- Email: [email protected]
Theoretical foundations and empirical arguments for group work in computer learning environments
209
Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Arguments for Group Work in Computer Learning Environments Martin V A L C K E
Introduction
Department of Education, State University Gent, Henri Dunantlaan 1, B-9000 Gent, Belgium
In this article, theoretical foundations and empirical arguments for group work are reviewed. There is already a vast amount of literature in this field; but the relevance of 'group work' in the field of educational computing still remains as a question. Only recently, research has shifted its attention towards the interaction processes during group work when using computers. This body of research is still limited; nevertheless, its conclusions are of significance. It reveals the multi-dimensional nature of computer learning settings. In this article, a definition for group work in a computer setting is presented. And already when looking for this definition, it becomes obvious that studying cooperative learning is a very complex domain. The next part of the article gives an overview of empirical findings, sustaining or questioning the relevance of group work in this particular teaching and learning context.
Keywords: Computer learning environment, Group work, Cooperative learning.
Martin Valcke is a researcher who has started to work recently in the field of educational computing. His main focus has been on computer use in primary schools. Besides the development of software and the evaluation of Logo microworlds, he is responsible for several teacher training projects. At the international level he has been involved in the organisation of European Summer Universities on educational computing, European Logo projects and the organisation of the Eurologo conferences. Education & Computing 4 (1988) 209-215 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. 0167-9287/89/$3.50 © 1989, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
Although the use of computers in educational settings is growing, the average ratio of computers/pupils in primary school settings is still limited. The Becker study in the U.S.A. in 1985 stated that the average ratio was about 1 / 6 0 in elementary schools. In the Flemish educational setting in 1987, this ratio in primary schools is about 1/120. This limited availability of computer resources questions the potential relevance of educational computer use. A possible way out of this situation is group work. In this way, pupils can get a more regular access to this learning tool. In much explorative and experimental research, group work is accepted as a sound and acceptable way of setting up computer learning environments. This is a pragmatic, but nonetheless realistic answer to this shortage of learning tools. But, one can question whether group work is--although being a pragmatic solution--relevant in terms of sustaining the goal-directedness of learning activities. Or, in other terms, whether group work is really as relevant or effective as expected. There is already a vast amount of literature in this field; but, the relevance of group work in the field of educational computing still remains as a question. Only recently, research has shifted its attention towards interaction processes during group work when using computers. This body of research is still limited; nevertheless, its conclusions are of significance. It reveals the multi-dimensional nature of computer learning settings. In this article, we focus on group work in computer learning environments from several points of view. But before reviewing theoretical and empirical grounds for 'group work', we present a preliminary definition for what we understand as being group work. In clarifying what we consider to be a correct conceptualisation of group
210
M. Valcke / Group Work in Computer Learning Environments
work, some other aspects/dimensions of the wider teaching and learning context can also be clarified.
A Preliminary Definition of Group Work In the literature, the term 'group work' is only one among many concepts referring to a way of organising teaching and learning: cooperative learning, peer work groups, instructional groups, peer education, small group learning, peer collaboration, group-investigation approach, etc. In the context of this article, we shall use the concept of 'group work' with the following definition: "Group work implies defining and making explicit the learning problem, the planning and the elaboration of its solution, in a cooperative way. A group consists of pupils of the same grade level. This may guarantee more 'equality' in knowledge and experience and more 'mutuality' in the communication pattern. Group work is sustained by impficit and/or explicit teacher interventions." This definition of group work is very analogous to what Damon and Phelps [8, p. 9] consider as 'Peer Collaboration', to what Stodolsky [21, p. 114] designates as 'Cooperative peer-work groups', and to what Sharan [18, p. 241] calls 'Group-Investigation approaches'. But there is one important difference: teacher interventions are not explicitly part of their definitions.
Theoretical Foundations of Group Work Slavin [19,20] argues that there are two schools of thought concerning cooperative learning and its effects: development-theories and motivationaltheories. The motivational-theories assume that rewards are necessary to get children to interact productively and to produce learning benefits (note the influence of behaviorist approaches: Lewin, Skinner, Deutsch, Atkinson, Skinner and others). Damon and Phelps [8, pp. 15-16] cite empirical facts, calling in question the relevance of rewards. Moreover, they find it remarkable that this type of theory is rather oriented towards explaining learning processes in a narrow range of learning tasks (short term effects). The developmental perspective puts group work at the centre of the individ-
ual development in relation to learning and thinking. Concepts like 'co-construction' and 'socialcognitive conflict' are used in this context. The developmental perspective is oriented towards explaining: "basic cognitive shifts in children's understanding of new conceptual material" [8, p. 15]. This type of theory is particularily useful for computer learning environments; we can, for example, refer to research related to Logo-learning. More specifically, the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky are advanced in this context. When discussing both these developmental theories below, it will become apparent that, in fact, their theoretical foundations for group work are rather restricted. Forman [12] also comes to this conclusion when he writes: " ( . . . ) neither Piaget nor Vygotsky provides us with a fully articulated theory to support assertions about the role of social relations or, more specifically, peer relations in the social construction of knowledge" [12, p. 56]. But both theoretical approaches have been, and are being elaborated by the schools of thought they inspired. This creates a problem in the literature because it is not always clear whether authors, when citing Vygotsky or Piaget, do so explicitly, or are just interpreting them.
Empirical Arguments for Group Work Only very recently has empirical research in relation to cooperative learning attracted the attention of researchers. Some authors have already made well-documented meta-analyses of this research domain (see, e.g., [18,19,20,21,23]). The research findings are not always consistent and are certainly not easily comparable. The already mentioned terminological confusion may be responsable for this. But also the type of research and the research design have to be taken into account. One can distinguish three types of research: - E f f e c t i v i t y s t u d i e s : quantitative research, based on pretest/post-test design with experimental and control groups. - D e s c r i p t i v e s t u d i e s : surveys of the state of the art in relation to group work. - S t u d i e s o f the i n t e r a c t i o n p r o c e s s e s : qualitative research into the dynamics of learning in groups. Most research reports can be classified as effectivity studies, using the pre-test/post-test design.
M. Valvke / Group Work in Computer Learning Environments
Too few studies pay attention to the dynamics of the 1earning process in the social interaction. As a consequence, a lot of authors ask for a re-orientation in group research (cf., e.g., [14, p. 314], [23, p. 421], [18, pp. 256-257]). So, we hardly find any examples of good research reports. For the context of this article and our research projects, the few available examples are of great importance, because they have been set up in computer learning environments (see, e.g., [6,10,11,14,15,22,24]). In the further discussion of the empirical arguments for group work, we try to follow a scheme of Stodolsky [21], in which she outlines the variables influencing the processes and outcomes of group work. Depending on the availability of research findings, some categories in this scheme will be richly or poorly documented. We repeat that we have restricted our analysis to empirical research set up in computer learning environments. Besides the categories in the scheme, descriptive research will also be briefly discussed.
Research in Relation to the "History of the Experience" and Preparation of the Group Work Activities
211
ation (when pupils want to work individually) to expficitly disapproving competition. Azmitia [1, p. 4] stresses the importance of guidance by an adult facilitator to prevent pupils from working in parallel or individually and to counter less successful grouping of pupils. - Webb [23] and Slavin [19] discuss the role of giving 'rewards'. The results of the studies they present are very consistent: giving rewards heightens the group productivity. This does not imply a causal interrelation between the two variables. Rewards can, for example, make pupils more willing to give help to each other, thus making it possible to enhance productivity. -
Research in Relation to the Impact of Group Composition When discussing group working, common sense dictates the expectation that older, more bright and able boys will have a dominant impact on the social interaction. To what degree, is this expectation confirmed by research findings? Sex
We do not find details, data, conclusions in relation to this--in our opinion--very important variables in successful group work. The fact is that group work implies several parallel learning processes at different content levels: cognitive learning processes and social-affective processes. The latter are not acquired spontaneously by the pupils in the peer groups. And it is of no use to tell them to cooperate. The few available research findings suggest that it is necessary to 'structure' the activity in order to attain objectives in specific subject domains, but such data have not been found in relation to social-affective processes. Only very general recommendations or sidelong remarks/conclusions suggest that this aspect of group work remains problematical: - Some authors stress the importance of giving information about task division or task description [21, p. 119]. - Clements [4, p. 23] concludes, when discussing the interrelation between Logo and social development: " I t is helpful to monitor each pair's activity". This monitoring activity of the teacher may vary from explicitly encouraging cooper-
Sex differences in the domain of physics, mathematics and computer use are also widely discussed in the literature. In the context of this article, we cannot review this literature; we restrict our attention to those authors linking sex differences to group settings in computer learning environments. - A research project of Webb [24] could not detect differences between boys and girls when working cooperatively. Both groups acquired a comparable programming expertise. But the author does question the representativity of the girls involved in her study. - Guntermann and Tovar [14] found significant differences in the interaction processes between groups of boys, groups of girls and mixed groups. But these interaction differences were not reflected in differences in achievement (see [14, p. 3131). - Culley [7] detected differences between girls and boys when researching the differential access to computers during optional computer activities. She stresses the importance of organisation of the computing activities to deal with these differences (see [7, p. 4]).
212
M. Valcke / Group Work in Computer Learning Environments
- Research of Bramel and Azmitia [3], with 6- to 8-year old pupils, reveals that cooperation is enhanced with age. Webb [24, p. 1085] states that the factor of age no longer influences the way 11- to 14-year olds interact in group settings.
-
Expertise--Ability Ability is by far the most researched co-variable in research about group work. Stodolsky [21, p. 121] carefully concludes that: "There is some suggestion that ability has its strongest effects in helping groups (peer tutoring)". Cooperative groups may be less affected by ability composition. In a research project of Webb [24], expertise was one of the main co-variables. She discovered that: "abilities ( . . . ) tended not to predict their experience in the group setting" [24, p. 1087]. Webb [23], when summarizing findings from several studies, comes to the conclusion that: "the effects of ability composition on group interaction depend on the mean level of group ability, as well as the range of ability in the group" [23, p. 432]. This suggests that, in group composition, enough attention must be paid to the heterogeneity or homogeneity of the groups. Azmitia [1,2] reveals in this respect that a group of homogeneous less able students does not profit from a cooperative learning setting, and that this contrasts with homogeneous groups of able students or heterogeneous groups. Azmitia [1] explains this by referring to two parallel problems which the less able pupils have to deal with: "the child must allocate resources not only to the cognitive demands of the task, but also to the social demands of the interaction" [1, p. 5]. Later research of Bramel and Azmitia [3] and Azmitia reveals that: "for novices, collaboration produced superior learning and learning was maximized when working with an expert partner" [3, p. 94]. But, for the more able pupils cooperation seems to become less and less relevant: "once a certain level of proficiency is attained, interaction becomes less instrumental for learning (...)". Sharan [18] quotes a research report where all ability levels profited from the cooperative setting. A qualitative analysis of the interaction helped to clarify that: "superior achievement ( . . . ) was not merely the product of having the high ability
student provide the less talented children with the correct answer" [18, p. 256]. Webb [24] could, for example, observe that less active pupils, pupils who hardly touched the keyboard or interacted with others did not attain a signifanctly different learning level. Trying to explain this, she writes: "Students can learn from what other group members do, as well as from what they say" [24, p. 1086]. Also, Azmitia [1] comes to this kind of conclusion: 'Onlooker behavior' seemed to be as effective in attaining the learning objectives as 'Joint behavior' during the interaction process [1, p. 4]. Research of Dembo and McAuliffe [9] and Azmitia [1,2] could detect that pupils are aware of differences in ability between themselves in a certain subject area. This awareness does influence the interaction process; but this influence is not negative.
Social class Sharan [18] summarized the results of some studies in which social class was an independent variable. She could conclude that group work "will yield high-level learning and cognition among lower class and middle class students" [18, p. 256]. Group size In the literature, the ideal size of groups is estimated to be three. Research data confirming/ questioning this figure are sparse. But research in this area is necessary, for the still problematical computer/pupil ratio has the side-effect that, in some situations, pupils have to cooperate with 3 to 5 other pupils. The question is whether this setting inhibits social interaction? Guntermann and Tovar [14] compared pupils working individually, in pairs and in small groups of 3 pupils. They could not detect significant differences between these three experimental conditions in terms of group dynamics. The authors state that their findings are consistent with the research data of others: working in groups seems to be more effective than working individually. An already mentioned study of Webb [24, p. 1086] revealed that pupils who hardly touched the keyboard in a group context, did not differ in terms of achievement on post-tests. This suggests that direct keyboard contact is not indispensable and that group size does not have to be adapted to this criterion.
M. Valcke / Group Work in Computer Learning Environments
Research of the Internal Dynamics of Group Work This research helps to reveal the mechanisms which are responsible for success or failure of group work. Again, the existing research body is extensive; therefore, we restrict our analysis to research focusing on group work in computer learning environments. Webb [23,24,25] set up several research projects to make explicit the impact of specific group dynamic processes on achievement. She could detect five interaction variables that could affect achievement: receiving explanations in response to errors (positively related); receiving explanations in response to questions (negatively related); receiving no explanation after an error (negatively related); receiving no response after a question (negatively related); and time at the keyboard (positively related) [24, p. 1076]. Later research helped here to clarify, in more detail, the importance of asking questions and getting specific feedback. Fletcher [11] compared children working individually with children working in groups on a problem solving task. Children in a group setting performed better than the individuals. As a covariable, he took into account the degree into which pupils verbalised their ideas, questions, solutions, etc.: "having to verbalise reasons for decisions, improved decisions making by an average of eight decisions per trial" [11, p. 259]. But Fletcher makes the remark t h a t ' verbalising' cannot alone account for the differences between the two learning situations. Hawkins, Homolsky and Heide [15, p. 5] researched the fact that children working cooperatively in a Logo-setting, reached a higher degree of cooperation than in other classroom settings. For the context of this article, their research is important because the impact of the computer as a tool was taken into account. Three clusters of factors were made explicit, accounting for the difference between the cooperative learning situations (computer versus other): (a) the technology: because the work of the pupils appeared on the screen, their work was very 'public'; (b) expertise: because the teacher was not in control of the new subject area, the usual and familiar classroom organisation consisting of one adult expert to many novices, was reversed, and (c) the status of corn-
213
puter work: nobody was quite sure that computers were legitimate work. Clements and Nastasi [6] could draw the conclusion that a lot of aspects in cooperative behavior had "cognitive underpinnings: conflict resolution, rule determination and self-directed work" [6, p. 87]. These aspects could guarantee more successful problem solving behavior. Moreover, the authors could observe a large degree of 'metacognitive functioning' (see below). In their study, they compared groups of pupils working in CAI- and Logo-environments. Working with Logo seemed to reflect the above-mentioned characteristics to a higher and significant extent.
Group Work and Achievement Group work and the acquisition of subject-matter In a long-term study of Damon and Phelps [8], pupils better attained the objectives in relation to mathematics, physics and space orientation. Of importance is the fact that the learning gains were restricted to certain types of objectives, to wit those objectives that: "require new insights, conceptual shifts and the development of deep knowledge structures" [8, p. 14] and this contrasts with objectives in the domain of reproduction skills. These conclusions follow the findings of Sharan [18, p. 265]. Webb [25] discusses the results of 17 studies about group work and mathematics learning. All studies revealed significant learning gains in the group situations. But she also mentions research flaws which could be responsible for the fact that one can be brought to "overestimate or underestimate the true relationships between behavior and achievement" [25, p. 24]. A study of Forman [12, p. 55] revealed that pupils working with peers can construct geometry concepts cooperatively. Pea [17, p. 15] refers to the work of Schoenfeld, Pettito and Noddings to illustrate the relevance of group work for the acquisition of mathematical objectives.
Group work and the acquisition of programming skills In Mindstorms, Papert strongly defends 'participatory learning'. It would sustain the programming activity, thus helping to attain certain metacognitive skills (for example, self-referential discussion) or concepts. Recently, research reports
214
M. Valcke / Group Work in Computer Learning Environments
confirm the positive impact of group work on the acquisition of programming skills (see, e.g., [4,13,15]). But, in most of these research reports, the explicit link between group work and better achievement is not put forward. Webb [25, pp. 23-24], in two studies, brings more empirical evidence to sustain the link between group work and programming. She could even detect differences in the social interaction in this setting and other cooperative learning contexts: "The relationships between group process variables and computer programming outcomes in this study were different from those in previous studies of classroom learning ( . . . ) " [24, p. 1084]. It is also remarkable that--in the same studies--she could indicate that the effects on programming ability differed according to the 'level of knowledge of computer programming', since programming is not a unitary phenomenon. Group work seemed to be relevant for attaining 'knowledge of basic commands, syntax and generating logical relations programs'.
Group work and metacognition Already in Mindstorms, Papert explicitly puts forward the link between group work and metacognitive skills: "Thinking about thinking turns the child into an epistomologist (...)". Research in relation to metacognition and group work is still very sparse; even more sparse are studies which research this link in computer learning environments. Clements and Nastasi [6, p. 87] summarize the findings of the three available studies in this domain [4,5,10]. In this research, they state that pupils working in a cooperative setting: " ( . . . ) exhibit a significantly higher frequency of behaviors indicative of metacognitive functioning" [6, p. 871.
Group work and social-affective objectives Sharan [18] summarizes her own research and concludes: " ( . . . ) pupils from small-group classrooms were more cooperative and altruistic, and much less competitive and selfish ( . . . ) " [18, p. 251]. Also important is the fact that she could observe transfer of the acquired attitudes towards other social learning contexts. She cites other studies that confirm the latter observation (for example, the Johnson studies). Clements [4] gives an overview of ten studies reporting that pupils in a Logo-environment, based
on group work: "were more likely to interact with peers" [4, p. 22]. This confirms the earlier research of Hawkins, Homolsky and Heide [15] who revealed that learning in a cooperative setting leads to more interaction and also to more cooperative behavior. But they also observed a change in attitude of the pupils towards group work when a certain level of expertise was reached: "But as the year progressed, we found a greater occurrence of individuals working alone at the computers in a very focused way" [15, p. 4]. Research of Krasnor en Mitterer [16] enlightens, from a special point of view, the interrelation between group work and social interaction. Three different experimental conditions were set up: groups learning Logo, groups learning BASIC and groups following a special 'Problem Solving programme'. The interactions in the three settings seemed to differ significantly. The highest degree of interaction was observed in the BAsic-groups, immediately followed by the Logo-groups. It is interesting to note that the research also took into account the interaction with the teacher. This interaction seems to be highest in the Logo-groups. The three conditions did not produce significant differences in learning gains [16, p. 186].
References [1] M. Azmitia, "Expertise as a moderator of social influence on children's cognition", Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of th¢ Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore, MA, 1987. [2] M. Azmitia, "Factors that mediate contributions of peer interaction to problem solving", Paper presented at the APA Convention, Washington, D.C., 1986. [3] H. Bramel and M. Azmitia, "The influence of age, expertise, and task difficulty on children's patterns of collaboration during problem solving", Paper presented at the Conference on Human Development, Charleston, 1988. [4] D. Clements, 'Testitudinal testimony--Research on Logo and social development", Logo Exchange 5 (3) (1986) 22-24. [5] D. Clements and D. Gullo, "Effects of computer programming on young children's cognition", Journal of Educational Psychology 78 (4) (1986) 309-318. [6] D. Clements and B. Nastasi, "Social and cognitive interactions in educational computer environments", American Educational Research Journal 25 (1) (1988) 87-106. [7] L. Culley, "Girls, boys and computers", Educational Studies 14 (1) (1988) 3-8. [8] W. Damon and E. Phelps, "Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education", International Journal of Educational Research 13 (1) (1989) 9-19.
M. Valcke / Group Work in Computer Learning Environments
[9] M. Dembo and T. McAuliffe, "Effects of perceived ability and grade status on social interaction and influence in cooperative groups", Journal of Educational Psychology 79 (94) (1987) 415-423. [10] C. Emihovich and G. Miller, "Learning Logo: The social context of cognition", Journal for Curriculum Studies 20 (1) (1988) 57-70. [11] B. Fletcher, "Group and individual learning of junior school children on a microcomputer-based task: Social or cognitive facilitation", Educational Review 37 (3) (1985) 251-261. [12] E. Forman, "The role of peer interaction in the social construction of mathematical knowledge", International Journal of Educational Research 13 (1) (1989) 55-70. [13] J.K. Gallini, "A comparison of the effects of Logo and a CAI learning environment on skills acquisition", Journal of Educational Computing Research 3 (4) (1987) 461-477. [14] E. Gunterman and M. Tovar, "Collaborative problemsoling with Logo: Effects of group size and group composition", Journal for Educational Computing Research 3 (3) (1987) 313-333. [15] J. Hawkins, M. Homolsky and P. Heide, "Paired problem solving in a computer context", Technical Report No. 33, Bank Street College of Education, New York, 1984. [16] LR. Krasnor and J.D. Mitterer, "Logo and the development of general problem-solving skills", The Alberta Journal of Educational Research 30 (2) (1984) 133-144. [17] R.D. Pea, "Cognitive technologies for mathematics educa-
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
215
tion", Technical Report No. 37, Bank Street College of Education, New York, 1986. S. Sharan, "Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes and ethnic relations", Review of Educational Research 50 (2) (1980) 241-271. R.E. Slavin, "Cooperative learning: Where behavioral and humanistic approaches to classroom motivation meet", The Elementary School Journal 88 (1987) 29-37. R.E. Slavin, "Developmental and motivational perspectives on cooperative learning: A reconciliation", ChiM Development 58 (1987) 1161-1167. S. Stodolsky, "Frameworks for studying instructional processes in peer work-groups", in: L. Peterson, M. Wilkinson and M. Hallihan, eds., The Social Context of Instruction (Academic Press, New York, 1984) 107-124. M. Valcke, "Learning to solve problems with Logo--The necessity of developmental models for the learning process--An empiric test", Scientia Paedagogica Experimentalis 26 (1) (1989) to appear. N. Webb, "Student interaction and learning in small groups", Review of Educational Research 52 (3) (1982) 421-445. N. Webb, "Microcomputer learning in small groups: Cognitive requirements and group processes", Journal of Educational Psychology 76 (6) (1984) 1076-1088. N. Webb, "Peer interaction and learning in small groups", International Research 13 (1) (1989) 21-40.
Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Arguments for Group Work in Computer Learning Environments Martin V A L C K E
Introduction
Department of Education, State University Gent, Henri Dunantlaan 1, B-9000 Gent, Belgium
In this article, theoretical foundations and empirical arguments for group work are reviewed. There is already a vast amount of literature in this field; but the relevance of 'group work' in the field of educational computing still remains as a question. Only recently, research has shifted its attention towards the interaction processes during group work when using computers. This body of research is still limited; nevertheless, its conclusions are of significance. It reveals the multi-dimensional nature of computer learning settings. In this article, a definition for group work in a computer setting is presented. And already when looking for this definition, it becomes obvious that studying cooperative learning is a very complex domain. The next part of the article gives an overview of empirical findings, sustaining or questioning the relevance of group work in this particular teaching and learning context.
Keywords: Computer learning environment, Group work, Cooperative learning.
Martin Valcke is a researcher who has started to work recently in the field of educational computing. His main focus has been on computer use in primary schools. Besides the development of software and the evaluation of Logo microworlds, he is responsible for several teacher training projects. At the international level he has been involved in the organisation of European Summer Universities on educational computing, European Logo projects and the organisation of the Eurologo conferences. Education & Computing 4 (1988) 209-215 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. 0167-9287/89/$3.50 © 1989, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
Although the use of computers in educational settings is growing, the average ratio of computers/pupils in primary school settings is still limited. The Becker study in the U.S.A. in 1985 stated that the average ratio was about 1 / 6 0 in elementary schools. In the Flemish educational setting in 1987, this ratio in primary schools is about 1/120. This limited availability of computer resources questions the potential relevance of educational computer use. A possible way out of this situation is group work. In this way, pupils can get a more regular access to this learning tool. In much explorative and experimental research, group work is accepted as a sound and acceptable way of setting up computer learning environments. This is a pragmatic, but nonetheless realistic answer to this shortage of learning tools. But, one can question whether group work is--although being a pragmatic solution--relevant in terms of sustaining the goal-directedness of learning activities. Or, in other terms, whether group work is really as relevant or effective as expected. There is already a vast amount of literature in this field; but, the relevance of group work in the field of educational computing still remains as a question. Only recently, research has shifted its attention towards interaction processes during group work when using computers. This body of research is still limited; nevertheless, its conclusions are of significance. It reveals the multi-dimensional nature of computer learning settings. In this article, we focus on group work in computer learning environments from several points of view. But before reviewing theoretical and empirical grounds for 'group work', we present a preliminary definition for what we understand as being group work. In clarifying what we consider to be a correct conceptualisation of group
210
M. Valcke / Group Work in Computer Learning Environments
work, some other aspects/dimensions of the wider teaching and learning context can also be clarified.
A Preliminary Definition of Group Work In the literature, the term 'group work' is only one among many concepts referring to a way of organising teaching and learning: cooperative learning, peer work groups, instructional groups, peer education, small group learning, peer collaboration, group-investigation approach, etc. In the context of this article, we shall use the concept of 'group work' with the following definition: "Group work implies defining and making explicit the learning problem, the planning and the elaboration of its solution, in a cooperative way. A group consists of pupils of the same grade level. This may guarantee more 'equality' in knowledge and experience and more 'mutuality' in the communication pattern. Group work is sustained by impficit and/or explicit teacher interventions." This definition of group work is very analogous to what Damon and Phelps [8, p. 9] consider as 'Peer Collaboration', to what Stodolsky [21, p. 114] designates as 'Cooperative peer-work groups', and to what Sharan [18, p. 241] calls 'Group-Investigation approaches'. But there is one important difference: teacher interventions are not explicitly part of their definitions.
Theoretical Foundations of Group Work Slavin [19,20] argues that there are two schools of thought concerning cooperative learning and its effects: development-theories and motivationaltheories. The motivational-theories assume that rewards are necessary to get children to interact productively and to produce learning benefits (note the influence of behaviorist approaches: Lewin, Skinner, Deutsch, Atkinson, Skinner and others). Damon and Phelps [8, pp. 15-16] cite empirical facts, calling in question the relevance of rewards. Moreover, they find it remarkable that this type of theory is rather oriented towards explaining learning processes in a narrow range of learning tasks (short term effects). The developmental perspective puts group work at the centre of the individ-
ual development in relation to learning and thinking. Concepts like 'co-construction' and 'socialcognitive conflict' are used in this context. The developmental perspective is oriented towards explaining: "basic cognitive shifts in children's understanding of new conceptual material" [8, p. 15]. This type of theory is particularily useful for computer learning environments; we can, for example, refer to research related to Logo-learning. More specifically, the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky are advanced in this context. When discussing both these developmental theories below, it will become apparent that, in fact, their theoretical foundations for group work are rather restricted. Forman [12] also comes to this conclusion when he writes: " ( . . . ) neither Piaget nor Vygotsky provides us with a fully articulated theory to support assertions about the role of social relations or, more specifically, peer relations in the social construction of knowledge" [12, p. 56]. But both theoretical approaches have been, and are being elaborated by the schools of thought they inspired. This creates a problem in the literature because it is not always clear whether authors, when citing Vygotsky or Piaget, do so explicitly, or are just interpreting them.
Empirical Arguments for Group Work Only very recently has empirical research in relation to cooperative learning attracted the attention of researchers. Some authors have already made well-documented meta-analyses of this research domain (see, e.g., [18,19,20,21,23]). The research findings are not always consistent and are certainly not easily comparable. The already mentioned terminological confusion may be responsable for this. But also the type of research and the research design have to be taken into account. One can distinguish three types of research: - E f f e c t i v i t y s t u d i e s : quantitative research, based on pretest/post-test design with experimental and control groups. - D e s c r i p t i v e s t u d i e s : surveys of the state of the art in relation to group work. - S t u d i e s o f the i n t e r a c t i o n p r o c e s s e s : qualitative research into the dynamics of learning in groups. Most research reports can be classified as effectivity studies, using the pre-test/post-test design.
M. Valvke / Group Work in Computer Learning Environments
Too few studies pay attention to the dynamics of the 1earning process in the social interaction. As a consequence, a lot of authors ask for a re-orientation in group research (cf., e.g., [14, p. 314], [23, p. 421], [18, pp. 256-257]). So, we hardly find any examples of good research reports. For the context of this article and our research projects, the few available examples are of great importance, because they have been set up in computer learning environments (see, e.g., [6,10,11,14,15,22,24]). In the further discussion of the empirical arguments for group work, we try to follow a scheme of Stodolsky [21], in which she outlines the variables influencing the processes and outcomes of group work. Depending on the availability of research findings, some categories in this scheme will be richly or poorly documented. We repeat that we have restricted our analysis to empirical research set up in computer learning environments. Besides the categories in the scheme, descriptive research will also be briefly discussed.
Research in Relation to the "History of the Experience" and Preparation of the Group Work Activities
211
ation (when pupils want to work individually) to expficitly disapproving competition. Azmitia [1, p. 4] stresses the importance of guidance by an adult facilitator to prevent pupils from working in parallel or individually and to counter less successful grouping of pupils. - Webb [23] and Slavin [19] discuss the role of giving 'rewards'. The results of the studies they present are very consistent: giving rewards heightens the group productivity. This does not imply a causal interrelation between the two variables. Rewards can, for example, make pupils more willing to give help to each other, thus making it possible to enhance productivity. -
Research in Relation to the Impact of Group Composition When discussing group working, common sense dictates the expectation that older, more bright and able boys will have a dominant impact on the social interaction. To what degree, is this expectation confirmed by research findings? Sex
We do not find details, data, conclusions in relation to this--in our opinion--very important variables in successful group work. The fact is that group work implies several parallel learning processes at different content levels: cognitive learning processes and social-affective processes. The latter are not acquired spontaneously by the pupils in the peer groups. And it is of no use to tell them to cooperate. The few available research findings suggest that it is necessary to 'structure' the activity in order to attain objectives in specific subject domains, but such data have not been found in relation to social-affective processes. Only very general recommendations or sidelong remarks/conclusions suggest that this aspect of group work remains problematical: - Some authors stress the importance of giving information about task division or task description [21, p. 119]. - Clements [4, p. 23] concludes, when discussing the interrelation between Logo and social development: " I t is helpful to monitor each pair's activity". This monitoring activity of the teacher may vary from explicitly encouraging cooper-
Sex differences in the domain of physics, mathematics and computer use are also widely discussed in the literature. In the context of this article, we cannot review this literature; we restrict our attention to those authors linking sex differences to group settings in computer learning environments. - A research project of Webb [24] could not detect differences between boys and girls when working cooperatively. Both groups acquired a comparable programming expertise. But the author does question the representativity of the girls involved in her study. - Guntermann and Tovar [14] found significant differences in the interaction processes between groups of boys, groups of girls and mixed groups. But these interaction differences were not reflected in differences in achievement (see [14, p. 3131). - Culley [7] detected differences between girls and boys when researching the differential access to computers during optional computer activities. She stresses the importance of organisation of the computing activities to deal with these differences (see [7, p. 4]).
212
M. Valcke / Group Work in Computer Learning Environments
- Research of Bramel and Azmitia [3], with 6- to 8-year old pupils, reveals that cooperation is enhanced with age. Webb [24, p. 1085] states that the factor of age no longer influences the way 11- to 14-year olds interact in group settings.
-
Expertise--Ability Ability is by far the most researched co-variable in research about group work. Stodolsky [21, p. 121] carefully concludes that: "There is some suggestion that ability has its strongest effects in helping groups (peer tutoring)". Cooperative groups may be less affected by ability composition. In a research project of Webb [24], expertise was one of the main co-variables. She discovered that: "abilities ( . . . ) tended not to predict their experience in the group setting" [24, p. 1087]. Webb [23], when summarizing findings from several studies, comes to the conclusion that: "the effects of ability composition on group interaction depend on the mean level of group ability, as well as the range of ability in the group" [23, p. 432]. This suggests that, in group composition, enough attention must be paid to the heterogeneity or homogeneity of the groups. Azmitia [1,2] reveals in this respect that a group of homogeneous less able students does not profit from a cooperative learning setting, and that this contrasts with homogeneous groups of able students or heterogeneous groups. Azmitia [1] explains this by referring to two parallel problems which the less able pupils have to deal with: "the child must allocate resources not only to the cognitive demands of the task, but also to the social demands of the interaction" [1, p. 5]. Later research of Bramel and Azmitia [3] and Azmitia reveals that: "for novices, collaboration produced superior learning and learning was maximized when working with an expert partner" [3, p. 94]. But, for the more able pupils cooperation seems to become less and less relevant: "once a certain level of proficiency is attained, interaction becomes less instrumental for learning (...)". Sharan [18] quotes a research report where all ability levels profited from the cooperative setting. A qualitative analysis of the interaction helped to clarify that: "superior achievement ( . . . ) was not merely the product of having the high ability
student provide the less talented children with the correct answer" [18, p. 256]. Webb [24] could, for example, observe that less active pupils, pupils who hardly touched the keyboard or interacted with others did not attain a signifanctly different learning level. Trying to explain this, she writes: "Students can learn from what other group members do, as well as from what they say" [24, p. 1086]. Also, Azmitia [1] comes to this kind of conclusion: 'Onlooker behavior' seemed to be as effective in attaining the learning objectives as 'Joint behavior' during the interaction process [1, p. 4]. Research of Dembo and McAuliffe [9] and Azmitia [1,2] could detect that pupils are aware of differences in ability between themselves in a certain subject area. This awareness does influence the interaction process; but this influence is not negative.
Social class Sharan [18] summarized the results of some studies in which social class was an independent variable. She could conclude that group work "will yield high-level learning and cognition among lower class and middle class students" [18, p. 256]. Group size In the literature, the ideal size of groups is estimated to be three. Research data confirming/ questioning this figure are sparse. But research in this area is necessary, for the still problematical computer/pupil ratio has the side-effect that, in some situations, pupils have to cooperate with 3 to 5 other pupils. The question is whether this setting inhibits social interaction? Guntermann and Tovar [14] compared pupils working individually, in pairs and in small groups of 3 pupils. They could not detect significant differences between these three experimental conditions in terms of group dynamics. The authors state that their findings are consistent with the research data of others: working in groups seems to be more effective than working individually. An already mentioned study of Webb [24, p. 1086] revealed that pupils who hardly touched the keyboard in a group context, did not differ in terms of achievement on post-tests. This suggests that direct keyboard contact is not indispensable and that group size does not have to be adapted to this criterion.
M. Valcke / Group Work in Computer Learning Environments
Research of the Internal Dynamics of Group Work This research helps to reveal the mechanisms which are responsible for success or failure of group work. Again, the existing research body is extensive; therefore, we restrict our analysis to research focusing on group work in computer learning environments. Webb [23,24,25] set up several research projects to make explicit the impact of specific group dynamic processes on achievement. She could detect five interaction variables that could affect achievement: receiving explanations in response to errors (positively related); receiving explanations in response to questions (negatively related); receiving no explanation after an error (negatively related); receiving no response after a question (negatively related); and time at the keyboard (positively related) [24, p. 1076]. Later research helped here to clarify, in more detail, the importance of asking questions and getting specific feedback. Fletcher [11] compared children working individually with children working in groups on a problem solving task. Children in a group setting performed better than the individuals. As a covariable, he took into account the degree into which pupils verbalised their ideas, questions, solutions, etc.: "having to verbalise reasons for decisions, improved decisions making by an average of eight decisions per trial" [11, p. 259]. But Fletcher makes the remark t h a t ' verbalising' cannot alone account for the differences between the two learning situations. Hawkins, Homolsky and Heide [15, p. 5] researched the fact that children working cooperatively in a Logo-setting, reached a higher degree of cooperation than in other classroom settings. For the context of this article, their research is important because the impact of the computer as a tool was taken into account. Three clusters of factors were made explicit, accounting for the difference between the cooperative learning situations (computer versus other): (a) the technology: because the work of the pupils appeared on the screen, their work was very 'public'; (b) expertise: because the teacher was not in control of the new subject area, the usual and familiar classroom organisation consisting of one adult expert to many novices, was reversed, and (c) the status of corn-
213
puter work: nobody was quite sure that computers were legitimate work. Clements and Nastasi [6] could draw the conclusion that a lot of aspects in cooperative behavior had "cognitive underpinnings: conflict resolution, rule determination and self-directed work" [6, p. 87]. These aspects could guarantee more successful problem solving behavior. Moreover, the authors could observe a large degree of 'metacognitive functioning' (see below). In their study, they compared groups of pupils working in CAI- and Logo-environments. Working with Logo seemed to reflect the above-mentioned characteristics to a higher and significant extent.
Group Work and Achievement Group work and the acquisition of subject-matter In a long-term study of Damon and Phelps [8], pupils better attained the objectives in relation to mathematics, physics and space orientation. Of importance is the fact that the learning gains were restricted to certain types of objectives, to wit those objectives that: "require new insights, conceptual shifts and the development of deep knowledge structures" [8, p. 14] and this contrasts with objectives in the domain of reproduction skills. These conclusions follow the findings of Sharan [18, p. 265]. Webb [25] discusses the results of 17 studies about group work and mathematics learning. All studies revealed significant learning gains in the group situations. But she also mentions research flaws which could be responsible for the fact that one can be brought to "overestimate or underestimate the true relationships between behavior and achievement" [25, p. 24]. A study of Forman [12, p. 55] revealed that pupils working with peers can construct geometry concepts cooperatively. Pea [17, p. 15] refers to the work of Schoenfeld, Pettito and Noddings to illustrate the relevance of group work for the acquisition of mathematical objectives.
Group work and the acquisition of programming skills In Mindstorms, Papert strongly defends 'participatory learning'. It would sustain the programming activity, thus helping to attain certain metacognitive skills (for example, self-referential discussion) or concepts. Recently, research reports
214
M. Valcke / Group Work in Computer Learning Environments
confirm the positive impact of group work on the acquisition of programming skills (see, e.g., [4,13,15]). But, in most of these research reports, the explicit link between group work and better achievement is not put forward. Webb [25, pp. 23-24], in two studies, brings more empirical evidence to sustain the link between group work and programming. She could even detect differences in the social interaction in this setting and other cooperative learning contexts: "The relationships between group process variables and computer programming outcomes in this study were different from those in previous studies of classroom learning ( . . . ) " [24, p. 1084]. It is also remarkable that--in the same studies--she could indicate that the effects on programming ability differed according to the 'level of knowledge of computer programming', since programming is not a unitary phenomenon. Group work seemed to be relevant for attaining 'knowledge of basic commands, syntax and generating logical relations programs'.
Group work and metacognition Already in Mindstorms, Papert explicitly puts forward the link between group work and metacognitive skills: "Thinking about thinking turns the child into an epistomologist (...)". Research in relation to metacognition and group work is still very sparse; even more sparse are studies which research this link in computer learning environments. Clements and Nastasi [6, p. 87] summarize the findings of the three available studies in this domain [4,5,10]. In this research, they state that pupils working in a cooperative setting: " ( . . . ) exhibit a significantly higher frequency of behaviors indicative of metacognitive functioning" [6, p. 871.
Group work and social-affective objectives Sharan [18] summarizes her own research and concludes: " ( . . . ) pupils from small-group classrooms were more cooperative and altruistic, and much less competitive and selfish ( . . . ) " [18, p. 251]. Also important is the fact that she could observe transfer of the acquired attitudes towards other social learning contexts. She cites other studies that confirm the latter observation (for example, the Johnson studies). Clements [4] gives an overview of ten studies reporting that pupils in a Logo-environment, based
on group work: "were more likely to interact with peers" [4, p. 22]. This confirms the earlier research of Hawkins, Homolsky and Heide [15] who revealed that learning in a cooperative setting leads to more interaction and also to more cooperative behavior. But they also observed a change in attitude of the pupils towards group work when a certain level of expertise was reached: "But as the year progressed, we found a greater occurrence of individuals working alone at the computers in a very focused way" [15, p. 4]. Research of Krasnor en Mitterer [16] enlightens, from a special point of view, the interrelation between group work and social interaction. Three different experimental conditions were set up: groups learning Logo, groups learning BASIC and groups following a special 'Problem Solving programme'. The interactions in the three settings seemed to differ significantly. The highest degree of interaction was observed in the BAsic-groups, immediately followed by the Logo-groups. It is interesting to note that the research also took into account the interaction with the teacher. This interaction seems to be highest in the Logo-groups. The three conditions did not produce significant differences in learning gains [16, p. 186].
References [1] M. Azmitia, "Expertise as a moderator of social influence on children's cognition", Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of th¢ Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore, MA, 1987. [2] M. Azmitia, "Factors that mediate contributions of peer interaction to problem solving", Paper presented at the APA Convention, Washington, D.C., 1986. [3] H. Bramel and M. Azmitia, "The influence of age, expertise, and task difficulty on children's patterns of collaboration during problem solving", Paper presented at the Conference on Human Development, Charleston, 1988. [4] D. Clements, 'Testitudinal testimony--Research on Logo and social development", Logo Exchange 5 (3) (1986) 22-24. [5] D. Clements and D. Gullo, "Effects of computer programming on young children's cognition", Journal of Educational Psychology 78 (4) (1986) 309-318. [6] D. Clements and B. Nastasi, "Social and cognitive interactions in educational computer environments", American Educational Research Journal 25 (1) (1988) 87-106. [7] L. Culley, "Girls, boys and computers", Educational Studies 14 (1) (1988) 3-8. [8] W. Damon and E. Phelps, "Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education", International Journal of Educational Research 13 (1) (1989) 9-19.
M. Valcke / Group Work in Computer Learning Environments
[9] M. Dembo and T. McAuliffe, "Effects of perceived ability and grade status on social interaction and influence in cooperative groups", Journal of Educational Psychology 79 (94) (1987) 415-423. [10] C. Emihovich and G. Miller, "Learning Logo: The social context of cognition", Journal for Curriculum Studies 20 (1) (1988) 57-70. [11] B. Fletcher, "Group and individual learning of junior school children on a microcomputer-based task: Social or cognitive facilitation", Educational Review 37 (3) (1985) 251-261. [12] E. Forman, "The role of peer interaction in the social construction of mathematical knowledge", International Journal of Educational Research 13 (1) (1989) 55-70. [13] J.K. Gallini, "A comparison of the effects of Logo and a CAI learning environment on skills acquisition", Journal of Educational Computing Research 3 (4) (1987) 461-477. [14] E. Gunterman and M. Tovar, "Collaborative problemsoling with Logo: Effects of group size and group composition", Journal for Educational Computing Research 3 (3) (1987) 313-333. [15] J. Hawkins, M. Homolsky and P. Heide, "Paired problem solving in a computer context", Technical Report No. 33, Bank Street College of Education, New York, 1984. [16] LR. Krasnor and J.D. Mitterer, "Logo and the development of general problem-solving skills", The Alberta Journal of Educational Research 30 (2) (1984) 133-144. [17] R.D. Pea, "Cognitive technologies for mathematics educa-
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
215
tion", Technical Report No. 37, Bank Street College of Education, New York, 1986. S. Sharan, "Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes and ethnic relations", Review of Educational Research 50 (2) (1980) 241-271. R.E. Slavin, "Cooperative learning: Where behavioral and humanistic approaches to classroom motivation meet", The Elementary School Journal 88 (1987) 29-37. R.E. Slavin, "Developmental and motivational perspectives on cooperative learning: A reconciliation", ChiM Development 58 (1987) 1161-1167. S. Stodolsky, "Frameworks for studying instructional processes in peer work-groups", in: L. Peterson, M. Wilkinson and M. Hallihan, eds., The Social Context of Instruction (Academic Press, New York, 1984) 107-124. M. Valcke, "Learning to solve problems with Logo--The necessity of developmental models for the learning process--An empiric test", Scientia Paedagogica Experimentalis 26 (1) (1989) to appear. N. Webb, "Student interaction and learning in small groups", Review of Educational Research 52 (3) (1982) 421-445. N. Webb, "Microcomputer learning in small groups: Cognitive requirements and group processes", Journal of Educational Psychology 76 (6) (1984) 1076-1088. N. Webb, "Peer interaction and learning in small groups", International Research 13 (1) (1989) 21-40.