- Email: [email protected]
Training learning strategies with computer-aided cooperative learning
Comput. Edu~. Vol. 9, No. l, pp. 67 71, 1985 Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
Copyright t
0360-1315/85 $3.00+0.00 1985 Pergamon Press Ltd
T R A I N I N G L E A R N I N G S T R A T E G I E S WITH COMPUTER-AIDED COOPERATIVE LEARNING* THOMAS ROCKLIN, ANGELA O'DONNELL, DONALD F. DANSEREAU, JUDITH G. LAMFIIOTTE, VELMA HYTHECKER a n d CFL~A LARSON Department of Psychology, Texas Christian University. Fort Worth, TX 76129, U.S.A.
(Receiz'ed 6 February 1984~ rel'ision receiz,ed 24 May 1984)
Abstract This paper describes the combination of two potent training technologies (computer-based instruction and cooperative learning) into a system called computer-aided cooperative learning (CACL) and the use of CACL to train students in a general learning strategy. This six-step strategy involves setting a task-appropriate mood, reading for general understanding, recalling as much of the material as possible, detecting errors and omissions, elaborating upon the material to make it more memorable and reviewing. CACL capitalizes on the strengths and overcomes some of the weaknesses of each of the constituent technologies. The resulting program is described and some data demonstrating its effectiveness is presented. Students using CACL recalled more material from each of two passages studied individually than did students who did not use CACL. CACL appears to be a promising technology for the delivery of learning strategies. Future research and development efforts should examine CACL's usefulness to the training of more sophisticated learning strategies.
In this p a p e r , we describe the d e v e l o p m e n t o f a learning strategies training m o d u l e which c o m b i n e s c o m p u t e r - b a s e d i n s t r u c t i o n a n d c o o p e r a t i v e learning in a training t e c h n o l o g y we call c o m p u t e r a i d e d c o o p e r a t i v e l e a r n i n g or C A C L . Specifically, this m o d u l e is designed to facilitate the a c q u i s i t i o n a n d a p p l i c a t i o n o f technical i n f o r m a t i o n . In the next three sections, we will describe the strategy system we are trying to c o n v e y to students, then describe the design a n d implem e n t a t i o n o f the C A C L m o d u l e , a n d finally, r e p o r t d a t a from a study e v a l u a t i n g the effectiveness o f the m o d u l e . THE
MURDER
LEARNING
STRATEGY
SYSTEM
It has b e c o m e clear from o u r research [1-3] a n d the research o f others [4, 5] that students" a c q u i s i t i o n a n d a p p l i c a t i o n o f t e x t b o o k m a t e r i a l can be i m p r o v e d by the direct training o f learning strategies. W e have, over the p a s t several years, used basic research in c o g n i t i o n a n d e d u c a t i o n as a guide in d e v e l o p i n g a c o m p r e h e n s i v e learning strategy system. This system involves four types o f activity: (1) m u l t i p l e passes t h r o u g h the m a t e r i a l to be learned; (2) r e o r g a n i z a t i o n or re-representation; (3) e l a b o r a t i o n ; a n d (4) m e t a c o g n i t i o n . M e t a c o g n i t i o n (literally " c o g n i t i o n a b o u t the c o g n i t i o n " ) in this c o n t e x t refers to the active m o n i t o r i n g o f o n e ' s k n o w l e d g e state. In o r d e r to c o m m u n i c a t e the strategy system we have d e v e l o p e d to students we have used the a c r o n y m s F i r s t a n d Second D e g r e e M U R D E R . First Degree M U R D E R is an i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n strategy while Second Degree M U R D E R is an i n f o r m a t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n strategy. First Degree M U R D E R includes six steps: (1) setting a p r o p e r Mood for learning; (2) r e a d i n g for Understanding; (3) Recalling the i n f o r m a t i o n ; (4) Detecting errors or o m i s s i o n s in the recall; (5) Elaborating to m a k e the m a t e r i a l m o r e easily r e m e m b e r e d ; a n d (6) a final Rez~iew. Similarly, the six steps o f Second Degree M U R D E R are: (1) getting into a p r o p e r Mood for the task; (2) *The research reported in this paper was supported through a subcontract with InterAmerica Research Associates Inc., Rosslyn, Virginia. This research effort was part of InterAmerica's Basic Skills Resource Center, which is funded by the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Alexandria, Virginia, under contract No. MDA-903-82-C-0169. The views, opinions, and findings contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision, unless so designated by other official documents. Address all correspondence to: Thomas Rocklin, Department of Psychology, Box 32878. Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX 76129, U.S.A. 67
68
THOMAS ROCKLIN {'t a[.
Understanding the goals and conditions of the task; (3) Recalling information relevant to the task: (4) Detecting omissions, errors and ways of organizing the information: (5) Elaborating the information into a proper response; and (6) Reciewing the response to modify it if necessary. The recall steps in each of these strategies can be facilitated by any of a number of substrategies. The module we describe here trains students in the use of verbal paraphrase and visual imagery. Other modules, using structured summarization and networking are under development. Although the strategy is effective [1-3] it has not been easy to train students to use it. In the past, we have relied on traditional lecture and discussion formats supplemented by workbooks of exercises. This approach has demonstrated moderate effectiveness and only limited efficiency. It was these considerations that led us to explore the potential of computer-aided cooperating learning. COMPUTER-AIDED
COOPERATIVE
LEARNING
Computer-aided cooperative learning is a combination of two training delivery technologies: cooperative learning and computer-based instruction. The system resulting from the combination takes advantage of the strengths and minimizes the weaknesses of the two constituent technologies. Computer-based instruction, especially with the wide availability of relatively inexpensive microcomputers, provides an economical source of content and process expertise. The computer can also be programmed to efficiently control, monitor and reinforce the flow of learning activities. In addition, the training can be efficiently tailored to the learner's specific needs based on pretraining assessments and intra-training responses. Finally, the computer can unobtrusively and inexpensively collect data as the training proceeds. Along with these strenghts, computer-based instruction suffers from two major weaknesses directly relevant to learning strategy training. First. in utilizing the learning strategies we have developed, students produce a variety of sketches, notes and essays. The evaluation of these productions is at best a cumbersome task for a computer. Secondly, although the computer can provide models of the desired outcome students do not typically consider computers convincing models of the process leading to that outcome. Cooperative learning, which involves two students working together in an orchestrated scenario, on the other hand, is particularly strong in exactly the areas in which computer-based instruction is weak. Students can read and evaluate each other's productions, such as summaries and networks. The interaction between students provides an opportunity for each to observe and imitate the other's processing. Our experience with cooperative learning has demonstrated two major weaknesses however. The first stems from the lack of content and process expertise in the pair of learners. This leads to the strong possiblity of situations in which the "blind lead the blind". The other major weakness lies in the difficulty that students have with time and effort management. As one of our subjects put it expressing a preference for studying with a computer on a post-experimental questionnaire: "'A computer would definitely not get off the subject and want to [stop] studying". It seems clear, then, that combining cooperative learning and computer-based instruction allows students to take advantage of the strengths of both technologies without being unduly hampered by the weaknesses of either. In CACL, cooperating student pairs are responsible for modeling of correct strategy usage and analysis and diagnosis of strategy productions while the microcomputer is responsible for providing strategy instruction, initiating and monitoring training tasks, and providing expert content and process feedback and reinforcement. T H E D E S I G N OF T H E P A R A P H R A S E / I M A G E R Y
CACL M O D U L E
In designing the CACL paraphrase/imagery module, we were guided by two major objectives. The first was that modules should be simple, in terms of both software and hardware. Toward this end, we constrained ourselves to a program that would run on an Apple II equipped with only one disk drive and a monochrome monitor. We also adopted Apple's enhanced version of the Pilot language, Superpilot. Superpilot allows very simple control over such effects as animation, character founts and sounds. In accepting these constraints, we sought to minimize the cost of producing a CACL module.
Computer-aided cooperative learning
69
The more important element of our design philosophy involved limiting the computer's role to those functions at which it is better than a partner. Thus, we made no attempt to program the computer so that it would appear to be intelligent, since the learner's partner is likely to make a much more convincing model than is the computer. At the same time that we relied on the partner to evaluate the learner's productions, we programmed the computer to provide feedback and examples of good productions. Thus, after the partner examined the production, the learner was prompted to enter an assessment of his or her production and the computer provided feedback and in some cases suggested that a specific portion of the lesson be reviewed. The paraphrase/imagery module teaches students the M U R D E R strategies, using paraphrasing and imagery as aids in the recall and elaboration steps. After an animated logo accompanied with music is presented, an animated character named Maxwell is introduced. Each student enters his or her name and partner's name. In addition, the partners choose which of them is to be partner " A " and which will be "B". These designations are used internally by the program to alternate activities between partners, though from this point on the students are consistently referred to by name, not letter. Next, an overview of the lesson is provided, along with a "pep talk" about the virtues of active studying. First Degree M U R D E R is described as Maxwell walks from letter to letter of the acronym. After the six steps of M U R D E R have been described, one partner quizzes the other on the names of the steps. For this and all other student-student interactions, each partner's computer provides different but coordinated instructions. For instance, if two students named Jack and Bob were working together, Jack's screen might read "Jack, quiz Bob to see if he knows what each letter of M U R D E R stands for". At the same time, Bob's screen would read '~Bob, Jack is going to ask you what each letter of M U R D E R stands for". After this student-student interaction, the computer provides ten descriptions of study activities. Working together, the partners enter the name of the M U R D E R step that each activity represents. If less than 4 are answered correctly, a review is suggested and provided if requested. Next, the partners read a short passage and receive detailed instruction on applying each of the steps. The pattern of mixing student-student interactions and student-computer interactions is maintained and diagnostic quizzes provided. The training on First Degree M U R D E R is completed by having the students practice on each of three sections of a passage on wounds. As they practice, they alternate responsibility for each of the steps and see examples of the optimal completion of the steps requiring production (i.e. recall and elaboration). Second Degree M U R D E R is taught in the same general way and finally the students are instructed in ways to use what they have learned about studying when they are studying without the aid of a computer. EVALUATION As a first step in evaluating the effectiveness of the C A C L paraphrase/imagery module, 89 students in introductory psychology classes participated in three two-hour sessions. (This study is reported in detail in Hythecker et al. [6].) Students were randomly assigned to a C A C L group (n -- 30), an Individaul learning strategy group (n = 28) or a No Treatment group (n = 31). The C A C L group worked in randomly assigned same sex pairs. The Individual learning strategy group received printed versions of the training materials and exercises used in the C A C L module and used these alone to learn the strategy. The No Treatment group studied the same practice passages but were given no specific instruction about how to study. This group served as a control for the effects of mere exposure to the practice passages. After receiving training, each subject individually studied two passages (one on tumors and the other a science fiction account of the construction of an orbital tower). At the final session, each student took a free recall test over the two passages and completed the Delta Vocabulary Test [7] and the G r o u p Embedded Figures Test [8], to be used as covariates in the analysis of the free recall performance. Our past research (1-3] has shown that these two measures reliably account for variance associated with two individual differences (vocabulary level and field dependence) which affect students' ability to process prose. Finally, the C A C L and Individual groups completed a 26-item satisfaction questionnaire and the No Treatment
THOMAS ROCKLIN el al.
70
Table 1. Standardized means and standard dexiutions for CACL group vs individual strategy group vs control group on recall or" tolal ideas, main ideas and detail ideas Total
CACL (t~
Tumors 30) Orbital tower
Individual strategy (n = 28t
Tumors Orbital tower
Control (n = 30)
Tumors Orbital tower
Main
Detail
Unadjusted
Adjusted
Unadjusted
Adjusted
Unadjusted
Adjusted
M SD M SD
0.36 1.01 0.43 098
0.29 0.86 0.37 0.97
030 1.00 0,33 0.96
0.24 0.93 0.27 0.93
0.37 1.00 0.33 1.00
0.32 0.85 0.28 0.96
M SD M SD
0.04 1.06 0.00 [.01
0.02 0.96 0.02 0.93
0.06 0.98 0.19 0.92
- 0.05 0.88 0.20 -0.86
001 1.05 0.03 1.02
I).0 I 0.97 0.02 0.97
M SD M SD
0.34 (I.89 0.33 1.01
0.31 0.71 0.29 0.83
0.23 0.99 (I.46 0.97
0.19 0.75 ~ 0.41 0.91
0.36 0.86 (I.21 1.00
(1"~1 (18 I 0.17 083
group answered an open-ended question about how they had studied the passages. Since students in the No Treatment group had not been exposed to any specific strategy training, the questions on the satisfaction questionnaire were inappropriate to them. Trained raters scored the free recalls according to a predetermined key for main ideas and details. Interrater reliabilities for these scores all exceeded 0.85. Two-way (experimental group by passage) analyses of covariance with Delta Vocabulary and G r o u p Embedded Figures as covariates revealed significant differences (P < 0.05) between experimental groups for main ideas, F(2, 8 6 ) = 4.28, details, F(2, 86) = 3.43 and the total for main ideas and details, F(2, 86) = 4.50. No effects due to passages or passage by treatment interaction were found. Post hoc analyses (Tukey's HSD) indicated that the significant main effects could be accounted for by the differences between the C A C L group and the Control group. Even though statistically significant differences between the C A C L and Individual groups were not found, the C A C L group outperformed the individual group on every dependent measure. The means and standard deviations for these analyses are presented in Table 1. Principal components analysis of the satisfaction questionnaire suggested that students were using two dimensions to evaluate their experience. The first was an evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the learning strategy and the second was a judgment of how the training affected the subject personally. Items were combined to form two scales reflecting these dimensions and the C A C L group's evaluations were more positive on both. In conclusion, the data we have so far collected suggests that the combination of the two technologies provides an effective means of delivering training on learning strategies. There are, however, several limitations worth noting. This system was effective with college students, for whom the skills to be trained are probably reasonably close to skills already within their repertoire. Whether we would have similar success in other populations remains to be seen. On the other hand, this experimental evaluation was biased against C A C L in at least one respect. Because of time constraints the approximately three hours of training was provided in only two sessions. We are currently breaking the entire program into smaller lessons so that students can study them in more manageable units. We also have not yet taken good advantage of the program's capacity for data collection. In the new implementation, we intend to collect scores on the quizzes and a record of which branches the student has taken so that future revisions can be based on empirical usage statistics. Despite these limitations, it seems clear that combining computer-based learning and cooperative learning is a promising method of training students in effective learning strategies. REFERENCES 1. D a n s e r e a u D. E., Collins K. W., M c D o n a l d B. A., t t o l l c y C. D., G a r l a n d J. C., D i e k h o f f G . M. a n d E v a n s S. H. D e v e l o p m e n t a n d e v a l u a t i o n o f a n effective l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g y p r o g r a n t . J. educ. Psvchol. 71, 6 4 - 7 3 (19791. 2. D a n s e r e a u D. F., M c D o n a l d B. A,, Collins K. W., G a r l a n d J. C., H o l l e y C. D., D i e k h o f f G . M. a n d E v a n s S. H. E v a l u a t i o n o f a l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g y system. In Co~nitit,e and A['lectire Learning, Strat
Computer-aided cooperative learning
71
5. O'Neil H. F. and Spielberger C. D. (Eds), Co~,nili~'e am/Af/i'etiee Learnin~ Strategies. Academic Press, New York (1979). 6. Hythecker V., Rocklin T. R., Dansereau D, F., Lambiotte J. G., Larson C. O. and O'Donnell A. M. The development and evaluation of a computer-based learning strategy module. Manuscript submitted for publication. 7. Deignan G. M. The Delta Reading Vocabulary Test. Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, Lowry Air Force Base, CO (1973). 8. Oltman P. K., Raskin E. and Witkin H. A. Group Embedded Fi~,,ure,~Test. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA (1971).
Copyright t
0360-1315/85 $3.00+0.00 1985 Pergamon Press Ltd
T R A I N I N G L E A R N I N G S T R A T E G I E S WITH COMPUTER-AIDED COOPERATIVE LEARNING* THOMAS ROCKLIN, ANGELA O'DONNELL, DONALD F. DANSEREAU, JUDITH G. LAMFIIOTTE, VELMA HYTHECKER a n d CFL~A LARSON Department of Psychology, Texas Christian University. Fort Worth, TX 76129, U.S.A.
(Receiz'ed 6 February 1984~ rel'ision receiz,ed 24 May 1984)
Abstract This paper describes the combination of two potent training technologies (computer-based instruction and cooperative learning) into a system called computer-aided cooperative learning (CACL) and the use of CACL to train students in a general learning strategy. This six-step strategy involves setting a task-appropriate mood, reading for general understanding, recalling as much of the material as possible, detecting errors and omissions, elaborating upon the material to make it more memorable and reviewing. CACL capitalizes on the strengths and overcomes some of the weaknesses of each of the constituent technologies. The resulting program is described and some data demonstrating its effectiveness is presented. Students using CACL recalled more material from each of two passages studied individually than did students who did not use CACL. CACL appears to be a promising technology for the delivery of learning strategies. Future research and development efforts should examine CACL's usefulness to the training of more sophisticated learning strategies.
In this p a p e r , we describe the d e v e l o p m e n t o f a learning strategies training m o d u l e which c o m b i n e s c o m p u t e r - b a s e d i n s t r u c t i o n a n d c o o p e r a t i v e learning in a training t e c h n o l o g y we call c o m p u t e r a i d e d c o o p e r a t i v e l e a r n i n g or C A C L . Specifically, this m o d u l e is designed to facilitate the a c q u i s i t i o n a n d a p p l i c a t i o n o f technical i n f o r m a t i o n . In the next three sections, we will describe the strategy system we are trying to c o n v e y to students, then describe the design a n d implem e n t a t i o n o f the C A C L m o d u l e , a n d finally, r e p o r t d a t a from a study e v a l u a t i n g the effectiveness o f the m o d u l e . THE
MURDER
LEARNING
STRATEGY
SYSTEM
It has b e c o m e clear from o u r research [1-3] a n d the research o f others [4, 5] that students" a c q u i s i t i o n a n d a p p l i c a t i o n o f t e x t b o o k m a t e r i a l can be i m p r o v e d by the direct training o f learning strategies. W e have, over the p a s t several years, used basic research in c o g n i t i o n a n d e d u c a t i o n as a guide in d e v e l o p i n g a c o m p r e h e n s i v e learning strategy system. This system involves four types o f activity: (1) m u l t i p l e passes t h r o u g h the m a t e r i a l to be learned; (2) r e o r g a n i z a t i o n or re-representation; (3) e l a b o r a t i o n ; a n d (4) m e t a c o g n i t i o n . M e t a c o g n i t i o n (literally " c o g n i t i o n a b o u t the c o g n i t i o n " ) in this c o n t e x t refers to the active m o n i t o r i n g o f o n e ' s k n o w l e d g e state. In o r d e r to c o m m u n i c a t e the strategy system we have d e v e l o p e d to students we have used the a c r o n y m s F i r s t a n d Second D e g r e e M U R D E R . First Degree M U R D E R is an i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n strategy while Second Degree M U R D E R is an i n f o r m a t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n strategy. First Degree M U R D E R includes six steps: (1) setting a p r o p e r Mood for learning; (2) r e a d i n g for Understanding; (3) Recalling the i n f o r m a t i o n ; (4) Detecting errors or o m i s s i o n s in the recall; (5) Elaborating to m a k e the m a t e r i a l m o r e easily r e m e m b e r e d ; a n d (6) a final Rez~iew. Similarly, the six steps o f Second Degree M U R D E R are: (1) getting into a p r o p e r Mood for the task; (2) *The research reported in this paper was supported through a subcontract with InterAmerica Research Associates Inc., Rosslyn, Virginia. This research effort was part of InterAmerica's Basic Skills Resource Center, which is funded by the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Alexandria, Virginia, under contract No. MDA-903-82-C-0169. The views, opinions, and findings contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision, unless so designated by other official documents. Address all correspondence to: Thomas Rocklin, Department of Psychology, Box 32878. Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX 76129, U.S.A. 67
68
THOMAS ROCKLIN {'t a[.
Understanding the goals and conditions of the task; (3) Recalling information relevant to the task: (4) Detecting omissions, errors and ways of organizing the information: (5) Elaborating the information into a proper response; and (6) Reciewing the response to modify it if necessary. The recall steps in each of these strategies can be facilitated by any of a number of substrategies. The module we describe here trains students in the use of verbal paraphrase and visual imagery. Other modules, using structured summarization and networking are under development. Although the strategy is effective [1-3] it has not been easy to train students to use it. In the past, we have relied on traditional lecture and discussion formats supplemented by workbooks of exercises. This approach has demonstrated moderate effectiveness and only limited efficiency. It was these considerations that led us to explore the potential of computer-aided cooperating learning. COMPUTER-AIDED
COOPERATIVE
LEARNING
Computer-aided cooperative learning is a combination of two training delivery technologies: cooperative learning and computer-based instruction. The system resulting from the combination takes advantage of the strengths and minimizes the weaknesses of the two constituent technologies. Computer-based instruction, especially with the wide availability of relatively inexpensive microcomputers, provides an economical source of content and process expertise. The computer can also be programmed to efficiently control, monitor and reinforce the flow of learning activities. In addition, the training can be efficiently tailored to the learner's specific needs based on pretraining assessments and intra-training responses. Finally, the computer can unobtrusively and inexpensively collect data as the training proceeds. Along with these strenghts, computer-based instruction suffers from two major weaknesses directly relevant to learning strategy training. First. in utilizing the learning strategies we have developed, students produce a variety of sketches, notes and essays. The evaluation of these productions is at best a cumbersome task for a computer. Secondly, although the computer can provide models of the desired outcome students do not typically consider computers convincing models of the process leading to that outcome. Cooperative learning, which involves two students working together in an orchestrated scenario, on the other hand, is particularly strong in exactly the areas in which computer-based instruction is weak. Students can read and evaluate each other's productions, such as summaries and networks. The interaction between students provides an opportunity for each to observe and imitate the other's processing. Our experience with cooperative learning has demonstrated two major weaknesses however. The first stems from the lack of content and process expertise in the pair of learners. This leads to the strong possiblity of situations in which the "blind lead the blind". The other major weakness lies in the difficulty that students have with time and effort management. As one of our subjects put it expressing a preference for studying with a computer on a post-experimental questionnaire: "'A computer would definitely not get off the subject and want to [stop] studying". It seems clear, then, that combining cooperative learning and computer-based instruction allows students to take advantage of the strengths of both technologies without being unduly hampered by the weaknesses of either. In CACL, cooperating student pairs are responsible for modeling of correct strategy usage and analysis and diagnosis of strategy productions while the microcomputer is responsible for providing strategy instruction, initiating and monitoring training tasks, and providing expert content and process feedback and reinforcement. T H E D E S I G N OF T H E P A R A P H R A S E / I M A G E R Y
CACL M O D U L E
In designing the CACL paraphrase/imagery module, we were guided by two major objectives. The first was that modules should be simple, in terms of both software and hardware. Toward this end, we constrained ourselves to a program that would run on an Apple II equipped with only one disk drive and a monochrome monitor. We also adopted Apple's enhanced version of the Pilot language, Superpilot. Superpilot allows very simple control over such effects as animation, character founts and sounds. In accepting these constraints, we sought to minimize the cost of producing a CACL module.
Computer-aided cooperative learning
69
The more important element of our design philosophy involved limiting the computer's role to those functions at which it is better than a partner. Thus, we made no attempt to program the computer so that it would appear to be intelligent, since the learner's partner is likely to make a much more convincing model than is the computer. At the same time that we relied on the partner to evaluate the learner's productions, we programmed the computer to provide feedback and examples of good productions. Thus, after the partner examined the production, the learner was prompted to enter an assessment of his or her production and the computer provided feedback and in some cases suggested that a specific portion of the lesson be reviewed. The paraphrase/imagery module teaches students the M U R D E R strategies, using paraphrasing and imagery as aids in the recall and elaboration steps. After an animated logo accompanied with music is presented, an animated character named Maxwell is introduced. Each student enters his or her name and partner's name. In addition, the partners choose which of them is to be partner " A " and which will be "B". These designations are used internally by the program to alternate activities between partners, though from this point on the students are consistently referred to by name, not letter. Next, an overview of the lesson is provided, along with a "pep talk" about the virtues of active studying. First Degree M U R D E R is described as Maxwell walks from letter to letter of the acronym. After the six steps of M U R D E R have been described, one partner quizzes the other on the names of the steps. For this and all other student-student interactions, each partner's computer provides different but coordinated instructions. For instance, if two students named Jack and Bob were working together, Jack's screen might read "Jack, quiz Bob to see if he knows what each letter of M U R D E R stands for". At the same time, Bob's screen would read '~Bob, Jack is going to ask you what each letter of M U R D E R stands for". After this student-student interaction, the computer provides ten descriptions of study activities. Working together, the partners enter the name of the M U R D E R step that each activity represents. If less than 4 are answered correctly, a review is suggested and provided if requested. Next, the partners read a short passage and receive detailed instruction on applying each of the steps. The pattern of mixing student-student interactions and student-computer interactions is maintained and diagnostic quizzes provided. The training on First Degree M U R D E R is completed by having the students practice on each of three sections of a passage on wounds. As they practice, they alternate responsibility for each of the steps and see examples of the optimal completion of the steps requiring production (i.e. recall and elaboration). Second Degree M U R D E R is taught in the same general way and finally the students are instructed in ways to use what they have learned about studying when they are studying without the aid of a computer. EVALUATION As a first step in evaluating the effectiveness of the C A C L paraphrase/imagery module, 89 students in introductory psychology classes participated in three two-hour sessions. (This study is reported in detail in Hythecker et al. [6].) Students were randomly assigned to a C A C L group (n -- 30), an Individaul learning strategy group (n = 28) or a No Treatment group (n = 31). The C A C L group worked in randomly assigned same sex pairs. The Individual learning strategy group received printed versions of the training materials and exercises used in the C A C L module and used these alone to learn the strategy. The No Treatment group studied the same practice passages but were given no specific instruction about how to study. This group served as a control for the effects of mere exposure to the practice passages. After receiving training, each subject individually studied two passages (one on tumors and the other a science fiction account of the construction of an orbital tower). At the final session, each student took a free recall test over the two passages and completed the Delta Vocabulary Test [7] and the G r o u p Embedded Figures Test [8], to be used as covariates in the analysis of the free recall performance. Our past research (1-3] has shown that these two measures reliably account for variance associated with two individual differences (vocabulary level and field dependence) which affect students' ability to process prose. Finally, the C A C L and Individual groups completed a 26-item satisfaction questionnaire and the No Treatment
THOMAS ROCKLIN el al.
70
Table 1. Standardized means and standard dexiutions for CACL group vs individual strategy group vs control group on recall or" tolal ideas, main ideas and detail ideas Total
CACL (t~
Tumors 30) Orbital tower
Individual strategy (n = 28t
Tumors Orbital tower
Control (n = 30)
Tumors Orbital tower
Main
Detail
Unadjusted
Adjusted
Unadjusted
Adjusted
Unadjusted
Adjusted
M SD M SD
0.36 1.01 0.43 098
0.29 0.86 0.37 0.97
030 1.00 0,33 0.96
0.24 0.93 0.27 0.93
0.37 1.00 0.33 1.00
0.32 0.85 0.28 0.96
M SD M SD
0.04 1.06 0.00 [.01
0.02 0.96 0.02 0.93
0.06 0.98 0.19 0.92
- 0.05 0.88 0.20 -0.86
001 1.05 0.03 1.02
I).0 I 0.97 0.02 0.97
M SD M SD
0.34 (I.89 0.33 1.01
0.31 0.71 0.29 0.83
0.23 0.99 (I.46 0.97
0.19 0.75 ~ 0.41 0.91
0.36 0.86 (I.21 1.00
(1"~1 (18 I 0.17 083
group answered an open-ended question about how they had studied the passages. Since students in the No Treatment group had not been exposed to any specific strategy training, the questions on the satisfaction questionnaire were inappropriate to them. Trained raters scored the free recalls according to a predetermined key for main ideas and details. Interrater reliabilities for these scores all exceeded 0.85. Two-way (experimental group by passage) analyses of covariance with Delta Vocabulary and G r o u p Embedded Figures as covariates revealed significant differences (P < 0.05) between experimental groups for main ideas, F(2, 8 6 ) = 4.28, details, F(2, 86) = 3.43 and the total for main ideas and details, F(2, 86) = 4.50. No effects due to passages or passage by treatment interaction were found. Post hoc analyses (Tukey's HSD) indicated that the significant main effects could be accounted for by the differences between the C A C L group and the Control group. Even though statistically significant differences between the C A C L and Individual groups were not found, the C A C L group outperformed the individual group on every dependent measure. The means and standard deviations for these analyses are presented in Table 1. Principal components analysis of the satisfaction questionnaire suggested that students were using two dimensions to evaluate their experience. The first was an evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the learning strategy and the second was a judgment of how the training affected the subject personally. Items were combined to form two scales reflecting these dimensions and the C A C L group's evaluations were more positive on both. In conclusion, the data we have so far collected suggests that the combination of the two technologies provides an effective means of delivering training on learning strategies. There are, however, several limitations worth noting. This system was effective with college students, for whom the skills to be trained are probably reasonably close to skills already within their repertoire. Whether we would have similar success in other populations remains to be seen. On the other hand, this experimental evaluation was biased against C A C L in at least one respect. Because of time constraints the approximately three hours of training was provided in only two sessions. We are currently breaking the entire program into smaller lessons so that students can study them in more manageable units. We also have not yet taken good advantage of the program's capacity for data collection. In the new implementation, we intend to collect scores on the quizzes and a record of which branches the student has taken so that future revisions can be based on empirical usage statistics. Despite these limitations, it seems clear that combining computer-based learning and cooperative learning is a promising method of training students in effective learning strategies. REFERENCES 1. D a n s e r e a u D. E., Collins K. W., M c D o n a l d B. A., t t o l l c y C. D., G a r l a n d J. C., D i e k h o f f G . M. a n d E v a n s S. H. D e v e l o p m e n t a n d e v a l u a t i o n o f a n effective l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g y p r o g r a n t . J. educ. Psvchol. 71, 6 4 - 7 3 (19791. 2. D a n s e r e a u D. F., M c D o n a l d B. A,, Collins K. W., G a r l a n d J. C., H o l l e y C. D., D i e k h o f f G . M. a n d E v a n s S. H. E v a l u a t i o n o f a l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g y system. In Co~nitit,e and A['lectire Learning, Strat
Computer-aided cooperative learning
71
5. O'Neil H. F. and Spielberger C. D. (Eds), Co~,nili~'e am/Af/i'etiee Learnin~ Strategies. Academic Press, New York (1979). 6. Hythecker V., Rocklin T. R., Dansereau D, F., Lambiotte J. G., Larson C. O. and O'Donnell A. M. The development and evaluation of a computer-based learning strategy module. Manuscript submitted for publication. 7. Deignan G. M. The Delta Reading Vocabulary Test. Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, Lowry Air Force Base, CO (1973). 8. Oltman P. K., Raskin E. and Witkin H. A. Group Embedded Fi~,,ure,~Test. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA (1971).