The effects of group composition on achievement and time on task for students completing ils activities in cooperative pairs

Journal of Research on Computing in Education

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 2-17

  Brush, Thomas A ^a  

^a AUBURN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ability grouping; Cooperative learning; Integrated learning systems

Indexed keywords

EID: 85007839992     PISSN: 08886504     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08886504.1997.10782210     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Alfrarigis, C. M. (1989). A critical analysis of the components of an integrated learning system and a measure of the system’s effect on mathematics and reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University.
2. Becker, H. J. (1992a). Computer-based integrated learning systems in the elementary and middle grades: A critical review and synthesis of evaluation reports. Journal of Educational Computer Research, 8, 1-41.
3. Becker, H. J. (1994). Mindless or mindful use of integrated learning systems. International Journal of Educational Research, 21(1), 65-79.
4. Becker, H. J. (1992b). A model for improving the performance of integrated learning systems: Mixed individualized/group/whole-class lessons, cooperative learning, and organizing time for teacher-led remediation of small groups. Educational Technology, 32(9), 6-15.
5. Becker, H. J. (1982). Microcomputers in the classroom: Dreams and realities. Eugene, OR: International Council for Computers in Education.
6. Bender, P. V. (1991). The effectiveness of integrated computer learning systems in the elementary school. Contemporary Education, 63, 19-23.
7. Bozeman, W., & House, J. (1988). Microcomputers in education: The second decade. T. H. E. Journal, 15(7), 82-86.
8. Brush, T. A. (1997). The effects on student achievement and attitudes when using integrated learning systems with cooperative pairs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 51-64.
9. Burns, P., & Bozeman, W. (1981). Computer-assisted instruction and mathematics achievement: Is there a relationship? Educational Technology, 21(10), 32-39.
10. CTB/Macmillan/McGraw-Hill. (1992). CAT/5 technical bulletin 1: June 1992. Monterey, CA: Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.
11. Diem, R. A. (1986). Microcomputer technology in educational environments: Three case studies. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 93-98.
12. Fletcher-Flinn, C. M., Gravatt, B. (1995). The efficacy of computer-assisted instruction (CAI): A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(3), 219-241.
13. Gross, B. (1989). Can computer-assisted instruction solve the dropout problem? Educational Leadership, 46(5), 49-51.
14. Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. (1988). Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 413-424.
15. Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. (1991). The effects of group composition on achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computer-based cooperative instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 27-40.
16. Jostens Learning Corporation. (1990). Curriculum alignment to Michigan essential goals and objectives: Mathematics. Indianapolis, IN: Jostens Learning Corporation.
17. Jostens Learning Corporation. (1993). Jostens Learning Corporation correlation to California Achievement Test—Series 5, Mathematics Grades 1 through 6. Indianapolis, IN: Jostens Learning Corporation.
18. Karweit, N., & Slavin, R. E. (1982). Time on task: Issues of timing, sampling, and definition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 844-851.
19. Kulik, C., Kulik, J. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers and Human Behavior, 7, 75-94.
20. Kulik, J., Kulik, C., Bangert-Drowns, R. (1985). Effectiveness of computer-based education in elementary schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 1, 59-74.
21. Lepper, M. R. (1985). Microcomputers in education: Motivational and social issues. American Psychologist, 40, 1-18.
22. Liao, Y. (1992). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on cognitive outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24(3), 367-380.
23. Lyman, L., Foyle, H. C., Azwell, T. S. (1993). Cooperative learning in the elementary classroom. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
24. McDermott, C., & Deaton, B. (1987). Model for supplementary computer- based skills instruction. Thrust, 16(5), 12-15.
25. Mevarech, Z. R. (1994). The effectiveness of individualized versus cooperative computer-based integrated learning systems. International Journal of Educational Research, 21(1), 39-52.
26. Niemiec, R., & Walberg, H. (1985). Computers and achievement in the elementary schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14, 435-439.
27. Parry, J., Thorkildsen, R., Biery, T., & Macfarlane, C. (1985-1986). Computer- based instruction: The transition from research findings to teaching strategies. Educational Research Quarterly, 10(1), 30-39.
28. Robinson, S. (1991). Integrated learning systems: From teacher proof to teacher empowering. Contemporary Education, 63, 15-18.
29. Roblyer, M., Castine, W., & King, F. (1988). Computer applications have “un-deniable value,” research shows. Electronic Learning, 8(1), 38, 40.
30. Simsek, A. (1992, February). The impact of cooperative group composition on student performance and attitudes during interactive videodisc instruction. Presentation at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology conference, Washington, DC. (ERIC ED 348 025)
31. Simsek, A. (1993, January). The effects of learner control and group composition in computer-based cooperative learning. Presentation at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology conference, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC ED 362 205)
32. Simsek, A., & Hooper, S. (1992). The effects of cooperative versus individual videodisc learning on student performance and attitudes. International Journal of Instructional Media, 19, 209-218.
33. Slavin, R. E., & Madden, A. (1989). What works for students at risk: A research synthesis. Educational Leadership, 46(5), 4-13.
34. Sullivan, F. L. (1989). The effects of an integrated learning system on selected fourth- and fifth-grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Baylor University.
35. Taylor, M. J., & Innocenti, M. S. (1993). Why covariance? A rationale for using analysis of covariance procedures in randomized studies. Journal of Early Intervention, 17(4), 455-466.
36. Vockell, E. L. (1983). Educational research. New York: Macmillan.
37. Wiburg, K. (1995). Integrated learning systems: What does the research say? The Computing Teacher, 22(5), 7-10.
38. Wills, S. K. (1992). A comparison of student performance between an integrated learning system computer approach and traditional teacher/textbook Unpublished doctoral dissertation, East Texas State University.
39. Worthen, B. R., Van Dusen, L. M., & Sailor, P. J. (1994). A comparative study of the impact of integrated learning systems on students’ time on task. International Journal of Educational Research, 21(1), 25-37.