnson, & Johnson,
1985). Continuing this line of research
will assist designers both with (a) providing guidelines for
teachers wishing to integrate cooperative learning with ILS
instruction and (b) developing features within the ILS management
system to assist in defining student groups. []
Thomas A. Brush is Assistant Professor of Educational Technology
at Arizona State University where he can be reached at Educational
Media and Computers, Arizona State U., Box 870111, Tempe, AZ
85287-0111.
REFERENCES
Alfrangis, C.M. (1989). A Critical Analysis of the Compo- nents
of an Integrated Learning System and a Measure of the System's
Effect on Mathematics and Reading. Doc- toral dissertation, George
Mason University.
Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). The Jigsaw Classroom. New
York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Bailey, G.D. (1993). Wanted: A road map for under- standing
Integrated Learning Systems. In G.D. Bai- ley (Ed.), Computer-based
Integrated Learning Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology Pub- lications.
Becker, H.J. (1992). Computer-based Integrated-learn- ing
systems in the elementary and middle grades: A critical review and
synthesis of evaluation reports. Journal of Educational Computer
Research, 8, 1--41.
Becker, H.J. (1992b). A model for improving the perfor- mance of
integrated learning systems: Mixed indi- vidualized / group / whole
class lessons, cooperative learning, and organizing time for
teacher-led reme- diation of small groups. Educational Technology,
32(9), 6--15.
Becker, H.J. (1994). Mindless or mindful use of inte- grated
learning systems. International Journal of Edu- cational Research,
21(1), 65-79.
Becket, H.J., & Hativa, N. (1994). History, theory, and
research concerning integrated learning systems. International
Journal of Educational Research, 21(1), 5-- 12.
Bender, P.V. (1991). The effectiveness of integrated computer
learning systems in the elementary school. Contemporary Education,
63,19-23.
Beyer, F.S. (1993). The CAI/cooperative learning proj- ect:
Third year evaluation report. ERIC Document Reproduction Service #
ED374791.
Brush, T.A. (1997). The effects on student achievement and
attitudes when using Integrated Learning Sys- tems with cooperative
pairs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1),
51--64.
Brush, T.A. (1997b). The effects of group composition on
achievement and t'iTne-on-task for students com- pleting ILS
activities in cooperative pairs. Journal of Research on Computing
in Education, 30(1), 2-17.
Brush, T., & Bannon, S. (1998, April). The integration of
technology into K-12 classrooms: A five-state eompari-
-
COOPERATIVE LEARNING ILS DESIGN 17
son. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Cardelle-Elawar, M., & Wetzel, K. (1995). Students and
computers as partners in developing students' prob- lem-solving
skills. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27(4),
387--401.
Clariana, R.B. (1994). The effects of an Integrated Learning
System on student performance in mathe- matics and reading in one
third-grade classroom. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction,
21(1), 12-15.
Clariana, R.B. (1996). Differential achievement gains for
mathematics computation, concepts, and appli- cations with an
Integrated Learning System. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and
Science Teaching, 15, 203-215.
Cohen, E.G., & Benton, J. (1988). Making groupwork work.
American Educator, 12(3), 10-17, 45--46.
Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theo- retical
notes. In M. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation.
Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Dockterman, D. (1995). Interactive learning: It's push- ing the
right buttons. Educational Leadership, 53(2), 58--59.
Garibaldi, A. (1979). Affective contributions of cooper- ative
and group goal structures. Journal of Educa- tional Psychology,
71,788-794.
Hativa, N. (1994). What you design is not what you get
(WYDINWYG): Cognitive, affective, and social impacts of learning
with ILS - An integration of find- ings from six-years of
qualitative and quantitative studies. International Journal of
Educational Research, 21(1),81-111.
Hativa, N., & Becker, H.J. (1994). Integrated learning
systems: Problems and potential benefits. Interna- tional Journal
of Educational Research, 21 (1), 113-119.
Hativa, N., Swissa, S., & Lesgold, A. (1992). Competi- tion
in individualized CAI. Instructional Science, 21, 393-428.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Schachar, H. (1990). Teachers'
verbal behavior in cooperative and whole-class instruction. In S.
Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research. New York:
Praeger Publishers.
Holden, M.C., Holcolmb, C.M., & Wedman, J.E. (1992).
Designing hypercard stacks for cooperative learn- ing. The
Computing Teacher, 19(5), 20-22.
Hooper, S. (1992). Cooperative learning and computer- based
instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development,
40(3), 21-38.
Hooper, S,, & Hannafin, M. (1991). The effects of group
composition on achievement, interaction, and learn- ing efficiency
during computer-based cooperative instruction. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 27--40.
Hooper, S., Temiyakarn, C., & Williams, M.D. (1993). The
effects of cooperative learning and learner con- trol on high- and
average-ability students. Educa- tional Technology Research and
Development, 4(2), 5-18.
Janke, R. (1977, April). The Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT) method
and the behavioral adjustment and aca- demic achievement of
emotionally impaired adolescents. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Amer- ican Educational Research Association,
Toronto, Canada.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1983). The socializa- tion
and achievement crisis: Are cooperative learn- ing experiences the
solution? In L. Bickman (Ed.). Applied Social Psychology Annual.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1987). Learning Together and
Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Indi- vidualistic Learning.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1990). Cooperative learning
and achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooper- ative Learning: Theory
and Research. New York: Prae- ger Publishers.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1991). Learning Together and
Alone. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kagan, S. (1985). Learning to cooperate. In R. Slavin, S.
Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.),
Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn. New York: Plenum
Press.
Kerr, N.L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social
dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,
819-828.
Kerr, N.L., & Bruun, S.E. (1983). The dispensability of
member effort and group motivation losses: Free- rider effects.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 44, 78-94.
Lepper, M.R. (1985). Microcomputers in education: Motivational
and social issues. American Psycholo- gist, 40, 1-18.
Litchfield, B.C. (1993, April). Design factors in multime- dia
environments: Research findings and implications for instructional
design. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Lloyd, J.W., Crowley, E.P., Kohier, F.W., & Strain, P.S.
(1988). Redefining the applied research agenda: Cooperative
learning, prereferral, teacher consulta- tion, and peer-mediated
interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 43-52.
Lookatch, R.P. (1996). Collaborative learning and mul- timedia:
Are two heads still better than one? Tech- Trends, 41(4),
27-31.
Maddux, C.D., & Willis, J.W. (1992). Integrated learn- ing
systems and their alternatives: Problems and cautions. Educational
Technology, 32(9), 51-57.
Mesch, D., Lew, M., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1986).
Isolated teenagers, cooperative learning, and the training of
social skills. The Journal of Psychology, 120, 323-334.
Mevarech, Z.R. (1994). The effectiveness of individual- ized
versus cooperative computer-based integrated learning systems.
International Journal of Educational Research, 21 (1), 39-52.
-
18 ETI~&D. Vo146, No. 3
Mevarech, Z.R., Stern, D., & Levita, I. (1987). To coop-
erate or not to cooperate in CAI: That is the question. Journal of
Educational Research, 80, 164-167.
Mills, 5.C. (1994). Integrated learning systems: New technology
for classrooms of the future. TechTrends, 39(1), 27-28, 31.
Nastasi, B.K., & Clements, D.H. (1991). Research on
cooperative learning: Implications for practice. School Psychology
Review, 20, 110-131.
Neal, J.5. (1994). The interpersonal computer. Science Scope,
17(4), 24-27.
Neuwirth, C.M., & Wojahn, P.G. (1996). Learning to write:
Computer support for a cooperative process. In T. Ko~damann (Ed.).
CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Osin, L., Nesher, P., & Ram, I. (1994). Do the rich become
richer and the poor poorer: A longitudinal analysis of pupil
achievement and progress in ele- mentary schools using
computer-assisted instruc- tion. International Journal of
Educational Research, 2l(1), 53--64.
Robin.~on" 5. (1991). Integrated learning systems: From
teacher-proof to teacher empowering. Contemporary Education, 63,
15-18.
Roblyer, M.D., Edwards, J., & Havriluk, M.A. (1997).
Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill.
Rysavy, S., & Sales, G.C. (1991). Cooperative learning in
computer-based instruction. Educational Technol- ogy Research and
Development, 39(2), 70-79.
Sharan, Y., & 5haran, 5. (1992). Expanding cooperative
learning through group investigation. New York: Columbia
University.
Sherman, G.P., & Klein, J.D. (1995). The effects of cued
interaction and ability grouping during cooperative computer-besed
science instruction. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 43(4), 5-24.
Sherry, M. (1990). Implementing an integrated instruc- tional
system: Critical issues. Phi Delta Kappon, 72, 118-120.
5hockley, H.A. (1992). Turnkey or turnkey.> Integrat- ing an
integrated learning system. Educational Tech- nology, 32(9),
22-25.
Simsek, A., & Hooper, 5. (1992). The effects of cooper-
ative versus individual videodisc learning on stu- dent Performance
and attitudes. International Journal of Instructional Media, 19,
209-218.
Siowck-Lee, G. (1994, June). Developing and using coursewarefvr
cooperative learning activities in the class- room. Paper presented
at the Asia Pacific Informa- tion Technology in Teaching and
Education Conference, Brisbane, Australia.
Slavin, R.E. (1983). Cooperative Learning. New York:
Longman.
51avin, R.E. (1985). Team-assisted individualization: Combining
cooperative learning and individualized instruction in mathematics.
In R. 51avin, 5. Sharan, 5. Kagan, R. Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R.
Schmuck
(Eds), Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn. New York:
Plenum Press.
Slavin, R.E. (1986). Using Student Team Learning (3rd ed.).
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
Slavin, R.E. (1987). Cooperative learning and the coop- erative
school. Educational Leadership, 45(3), 7-13.
Slavin, R.E. (1990). Learning together. The American School
Board Journal, 177(8), 22-23.
Slavin, R.E. (1991). Are cooperative learning and "untracking"
harmful to the gifted. > A response to Allan. Educational
Leadership, 48(6), 68-71.
Slavin, R.E. (1993, April). Cooperative learning and
achievement: An empirically-based theory. Paper pre- sented at the
annual meeting of the American Edu- cational Research Association,
Atlanta, GA.
Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and
Practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Slavin, R.E., Leavey, M.B., & Madden, N.A. (1986). Team
Accelerated Instruction: Mathematics. Water- town, MA:
Charlesbridge.
Tateyama-Sniezek, K.M. (1990). Cooperative learning: Does it
improve the academic achievement of stu- dents with handicaps?
Exceptional Children, 56, 426- 437.
Tom 5nyder Productions. (1996). The Great Ocean Res- cue.
[Computer Programl. Watertown, MA: Author.
Van Dusen, L.M., & Worthen, B.R. (1994). The impact of
integrated learning system implementation on student outcomes:
Implications for research and evaluation. International Journal of
Educational Research, 21 (1), 13-37.
West, R.C., & Marcotte, D.R. (1993-94). The effects of an
integrated learning system (ILS) using incremen- tal time
allotments on ninth grade algebra achieve- ment. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, 22, 283-294.
White, M.A. (1992). Are ILSs good education? Educa- tional
Technology, 32(9), 49-50.
Wiburg, K. (1995). Integrated learning systems: What does the
research say? The Computing Teacher, 22(5), 7-10.
Worthen, B.R., Van Dusen, L.M., & Sailor, P.J. (1994). A
comparative study of the impact of integrated learn- ing systems on
students' time-on-task. International Journal of Educational
Research, 2 I(1), 25-37.
Yager, 5., Johnson, R.T., & Johnson, D.W. (1985). Oral
discussion, group-to-individual transfer, and achievement in
cooperative learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77,
60-.66.
Yager, S., Johnson, R.T., Johnson, D.W., & 5hider, B.
(1985). The effect of cooperative and individualistic learning
experiences on positive and negative cross- handicap relationships.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10,127-138.
Yeuh, J., & Alessi, 5.M. (1988). The effects of reward
structure and group ability composition on coopera- tive
computer-besed instruction. Journal of Computer Based Instruction,
15, 18-22.