33 cooperation and use of tech

33 Cooperation and the Use of Technology David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MinnesotaCONTENTSTechnology in the Classroom .........................................................................................................................................402The Individual Assumption .............................................................................................................................................403The Nature of Cooperative Learning..............................................................................................................................403 Cooperative Learning ............................................................................................................................................404 Collaborative Learning ..........................................................................................................................................404 Types of Cooperative Learning .............................................................................................................................404Theoretical Foundations of Cooperative Learning .........................................................................................................405 Social Interdependence Theory .............................................................................................................................406 The Basic Elements of Cooperation .....................................................................................................................406 Potential Group Performance.......................................................................................................................406 Positive Interdependence: We Instead of Me ..............................................................................................406 Individual Accountability/Personal Responsibility......................................................................................407 Promotive Interaction...................................................................................................................................407 Interpersonal and Small Group Skills .........................................................................................................407 Group Processing .........................................................................................................................................407Research on Computer-Supported Cooperative Learning ..............................................................................................408 Computer-Supported Cooperative Learning and Achievement ............................................................................408 Learning How to Use Technology ........................................................................................................................410 Learner Control......................................................................................................................................................410 Computer-Supported Cooperative Learning and Relationships ...........................................................................410 Social Presence ......................................................................................................................................................411 Computer-Supported Cooperative Learning and Social Competencies ...............................................................411 Attitudes toward Technology-Based Instruction ...................................................................................................411 Attitudes toward Cooperative Learning ................................................................................................................411 Preference for Using Technology Cooperatively ..................................................................................................412 Individual Differences ...........................................................................................................................................412 Ability and Group Composition ..................................................................................................................412 Gender ..........................................................................................................................................................413 Constructive Controversy: Argumentation ............................................................................................................413 401

David W. Johnson and Roger T. JohnsonCooperative Learning and Technology-Supported Instruction.......................................................................................414 Cooperation and Computers..................................................................................................................................415 Single-User Programs Reapplied to Cooperative Learning ........................................................................415 Programs Developed to Promote Cooperation ............................................................................................415 Cooperation through Computers ...........................................................................................................................415 Cooperation with Computers.................................................................................................................................417 Cost Effectiveness..................................................................................................................................................417The Future of Technology-Supported Cooperative Learning.........................................................................................417Summary..........................................................................................................................................................................418References .......................................................................................................................................................................418ABSTRACT KEYWORDSTechnology may be more productively utilized when Collaborative learning: Students working together toit is combined with cooperative learning. There are maximize their own and each other’s learning (i.e.,four types of cooperative learning: formal cooperative to achieve shared learning goals); synonymouslearning, informal cooperative learning, cooperative with cooperative learning in this chapter.base groups, and academic controversy. Cooperativelearning’s worldwide use is based on a well-formulated Competitive learning: Students working individuallytheory (i.e., social interdependence theory) that has to achieve a grade or recognition attainable by orbeen validated by numerous research studies and oper- restricted to only a few.ationalized into practical procedures that can be usedat any level of education. Technology-supported coop- Computer-supported cooperative learning: Theerative learning tends to increase achievement (both instructional use of technology combined with theacademic achievement and learning how to use tech- use of cooperative learning.nology), positive attitudes (toward technology andcooperation), healthy development (cognitive develop- Constructive controversy: Occurs when group mem-ment, learning control, social competencies), positive bers have different information, perceptions, opin-relationships with team members (including social ions, reasoning processes, theories, and conclu-presence), and innovation in groupware and hardware. sions, and they must reach agreement in order toCooperative learning and technology-supported make progress or proceed.instruction have complementary strengths. The com-puter, for example, can control the flow of work, mon- Cooperative learning: Students working together toitor accuracy, give electronic feedback, and do calcu- maximize their own and each other’s learning (i.e.,lations. Cooperative learning provides a sense of to achieve shared learning goals); synonymousbelonging, the opportunity to explain and summarize with collaborative learning in this chapter.what is being learned, shared mental models, socialmodels, respect and approval for efforts to achieve, Positive interdependence: Occurs when individualsencouragement of divergent thinking, and interper- perceive that they can reach their goals if and onlysonal feedback on academic learning and the use of if the other individuals with whom they are coop-the technology. The use of cooperative learning with eratively linked also reach their goals.technology-assisted-instruction results in more posi-tive attitudes toward technology (especially by TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOMfemales) and allows for argumentation (i.e., construc-tive controversy) to be part of lessons utilizing tech- We live in a historical period where knowledge is thenology. Cooperative learning is an important part of most critical resource for social and economic devel-enhancing the effectiveness of interacting around com- opment and people need to be able to participate in aputers and interacting through computers (e.g., local networked, information-based society. Whereas previ-networks, e-mail, videogames and simulations, adven- ously people engaged in manufacturing-based workture learning, and interacting with electronic pedagog- where they generally competed with or worked inde-ical agents). pendently from each other, people now engage in infor- mation- and technological-rich work where they work in teams. People need to be able to work cooperatively designing, using, and maintaining the tools of technol- ogy. Technology and teamwork will continue to play402

a larger role in most people’s lives. Children, adoles- Cooperation and the Use of Technologycents, and young adults have no choice but to developand increase their technological and teamwork literacy. the substantial variation that exists in types of learningThere is no better place for them to begin than in styles and personality traits and, although many ofschool. Learning in cooperative groups (both face to them are sometimes correlated with achievement, fewface and online) while utilizing the tools of technology have been shown to predict achievement consistently.should occur in all grade levels and subject areas. Another is that little agreement exists on how to trans- late differences in learning styles and personal traits The failure of schools to adopt available instruc- into instructional prescriptions. The only design ruletional technologies and to maintain (let alone contin- that is widely accepted is that students should controluously improve) their use may be at least in part due the flow of information. A third is that it is time con-to two barriers: (1) the individual assumption under- suming and expensive to create algorithms to adaptlying most hardware and software development, and instruction to individual needs and design and produce(2) the failure to utilize cooperative learning as an multiple versions of lessons. Finally, each person hasinherent part of using instructional technologies. Tech- multiple characteristics and traits that interact innology can either facilitate or obstruct learning, unknown and unpredictable ways. Instruction cannotdepending on the conditions under which it is used. truly adapt to the complex of characteristics and traitsThe ways in which technology may enhance or inter- that make up one person.fere with learning have not been conceptualized,placed in a theoretical framework, researched, or More recently, Web courses have been developedapplied in classrooms. The purpose of this chapter is with the assumption that each student will be takingto clarify the relationship between instructional tech- the course individualistically. The individualisticnologies and cooperation among students. To under- assumption may be as strong today in Web courses asstand how cooperative learning may be used with tech- it was in the 1970s and 1980s in the instructional usenology, the nature of cooperative learning must be of the computer. In addition to all of the problemsdefined, the theoretical foundations on which it is noted above, such individualized instruction assumesbased must be clarified, the basic elements that make that students will work in isolation (which may lowercooperation work must be defined, and the research motivation by increasing boredom, frustration, anxiety,validating its use must be reviewed. At that point, the and the view that learning is impersonal), with onlyinterrelationships between cooperative learning and their own and the course-provided resources, thus theytechnology-supported instruction can be noted and lack support and encouragement from their peers andtheir complementary strengths delineated. The future cannot take advantage of the cognitive benefits asso-of technology supported cooperative learning can then ciated with explaining to peers and developing sharedbe discussed. mental models.THE INDIVIDUAL ASSUMPTION The omission of social interaction in technologi- cally assisted learning experiences worried many edu-Before the 1990s, most of the research on computer- cators in the 1980s (Baker, 1985; Cuban, 1986; Hawk-supported learning was based on the single-learner ins et al., 1982; Isenberg, 1992). Given the limitationsassumption. The individual assumption is that instruc- and shortcomings of the individual assumption, tech-tion should be tailored to each student’s personal apti- nology may be more effective when it is combinedtude, learning style, personality characteristics, moti- with cooperative learning. The spontaneous coopera-vation, and needs. Computers were viewed as an tion often reported around technology, in addition,important tool for individualizing learning experi- both casts doubt on the individual assumption andences, especially for programmed learning programs points toward the use of cooperative learning in tech-and learning experiences derived from constructivist nology-supported instruction (Dwyer, 1994). To useprinciples (Crook, 1994). Many hardware and software cooperative learning, however, educators must under-designers (as well as teachers) assumed that all tech- stand its nature.nology-supported instruction should be structuredindividualistically (one student to a computer), and THE NATURE OFcomputer programs were written accordingly. COOPERATIVE LEARNING The ability of designers to adapt instruction There are advantages to embedding technology-sup-sequences to the cognitive and affective needs of each ported instruction in cooperative learning. Cooperativelearner, however, is limited by several factors. One is learning may be distinguished from traditional direct transfer models of instruction in which the instructor is assumed to be the distributor of knowledge and 403

David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson their way until the class is over. As an educational procedure, therefore, collaborative learning has histor-skills. To understand computer-supported cooperative ically been much less structured and more studentlearning, one must understand the nature of coopera- directed than cooperative learning, with only vaguetive learning, the theoretical foundations on which it directions given to teachers about its use. The vaguenessis based, the research validating its use, the distinctions in the role of the teacher and students results in a vague-between cooperative learning and other types of ness of definition of the nature of collaborative learning.instructional groups, and the basic elements that makecooperation work. Many of the current proponents of collaborative learning, however, have developed definitions beyondCooperative Learning Britton’s. Dillenbourg (1999), for example, stated that collaborative learning is a situation in which two orCooperative learning is students working together to more people learn or attempt to learn somethingmaximize their own and each other’s learning (i.e., together. He noted that the terms “two or more,” “learnachieve shared learning goals) (Johnson et al., 2002). something,” and “together” are ambiguous. He thenCooperative learning is usually contrasted with com- added that the concept of collaboration is in itselfpetitive and individualistic learning. Competitive ambiguous, as the term may refer to the situation, inter-learning is students working against each other to actions, learning mechanisms, or its effects. Whatachieve an academic goal such as a grade that only seems to be lacking is a foundational theory of collab-one or a few students can attain. Individualistic learn- oration similar to Deutsch’s (1949) theory of coopera-ing is students working by themselves to accomplish tion and competition that gives a single, unambiguouslearning goals unrelated to those of the other students. definition of collaboration. In breaking with Britton’sTechnology-supported cooperative learning (TSCL), (1990) position, furthermore, current proponents ofor computer-supported cooperative learning (CSCL), collaborative learning recommend structures, proce-exists when the instructional use of technology is com- dures, and cognitive strategies to scaffold interactionbined with the use of cooperative learning. Although among students and joint knowledge building. Thisthe use of instructional technology has progressed more structured approach blurs the differences betweenbeyond the computer, and it may be more accurate to cooperative and collaborative learning; therefore, thediscuss technology-supported cooperative learning in two terms (cooperative learning and collaborativethis chapter, for historical reasons the term computer- learning) are increasingly interchangeable and synon-supported cooperative learning will be used in most ymous. In this chapter, the two concepts are consideredcases in this chapter. to be synonymous.Collaborative Learning Types of Cooperative LearningCooperative learning is sometimes differentiated from The four types of cooperative learning that may becollaborative learning, which has its roots in the work used in combination with instructional technology areof Sir James Britton and others in England in the 1970s (Johnson et al., 2002): (1) formal cooperative learning,(Britton, 1990). Citing Vygotsky (1978), Britton noted (2) informal cooperative learning, (3) cooperative basethat, just as the individual mind is derived from society, groups, and (4) constructive controversy. Formal coop-a student’s learning is derived from the community of erative learning consists of students working together,learners. Britton was quite critical of educators who for one class period to several weeks, to achieve sharedwish to provide specific definitions of the teacher’s role. learning goals and complete jointly specific tasks andHe recommended placing students in groups and letting assignments (such as problem solving, completing athem generate their own culture, community, and pro- curriculum unit, writing a report, conducting an exper-cedures for learning. Britton believed in natural learn- iment, or having a dialog about assigned text material).ing (learning something by making intuitive responses Any course requirement or assignment may be struc-to whatever group members’ efforts generate) rather tured to be cooperative. In formal cooperative learning,than training (the application of explanations, instruc- teachers:tions, structures, or recipes for action). The source oflearning is interpersonal; learning is derived from dia- • Make a number of preinstructional deci-logs and interactions with other students and sometimes sions. A teacher has to decide on the objec-the teacher. Britton viewed structure provided by teach- tives of the lesson (both academic and socialers as manipulation that creates training, not learning; skills objectives), size of groups, the methodtherefore, teachers should assign students to groups, of assigning students to groups, the rolesprovide no guidelines or instructions, and stay out of404

students will be assigned, the materials Cooperation and the Use of Technology needed to conduct the lesson, and the way the room will be arranged. semester or year or until all members are graduated. • Explain the task and the positive interdepen- Students are assigned to base groups of three to four dence. A teacher clearly defines the assign- members that meet at the beginning and end of each ment, teaches the required concepts and class session (or week) to complete academic tasks strategies, specifies the positive interdepen- such as checking each members’ homework, routine dence and individual accountability, gives tasks such as taking attendance, and personal support the criteria for success, and explains the tasks such as listening sympathetically to personal expected social skills to be engaged in. problems or providing guidance for writing a paper. • Monitor students’ learning and intervene within the groups to provide task assistance These three types of cooperative learning may be or to increase students’ interpersonal and used together. A typical class session may begin with group skills. A teacher systematically a base group meeting, which is followed by a short observes and collects data on each group as lecture in which informal cooperative learning is used. it works. When necessary, the teacher inter- The lecture is followed by a formal cooperative learn- venes to assist students in completing the task ing lesson. Near the end of the class session another accurately and working together effectively. short lecture may be delivered with the use of informal • Evaluate students’ learning and help stu- cooperative learning. The class ends with a base group dents process how well their groups func- meeting. tioned. Students’ learning is carefully assessed and their performances are evalu- Constructive controversy exists when one student’s ated. Members of the learning groups then ideas, information, conclusions, theories, and opinions process how effectively they have been are incompatible with those of another, and the two working together. seek to reach an agreement (Johnson and Johnson, 1979, 1995, 2003, 2006). Teachers structure academic Informal cooperative learning consists of having controversies by choosing an academic issue, assign-students work together to achieve a joint learning goal ing students to groups of four, dividing the group intoin temporary, ad hoc groups that last from a few min- two pairs, and assigning one pair the pro position andutes to one class period (Johnson et al., 2002, 2006). the other pair a con position. Students then follow theStudents engage in quick dialogs or activities in tem- five-step controversy procedure: (1) prepare the bestporary, ad hoc groups in response to a limited number case possible for their assigned position, (2) persua-of questions about what is being learned. The brief sively present the best case possible for their positiondialogs or activities may be used to focus student atten- to the opposing pair, (3) have an open discussion intion on the material to be learned, set a mood condu- which the two sides argue forcefully and persuasivelycive to learning, help set expectations as to what will for their position while subjecting the opposing posi-be covered in a class session, ensure that students tion to critical analysis, (4) reverse perspectives, andcognitively process the material being taught, and pro- (5) drop all advocacy and come to a consensus as tovide closure to an instructional session. Informal coop- their best reasoned judgment about the issue. Contro-erative learning groups are often organized so students versies tend to be constructive when the situationalengage in 3- to 5-minute focused discussions before context is cooperative, group members are heteroge-and after a lecture and 2- to 3-minute turn-to-your- neous, information and expertise are distributed withinpartner discussions interspersed every 10 to 15 min- the group, members have the necessary conflict skills,utes throughout a lecture. and the canons of rational argumentation are followed. Cooperative base groups are long-term, heteroge- THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONSneous cooperative learning groups with stable mem- OF COOPERATIVE LEARNINGbership whose primary responsibilities are to providesupport, encouragement, and assistance to make aca- At least three general theoretical perspectives havedemic progress and develop cognitively and socially guided research on cooperative learning: (1) cogni-in healthy ways as well as holding each other account- tive–developmental, (2) behavioral, and (3) social inter-able for striving to learn (Johnson et al., 2002, 2006). dependence. The cognitive–developmental or construc-Typically, cooperative base groups (1) are heteroge- tivist perspective is largely based on the theories ofneous in membership, (2) meet regularly (for example, Piaget (1950) and Vygotsky (1978). The work of Piagetdaily or biweekly), and (3) last for the duration of the and related theorists is based on the premise that when individuals cooperate on the environment, sociocogni- tive conflict occurs that creates cognitive disequilibrium, 405

David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson The basic premise of social interdependence theory is that the way in which goals are structured determineswhich in turn stimulates perspective-taking ability and how participants interact, and those interaction pat-cognitive development. The work of Vygotsky and terns determine the outcomes of the situation. Positiverelated theorists is based on the premise that knowl- interdependence results in promotive interaction, neg-edge is social, constructed from cooperative efforts to ative interdependence results in oppositional or con-learn, understand, and solve problems. The behavioral trient interaction, and no interdependence results in thelearning theory perspective focuses on the impact of absence of interaction. Promotive interaction may begroup reinforcers and rewards on learning. Skinner defined as individuals encouraging and facilitating(1968) focused on group contingencies, Bandura each other’s efforts to complete tasks, achieve, or pro-(1977) focused on imitation and joint efficacy, and duce to reach the group’s goals. It consists of a numberHomans (1961) as well as Kelley and Thibaut (1978) of variables, including mutual help and assistance,focused on the balance of rewards and costs in social exchange of needed resources, effective communica-exchange among interdependent individuals. Although tion, mutual influence, trust, and constructive manage-the cognitive–developmental and behavioral theoreti- ment of conflict. Oppositional interaction may becal orientations have their followers, by far the theory defined as individuals discouraging and obstructingdealing with cooperation that has generated the most each other’s efforts to complete tasks, achieve, or pro-research is social interdependence theory. duce to reach their goals; individuals focus both on increasing their own productivity and on preventingSocial Interdependence Theory any other person from producing more than they do. It consists of such variables as obstruction of eachSocial interdependence exists when the accomplish- other’s goal achievement efforts, tactics of threat andment of each individual’s goals is affected by the coercion, ineffective and misleading communication,actions of others (Deutsch, 1949, 1962; Johnson, 1970, distrust, and striving to win in conflicts. No interaction2003; Johnson and Johnson, 1989, 2005). There are may be defined as individuals acting independentlytwo types of social interdependence: positive (cooper- without any interchange with each other while theyation) and negative (competition). Positive interdepen- work to achieve their goals; individuals focus only ondence exists when individuals perceive that they can increasing their own productivity and achievement andreach their goals if and only if the other individuals ignore as irrelevant the efforts of others.with whom they are cooperatively linked also reachtheir goals. Participants, therefore, promote each The Basic Elements of Cooperationother’s efforts to achieve the goals. Negative interde-pendence exists when individuals perceive that they Potential Group Performancecan obtain their goals if and only if the other individ-uals with whom they are competitively linked fail to Not all groups are cooperative (Johnson and Johnson,obtain their goals. Participants, therefore, obstruct each 2006). Placing people in the same room, seating themother’s efforts to achieve the goals. No interdepen- together, or telling them that they are a group does notdence results in a situation in which individuals per- mean they will cooperate effectively. To be coopera-ceive that they can reach their goal regardless of tive, to reach the full potential of the group, five essen-whether other individuals in the situation attain or do tial elements must be carefully structured into the sit-not attain their goals. uation: positive interdependence, individual and group accountability, promotive interaction, appropriate use Each type of interdependence results in certain of social skills, and group processing.psychological processes. Positive interdependencetends to result in substitutability (i.e., the degree to Positive Interdependence: We Instead of Mewhich the actions of one person substitute for theactions of another person), inducibility (i.e., openness The heart of cooperation is positive interdependence.to being influenced and to influencing others), and There are three major categories of interdependence:positive cathexis (i.e., investment of positive psycho- outcome, means, and boundary interdependencelogical energy in objects outside of oneself) (Deutsch, (Johnson, 2003; Johnson and Johnson, 2005). When1949, 1962; Johnson, 2003; Johnson and Johnson, persons are in a cooperative or competitive situation,1989, 2005). Negative interdependence tends to result they are oriented toward a desired outcome, end state,in nonsubstitutability, resistance to being influenced goal, or reward. If there is no outcome interdependenceby others, and negative cathexis. No interdependence (goal and reward interdependence), there is no coop-detaches a person from others, thereby creating non- eration or competition. In addition, the means throughsubstitutability, no inducibility or resistance, andcathexis only to one’s own actions.406

which the mutual goals or rewards are to be accom- Cooperation and the Use of Technologyplished specify the actions required on the part ofgroup members. Means interdependence includes it does not always substitute for face-to-face interac-resource, role, and task interdependence (which are tion. Face-to-face communication has a richness thatoverlapping and not independent from each other). electronic communication may never match (PrusakFinally, boundaries (i.e., discontinuities existing and Cohen, 2001). Evidence suggests that up to 93%among individuals and groups) can define who is inter- of people’s intent is conveyed by facial expression anddependent with whom (Koffka, 1935; Wertheimer, tone of voice, with the most important channel being1923). Discontinuity may be created by environmental facial expression (Druckman et al., 1982; Mehrabian,factors (different parts of the room or different rooms), 1971). Harold Geneen, the former head of ITT,similarity (all wearing the same color shirt or jacket), believed that his response to requests was different inproximity (seated together), past history together, face-to-face encounters than through electronic means,expectations of being grouped together, and differen- stating that it is easy to say “no” to an electronictiation from other competing groups. Boundary inter- request but face to face the answer may be “yes”dependence thus includes outside enemy (i.e., negative because of the nonverbal cues attached to the request.interdependence with another group), identity (which He, therefore, made it company policy for problemsbinds them together as an entity), and environmental to be solved face to face (cited in Trevino et al., 1987).(such as a specific work area) interdependence (which Office spaces are increasingly built to maximize face-are overlapping and not independent from each other). to-face interaction. The biggest complaint of students in a virtual high school was that interactions with The authors have conducted a series of studies online students just did not measure up to face-to-faceinvestigating the nature of positive interdependence context (Allen, 2001). On the other hand, Bonk andand the relative power of the different types of positive King (1998) suggested that promotive interaction ininterdependence (Johnson, 2003; Johnson and electronic environments has some advantages over liveJohnson, 2005). Our research indicates that positive discussion in terms of engagement in learning, depthinterdependence provides the context within which of discussion, time on task, and the promotion ofpromotive interaction takes place, that group member- higher-order thinking skills. Instructional programs,ship and interpersonal interaction among students do therefore, may be most effective when they includenot produce higher achievement unless positive inter- multiple ways for students to promote each other’sdependence is clearly structured, that the combination success, both electronically and face to face wheneverof goal and reward interdependence increases achieve- possible.ment over goal interdependence alone, and thatresource interdependence does not increase achieve- Interpersonal and Small Group Skillsment unless goal interdependence is present also. Cooperative learning is inherently more complex thanIndividual Accountability/Personal Responsibility competitive or individualistic learning because stu- dents have to simultaneously engage in taskwork andIndividual accountability exists when the performance teamwork. The greater the members’ teamwork skills,of each individual member is assessed, the results are the higher will be the quality and quantity of theirgiven back to the individual and the group to compare learning (Johnson, 1991, 2003, 2006; Johnson andagainst a standard of performance, and the member is Johnson, 2005, 2006). The combination of positiveheld responsible by groupmates for contributing his or interdependence, an academic contingency for highher fair share to the group’s success (Johnson, 2003; performance by all group members, and a social skillsJohnson and Johnson, 2005). Individual accountability contingency promoted tends to promote high levels oftends to increase achievement in cooperative learning, achievement and positive relationships among stu-including computer-supported cooperative learning dents.(Hooper et al., 1989; Johnson, 2003; Johnson andJohnson, 1989, 2005). Group ProcessingPromotive Interaction Group processing occurs when members discuss how well they are achieving their goals and maintainingThe greater the promotive interaction, the stronger the effective working relationships among memberseffects of cooperation (Johnson, 2003; Johnson and (Johnson and Johnson, 1989, 2005). The purposes ofJohnson, 2005). Technology enables individuals to group processing are to clarify and improve the effec-promote each other success all across the world, but tiveness of members in contributing to the cooperative efforts to achieve the group’s goals by: (1) enabling 407

David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson Promotive Interaction Positive Positive Effort Positive to Relationships Achieve otive Interaction Psychological Promotive Interactio Adjustment Social Competence Positive n PromFigure 33.1 Outcomes of cooperation. (From Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R., Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research,Interaction Book Company, Edina, MN, 1989. With permission.)groups to improve continuously the quality of mem- motivation, greater long-term retention,ber’s work, (2) facilitating the learning of teamwork more on-task behavior, and greater transferskills, (3) ensuring that members receive feedback on of what is learned within one situation totheir participation, and (4) enabling groups to focus on another)group maintenance. Groups that process how effec- • Higher quality of relationships among par-tively members are working together tend to achieve ticipants (e.g., greater interpersonal attrac-higher than do groups that do not process or individ- tion, liking, cohesion or esprit de corps,uals working alone. appreciation for heterogeneity, and task-ori- ented and personal support)RESEARCH ON • Greater psychological adjustment (e.g.,COMPUTER-SUPPORTED greater psychological health, greater socialCOOPERATIVE LEARNING competencies, higher self-esteem, a shared identity, and greater ability to cope withPromotive, oppositional, and no interaction have dif- stress and adversity)ferential effects on the outcomes of the situation(Johnson and Johnson, 1989, 2005). The research has These outcomes have been discussed extensively else-focused on numerous outcomes, which may be sub- where (Johnson and Johnson, 1989, 2005). This chap-sumed within the broad and interrelated categories of ter focuses on the outcomes dealing with computer-effort to achieve, quality of relationships, and psycho- supported cooperative learning.logical health (Johnson and Johnson, 1989) (see Figure33.1). Overall, the evidence is very strong that coop- Computer-Supported Cooperativeeration (compared with competitive and individualistic Learning and Achievementefforts) promotes (Johnson and Johnson, 1989, 2005): Two large meta-analyses concluded that the use of • Greater effort exerted to achieve (e.g., higher technology markedly improved learning outcomes achievement and greater productivity, more (Fletcher-Flinn and Gravatt, 1995; Khalili and frequent use of higher-level reasoning, more Shashaani, 1994), but no differentiation was made frequent generation of new ideas and solu- among teaching practices and the ways technology was tions, greater intrinsic and achievement implemented in the classrooms. We conducted several studies examining the use of cooperative, competitive,408

and individualistic learning activities at the computer Cooperation and the Use of Technology(Johnson et al., 1985, 1989, 1990, 1986a,b,c, 1987).The studies included students from the eighth grade ever, are short-term experiments focused on a smallthrough college freshmen and lasted from 3 to 30 number of students. Several experiments provide evi-instructional hours. The tasks were a computerized dence that the well-known CSCL programs such asnavigational and map-reading problem-solving task CSILE and Belvedere have proved to be helpful forand word-processing assignments. Compared with higher-order social interaction and, subsequently, forcompetitive and individualistic efforts at the computer, better learning in terms of deep understanding (Scar-computer-supported cooperative learning promoted: damalia et al., 1994; Suthers, 1998). What is still lack-(1) higher quantity of daily achievement, (2) higher ing is evidence that the same results could be foundquality of daily achievement, (3) greater mastery of in normal classrooms. Some CSCL projects, such asfactual information, (4) greater ability to apply one’s CoVis, have been widely implemented (Pea et al.,factual knowledge in test questions requiring applica- 1994), but few well-controlled follow-up evaluationstion of facts, (5) greater ability to use factual informa- have been published.tion to answer problem-solving questions, and (6)greater success in problem solving. Cooperation at the Hooper and his colleagues have conducted a seriescomputer promoted greater motivation to persist on of studies on computer-supported cooperative learningproblem-solving tasks. Students in the cooperative involving fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth graders andcondition were more successful in operating computer college students (Dyer, 1993; Hooper, 1992a,b; Hooperprograms. In terms of oral participation, students in et al., 1988, 1991, 1989; Huang, 1993; McDonald,the cooperative condition, compared with students in 1993). Their findings included the following:the competitive and individualistic conditions, madefewer statements to the teacher and more to each other, • Cooperative group members achieved sig-made more task-oriented statements and fewer social nificantly higher than did students workingstatements, and generally engaged in more positive, under individualistic conditions.task-oriented interaction with each other (especiallywhen the social skill responsibilities were specified • Cooperative learning groups in which indi-and group processing was conducted). Finally, the vidual accountability was carefully struc-studies provided evidence that females were perceived tured achieved higher than did cooperativeto be of higher status in the cooperative than in the learning groups in which no individualcompetitive or individualistic conditions. accountability was structured. In addition to our work, a number of studies have • The achievement of low-ability students infound that students using a combination of cooperative heterogeneous cooperative groups was con-learning and computer-based instruction learn better sistently higher than the achievement of low-than do students using computer-based instruction ability students in homogeneous groups.while working individualistically (Anderson et al.,1995; Cockayne, 1991; Cox and Berger, 1985; Dalton, • A positive and significant correlation was1990a,b; Dalton et al., 1987; Dees, 1991; Fletcher, found between achievement and helping1985; Hooper, 1992a,b; Hooper et al., 1993; Hythecker behaviors, and increases in achievement andet al., 1985; Inkpen et al., 1995; King, 1989; Lin et cooperation were significantly related withinal., 1999; Love, 1969; McInerney et al., 1997; heterogeneous groups.Mevarech, 1993; Mevarech et al., 1991, 1987; Okeyand Majer, 1976; Postthast, 1995; Regin, 1990; Rep- • Cooperative (compared with individualistic)man, 1993; Rocklin et al., 1985; Shlechter, 1990; learning resulted in greater willingness toStephenson, 1992; Underwood and McCaffrey, 1990; learn the material, options selection, time onWebb, 1984; Weinberger et al., 2005; Whitelock et al., task, perceived interdependence, and sup-1995; Yeuh and Alessi, 1988). In contrast, a number portiveness for partners.of studies have found no statistically significant differ-ences in achievement between subjects who worked in Carlson and Falk (1989) and Noell and Carninegroups and subjects who worked alone (Carrier and (1989) found that students in cooperative groups per-Sales, 1987; Cosen and English, 1987; Hooper and formed higher than students working alone on learningHannafin, 1988; Trowbridge and Durnin, 1984). No tasks involving interactive videodiscs. Adams et al.study has reported significantly greater learning when (1990) suggested that cooperative learning can influ-students worked alone. Many of these studies, how- ence attention, motivation, and achievement when stu- dents use the medium of television. Finally, Ocker and Yaverbaum (1999) found that asynchronous coopera- tion is as effective as face-to-face cooperation in terms of learning, quality of solution, solution content, and satisfaction with the solution quality. Online learners, however, were significantly less satisfied with the 409

David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnsonasynchronous learning experience, both in terms of the Computer-supported cooperative learning tendsgroup interaction process and the quality of group to increase the effectiveness of learner control. Whendiscussions. Hiltz (1998) argued that an online learn- students work alone, in isolation from their peers,ing community structured cooperatively is more effec- they tend not to control the learning situation pro-tive than working individually. ductively, making ineffective instructional decisions and leaving instruction prematurely (Carrier, 1984;Learning How to Use Technology Hannafin, 1984; Milheim and Martin, 1991; Stein- berg, 1977, 1989). Students working cooperativelyIn addition to academic achievement, cooperative tend to motivate each other to seek elaborative feed-learning may reduce hardware and software problems back for their responses to practice items duringthat interfere with achievement when students work learning control and to seek a greater variety of feed-alone (Hativa, 1988). Students naturally form groups back types more frequently than did those workingwhen learning how to use a new technology or software alone (Carrier and Sales, 1987). Cooperative pairsprogram (Becker, 1984). Generally, this evidence indi- spent longer times inspecting information on thecates that students will learn how to use hardware and computer screen as they discussed which level ofsoftware more quickly and effectively when they learn feedback they needed and what the answers were toin cooperative groups rather than alone, especially practice items. Students in the learner-controlledwhen it involves new and complex procedures (Dwyer, cooperative learning condition selected more options1994; Dyer, 1993; Hooper, 1992b; Hooper et al., 1993; during the lesson and spent more time interactingKeeler and Anson, 1995; McDonald, 1993; Trowbridge with the tutorial than did students in the learner-and Durnin, 1984; Webb, 1984; Webb et al., 1986). controlled individual learning condition (McDonald,When teachers wish to introduce new technology and 1993). Hooper et al. (1993) found that students in thenew software programs of some complexity, they program-control conditions attempted more than fourwould be well-advised to use cooperative learning. times as many examples and nearly twice as many practice questions as did the students in the learner-Learner Control control conditions. The LOGO computer environ- ment tends to promote more actual learner controlCombining cooperative learning and computer-sup- over the task structure and the making of rules toported instruction results in students having more con- govern it than does the CAI computer environmenttrol over their learning. Hooper and his associates (Battista and Clements, 1986; Clements and Nastasi,(Hooper, 1992b; Hooper et al., 1993) noted that three 1985, 1988; Nastasi et al., 1990). Learner controlforms of lesson control are used in the design of tech- seems to be most effective when prior knowledge isnology-based instruction: learner, program, and adap- high or when students possess well-developed meta-tive control. Learner control involves delegating cognitive abilities (Garhart and Hannafin, 1986).instructional decisions to learners so they can deter- What these studies imply is that cooperative learningmine what help they need, what difficulty level or is an important variable in improving the effective-content density of material they wish to study, in what ness of learner-controlled environments.sequence they wish to learn material, and how muchthey want to learn. Learner-controlled environments Computer-Supported Cooperativeinclude simulations, hypermedia, and online data-bases. Program or linear control prescribes an identi- Learning and Relationshipscal instructional sequence for all students regardlessof interest or need. Adaptive control modifies lesson The impact of cooperative efforts on relationships isfeatures according to student aptitude (Snow, 1980), as powerful for online relationships as it is for face-prior performance (Tobias, 1987), or ongoing lesson to-face relationships. Individuals who are widely sep-needs (Tennyson et al., 1984). Linear or program con- arated geographically may develop positive relation-trol may impose an inappropriate lesson sequence on ships through cooperative efforts conducted throughlearners and thereby lower their motivation, and adap- e-mail, chat rooms, bulletin boards, and conferencestive instruction may foster learner dependence (Hanna- (Simon, 2003). Communication can be asynchronousfin and Rieber, 1989). As learner control increases so and extremely fast in comparison with telephone con-does instructional effectiveness and efficiency (Reige- versations and interoffice mail. Participation may beluth and Stein, 1983), as well as learner independence, more equalized and less affected by prestige and sta-efficiency, mental effort, and motivation (Federico, tus (McGuire et al., 1987; Siegel et al., 1986). The1980; Salomon, 1983, 1985; Steinberg, 1984). egalitarian network structures may coexist with sub- stantial hierarchy and centralization in patterns of410

communication (Ahuja and Carley, 1998). Digital con- Cooperation and the Use of Technologyferencing, however, may make employees less riskaverse and render group decision making less predict- Computer-Supported Cooperativeable, more time consuming, and more egalitarian Learning and Social Competencies(Sproull and Kiesler, 1991; Wellman et al., 1996),depending on the specific ways the technological sys- Numerous studies on computer-supported cooperativetems are designed and implemented (O’Mahony and learning have demonstrated positive effects on theBarley, 1999; Sproull and Kiesler, 1991). amount and quality of social interaction (Amigues and Agostinelli, 1992; Crook, 1994; Davis and Hutten- Significant differences may be found in relation- locher, 1995; Fishman and Gomez, 1997; McConnell,ships built electronically and those built face to face. 1994; Rysavy and Sales, 1991). When teamwork pro-In electronic communication, it is easy for a sender to cedures and skills are present, cooperative learningbe out of touch with the receiver and to be less con- tends to result in higher achievement in computer-sup-strained by conventional norms and rules for behavior ported instructional lessons than individualistic learn-in composing messages. Communicators can feel a ing (Hooper and Hannafin, 1988, 1991; Johnson et al.,greater sense of anonymity, detect less individuality in 1985, 1986c; Susman, 1998). In studies where team-others, feel less empathy, feel less guilt, be less con- work procedures and skills were not emphasized, reli-cerned over how they compare with others, and be less able differences in achievement in cooperative and indi-influenced by social conventions (Kiesler et al., 1984; vidualistic technology supported instruction tended notShort et al., 1976). Such influences can lead both to to be found (McCaffrey, 1990; Mevarech et al., 1987;more honesty and more flaming (name calling and Susman, 1998; Underwood and Hooper et al., 1989).epithets). Software designers may be able to facilitate theSocial Presence development of the interpersonal and small group skills required for teamwork by requiring initial tuto-Building relationships electronically may depend on rial activities on cooperative skills, suggesting rolesthe ability of individuals to create social presence. for group members (keyboarder, recorder, checker forSocial presence may be defined as the ability to project understanding, encourager of participation), providingone’s self and establish personal and purposeful rela- students time for group processing to analyze and dis-tionships or the sense of being with another (Biocca, cuss how effectively they are working together and2003). To reduce the drawbacks of distance learning, how they may work more effectively together in thesuch as social isolation and decreased motivation, future, giving reminders for students to monitor theironline individuals engaging in cooperative efforts need own performance and to assist in optimizing groupto develop a social presence to interact effectively. Just performance, and providing tangible prizes for indi-because a technology will allow participants to interact vidual successes and group achievement may increasewith each other does not mean that participants will motivation to succeed.(Kreijns, 2004). The instructional strategies used mustrequire a consistent level of interaction and sustain the Attitudes towardinteraction in online learning environments (Muirhead, Technology-Based Instruction2004). The lack of social presence can negatively affectthe quality of interaction and cooperation among stu- Students tend to develop more positive attitudes towarddents (Kreijns et al., 2003; Rourke, 2000). Social pres- the computer-based instructional lesson and learningence is essential for online cooperation, as it encour- with a computer when they work in cooperative learn-ages constructive discourse and builds a climate for ing groups than when they work individually (Hooperexchanging ideas (Rourke et al., 1999) and impacts et al., 1993; Huang, 1993; McDonald, 1993; Sutton,online learning (Tu and Corry, 2002; Tu and McIsaac, 1996); they also tended to experience more enjoyment2002). Social presence is also a predictor of online using the computer to engage in cooperative activities.learners’ satisfaction with their learning (Gunawar-dena and Zittle, 1997) and is crucial for building an Attitudes toward Cooperative Learningonline learning community (Hiltz, 1998). Ways to pro-mote social presence include: (1) social interaction, (2) Students involved in computer-based cooperativeself-disclosure, (3) graphic representations of facial learning tend to have more positive towards cooper-expressions, (4) ice breakers or discussion starters, and ative learning and how it affects them personally than(5) development of group identity (e.g., group name students who work individually (Hooper et al., 1993;or logo). Mevarech et al., 1987; Rocklin et al., 1985). Students participating in structured cooperative learning tend to develop more positive attitudes toward working 411

David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson working with high-ability partners achieved higher than did low-ability students studying in homogeneouscooperatively than students participating in unstruc- groups or alone, without lowering the achievement oftured cooperative learning or learning individualisti- high-ability students. In a subsequent study involvingcally (Dyer, 1993; Hooper et al., 1993; Huang, 1993; 125 sixth- and seventh-grade students, Hooper andMcDonald, 1993). Hannafin (1991) randomly assigned students to homo- geneous or heterogeneous pairs and pairs to coopera-Preference for Using tive or individualistic conditions. The high-ability stu-Technology Cooperatively dents interacted equally across treatments, but low- ability students interacted 30% more when placed inA natural partnership exists between technology and heterogeneous pairs. Students in the heterogeneouscooperation. The introduction of computers into class- groups achieved and cooperated significantly morerooms tends to increase cooperative behavior and task- than did students in the homogeneous pairs (or theoriented verbal interaction (Chernick and White, 1981, individualistic condition).1983; Hawkins et al., 1982; Levin and Kareev, 1980;Rubin, 1983; Webb, 1984). Individuals tend to prefer In an interactive videodisc science lesson, bothto work cooperatively at the computer (Hawkins et al., high- and low-ability students spent more time on task1982; Levin and Kareev, 1980; Muller and Perlmutter, and performed better on the post-test when they1985). Students are more likely to seek each other out learned in cooperative groups (as well as developingat the computer than they normally would for other more positive attitudes toward instruction, teamwork,school work. Even when students play electronic and peers) than did students studying alone (Simsekgames, they prefer to have partners and associates. and Hooper, 1992), and low-achieving students in het-Working at a computer cooperatively with classmates erogeneous cooperative groups tended to achieveseems to be more fun and enjoyable as well as more higher and had more positive attitudes toward the expe-effective to most students. rience than did their counterparts in homogeneous cooperative groups (Simsek and Tsai, 1992).Individual Differences Hooper (1992a) compared individual and cooper-Ability and Group Composition ative learning in an investigation of the effects of ability grouping on achievement, instructional efficacy, andA subject of considerable disagreement is whether the discourse during computer-based mathematics instruc-success of computer-supported cooperative learning is tion. Students completed the instruction more effec-affected by the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the tively in groups than alone. In groups, achievement andgroup composition. Students in heterogeneous ability efficiency were highest for high-ability, homoge-groups tend to learn more than students in homogeneous neously grouped students and lowest for average-abil-ability groups (Yager et al., 1985, 1986), especially ity, homogeneously grouped students. Generating andhigh-ability students (Beane and Lemke, 1971). The receiving help were significant predictors of achieve-academic discussion and peer interaction in heteroge- ment, and average-ability students generated andneous (as compared with homogeneous) groups pro- received significantly more help in heterogeneousmotes the discovery of more effective reasoning strate- groups than in homogeneous ones. Hooper et al. (1993)gies (Berndt et al., 1988; Johnson and Johnson, 1979). compared cooperative and individualistic learning on academically high and average or low performing stu- In a week-long study on the learning of LOGO, dents. They found that the students in the cooperativeWebb (1984) investigated whether the higher ability conditions performed higher on a computer-supportedstudents in cooperative groups of three would try to symbolic reasoning task than did the students in themonopolize the computer. She found that: (1) student individualistic conditions. Those who benefited mostability did not relate to contact time with the computer, from the group learning experience appeared to be theand (2) student success in programming was predicted highest performing students. Overall achievementby different profiles of abilities and by group process increased by almost 20% for high-ability students, butvariables such as verbal interaction. Yeuh and Alessi only 4% for average- or low-ability students.(1988) used group ability composition as one of theirtreatments for students utilizing the computer to learn The results of these studies indicate that in tech-three topics in algebra. They formed groups of nologically supported learning, cooperative learningmedium-ability students and groups of mixed-ability may be used effectively with both homogeneous andstudents and found that group composition had no heterogeneous groups, but that the greatest educationalsignificant effect on achievement. Hooper and Hanna- benefits may be derived when heterogeneous groupsfin (1988), in a study with 40 eighth grade students, work with technology-supported instruction.found that on a computer task low-ability students412

Gender Cooperation and the Use of TechnologyThe gender of group members has been hypothesized a more reasoned judgment on the issue being consid-to be an important factor in determining the success of ered. Individuals working alone in competitive andcomputer-supported cooperative learning. Johnson et individualistic situations do not have the opportunityal. (1986b) found that computer-supported cooperative to experience such a process; therefore, their produc-learning, compared with competitive and individualis- tivity, quality of decision making, and achievementtic computer-supported learning, increased the posi- suffer (Johnson and Johnson, 1979, 1995, 2003). Intiveness of female students’ attitudes toward comput- addition, compared with concurrence-seeking,ers, equalized the status and respect among group debate, and individualistic efforts, controversy resultsmembers regardless of gender, and resulted in a more in higher quality problem solving, greater creativityequal participation pattern between male and female in thinking, greater motivation to learn more aboutmembers. Whereas females in cooperative groups liked the topic, more productive exchange of expertiseworking with the computer more than males did, there among group members, greater task involvement,was no significant difference in oral interactions more positive relationships among group members,between males and females. Dalton et al. (1989) exam- more accurate perspective taking, higher self-esteem,ined interactions between instructional method and and greater enjoyment of the experience (Johnson andgender and found that cooperative learning was rated Johnson, 2003). Controversies tend to be constructivemore favorably by low-ability females than by low- when the situational context is cooperative, groupability males. Other studies noted no significant differ- members are heterogeneous, information and exper-ences in performance between males and females in tise are distributed within the group, members havecomputer-based instruction cooperative learning set- the necessary conflict skills, and the canons of rationaltings (Mevarech et al., 1987; Webb, 1984). Carrier and argumentation are followed.Sales (1987) compared female pairs, male pairs, andmixed pairs among college juniors and noted that Clements and Nastasi conducted a series of studiesfemale pairs verbalized the most, while male pairs ver- on the occurrence of cooperation and controversy inbalized the least, and male–females pairs demonstrated computer-supported instruction (Battista and Clem-the most off-task behavior. Lee (1993) found that males ents, 1986; Clements and Nastasi, 1985, 1988; Nastasitended to become more verbally active and females and Clements, 1992; Nastasi et al., 1990). They foundtended to become less verbally active in equal-ratio, that both LOGO and CAI/CBI-W computer environ-mixed-gender groups. Underwood and McCaffrey ments promoted considerable cooperative work and(1990) found that single-gender pairs completed more conflict (both social and cognitive). The LOGO envi-work with greater accuracy than did mixed gender pairs. ronment (compared to CAI/CBI-W computer and tra- ditional classroom tasks environments) promoted: (1) Evidence concerning the impact of computer-sup- greater peer interaction focused on learning and prob-ported instruction on males and females is mixed. A lem solving, (2) self-directed problem-solving (i.e.,conservative interpretation of the existing research is learners solving problems they themselves have posed)that there will be no performance differences between with mutual ownership of the problem, (3) more fre-males and females on computer-supported cooperative quent occurrence and resolution of cognitive conflicts,learning, but females will have more positive attitudes and (4) greater development of executive-level prob-toward using technology when they learn in coopera- lem-solving skills (planning, monitoring, decisiontive groups. making), as well as higher levels of reasoning and cog- nitive development. The development of higher levelConstructive Controversy: Argumentation cognitive processes seemed to be facilitated by the res- olution of cognitive conflict that arises out of cooper-Constructive controversy exists when group members ating. They also found that the LOGO (compared withhave different information, perceptions, opinions, rea- the CAI) computer environment resulted in greatersoning processes, theories, and conclusions, and they learner satisfaction and expressions of pleasure at themust reach agreement (Johnson and Johnson, 1979, discovery of new information and in their work, vari-1989, 1995, 2003). Being confronted with an oppos- ables reflective of intrinsic and competence motivation.ing point of view promotes uncertainty about the cor-rectness of one’s views, an active search for more More recently, Bell (2001) developed a programinformation, a reconceptualization of one’s knowl- to create arguments to be used in discussions withedge and conclusions, and, consequently, greater mas- other students (SenseMaker). It is designed to supporttery and retention of the material being studied and a rhetorical construction of arguments by individuals by connecting evidence dots with claim frames. The intent is to teach students the nature of scientific inquiry by coordinating emerging evidence with an 413

David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson Interacting Through Interacting with Technology Technology Interacting Around Technology Achievement Academic Achievement Learning to Use Technology Attitudes Toward Attitudes Preference For Technology Cooperative Learning Attitudes Toward Cooperation Cognitive Development Development Social Competencies Learner Control Individual Differences Group Composition Gender Relationships Team Building Other Factors Cost Effective Sparks InnovationFigure 33.2 Outcomes of technology-supported cooperative learning.existing set of theories. McAlister et al. (2004) devel- shared focus (Veerman, 2000), and can organize stu-oped a tool called Academic Talk to support synchro- dents’ thinking and maintain coherence during prob-nous arguing among peers. Pilkington and Walker lem solving (Suthers, 2001).(2003) assigned online students roles (i.e., challenger,asker for clarification, provider of information) to COOPERATIVE LEARNING ANDstructure their online arguments. Baker (2004) devel- TECHNOLOGY-SUPPORTEDoped a program (CONNECT) that allows online stu- INSTRUCTIONdents to agree or disagree with each statement madeby other students. Suthers (2003) examined an argu- Learning tends to be enhanced when technology pro-ment map system (Belvedere 3.0) to help students motes cooperation among students and creates a sharedengage in complex scientific argumentation. Studies experience. In analyzing the relationship between tech-of the Virtual Collaborative Research Institute (VCRI) nology and cooperative learning, a distinction can betool (Jaspers and Erkens, 2002; Munneke et al., 2003) made between (Crook, 1994) (see Figure 33.2):used argumentative diagrams to broaden students’arguments. Graphic representations can enhance the • Interacting around computers; for example,controversy process by forcing participants to be computers may be used to facilitate face-to-explicit and complete in presenting their ideas (Suthers face cooperation among students (e.g., byand Hundhausen, 2003; van Bruggen et al., 2003), can providing students with points of shared ref-be used to develop resources for discussion and rea- erence)soning (Baker, 2003; Suthers, 2003), can lead to a414

• Interacting through computers; for example, Cooperation and the Use of Technology local-area networks (LANs) and wide-area networks (WANs) and the global version of build, articulate, explore, and structure knowledge. the latter (the Internet) provide a variety of The system contains tools for text and chart processing mediating tools for cooperation, such as e- and a communal database for producing, searching, mail and text messaging, chat rooms, bulle- classifying, and linking knowledge. The Belvedere tin boards, conferencing systems, Web system, developed by Lesgold et al. (1995), focuses pages, blogs, and specialized groupware. and prompts students’ cognitive activity by giving them a graphical language to express the steps ofCooperating with computers (i.e., pedagogical agents) hypothesizing, data-gathering, and weighing of infor-is a growing area of research. mation. CoVis (Learning through Collaborative Visu- alization Project) focuses on cooperative project workCooperation and Computers in high-school science (Pea et al., 1994) by utilizing advanced networking technologies, collaborative soft-Single-User Programs Reapplied ware, and visualization tools to enable students and others to work together in classrooms and across theto Cooperative Learning country at the same time (synchronously) or at differ- ent times (asynchronously). These and other group-Many computer programs were developed to tailor ware systems provide powerful opportunities for coop-learning situations to individual students; however, erative learning.applying these programs to cooperative learningamong students offers several advantages (Crook, Cooperation through Computers1994; Hawkins et al., 1982). The technical extensionof LOGO (Papert, 1980) to legoLOGO (LEGO-brick The rapid expansion of computer network technologyrobots controlled by LOGO programs) has been an has allowed students all over the world to create pow-especially promising tool for creating cooperation erful shared spaces on the computer screen. In a net-among students (Eraut, 1995; Jarvela, 1996). Cooper- work-based environment, students and teachers canative learning has been promoted by many different interact through the computer free of the limitationstypes of programs, such as databases, spreadsheets, of time and place. The speed at which asynchronousmath programs, programming languages, simulations, and distance communication may be completed makesand multimedia authoring tools (Amigues and Agosti- more intensive cooperation possible with out-of-nelli, 1992; Brush, 1997; Eraut, 1995; Lehtinen and school experts, brings students from different schoolsRepo, 1996). into contact with each other, and creates powerful tools for joint writing and knowledge sharing.Programs Developed to Promote Cooperation The network environment supports cooperation atFor cooperation to take place, students must have a different levels. From a series of studies, Bonk andjoint workspace. One of the promises of the computer King (1995) concluded that networks can (1) changeis that it allows students to create shared spaces. the way students and instructors interact, (2) enhanceInstead of sharing a blackboard or a worktable, stu- cooperative learning opportunities, (3) facilitate classdents can share a computer screen. Such groupware discussion, and (4) move writing from being a solitary(aimed at supporting group rather than individual to a more active type of social learning. The networkwork) has expanded dramatically the past 20 years. tools include LAN-based client–server systems, whichNumerous programs in a variety of subject areas have feature software programs based on local area networksbeen developed to externalize the problem-solving and client–server architectures (e.g., CSILE, Belved-process by displaying the student’s solution or learning ere, and CoVis). Another tool is e-mail, which is usedpaths on the screen, and they generally tend to be to deliver information to students, supervise students,helpful for both individual reflection and cooperative and support national and international communicationproblem solving (Pauli and Reusser, 1997; Lehtinen et between cooperative learning groups and schoolsal., 1998). Technology and cooperative learning have located far away from each other. With the help ofbeen integrated in numerous ways—for example, in mailing lists, groups of students can use e-mail to shareCSILE, the Belvedere system, and CoVis. CSILE joint documents and comment on each other’s work.(Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environ-ment), originally developed in the late 1980s (Scarda- Also, the Internet and World Wide Web may bemalia et al., 1989), uses a network to help students used for cooperative learning. Internet-based confer- encing systems and e-mail systems are very similar. Developments in broad-bandwidth technology have resulted in synchronous shared workspaces and two- 415

David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson ond, a core characteristic of games is that they are organized for learning through doing or performanceway audio-visual communication. Computer confer- (Squire, 2006). Through recurring cycles of perceiv-encing has existed since the first computer networks ing and acting, thinking and doing, players learn frombut has only recently been implemented as part of their experiences, usually in cooperation with othercooperative learning. Web-based cooperative learning players. In Toontown, for example, players bandis time independent and location independent, thus together in teams to play pranks on cos, evil cartoonallowing a combination of synchronous and asynchro- villains who want to turn Toontown into a drab officenous discussions. Creating and using shared databases environment. Finally, games provide designed expe-is especially helpful for network-based cooperative riences from which participants are active construc-learning systems. Live video makes it easier for indi- tors of meaning with their own drives, goals, andviduals and groups to conference with each other. Per- motivations. In complex games such as The Sims,sonal Web pages that link with those of friends and players form families and live in communities; ingroup members allow individuals to create networks World of Warcraft, large numbers of players (over 7of potential cooperators. Web logs (blogs) allow indi- million worldwide) form teams to solve puzzles, over-viduals to share their daily lives with others, exchange come challenges, and achieve tasks. Augmented real-opinions and critiques of each other’s work, carry on ity simulation games (Klopfer and Squire, in press)a dialog with others, and comment on current affairs. place students in roles as investigators, scientists, orPersonal Web pages and blogs make it easier for indi- activists and have students work in cooperative teamsviduals to create a social presence and get to know to identify problems, pose data-gathering strategies,each other on a personal level. Finally, courses and draw conclusions, and reframe their hypotheses asdegree programs are offered on the Web through exist- they work. Increasingly, immersive, interactive digitaling schools and through universities that primarily entertainment will become part of classroom experi-operate on the Web. ence, especially when it is coupled with cooperative learning. A fourth network tool is an immersive, interactivedigital entertainment, or videogame playing, which has The fifth network tool, and one of the most inter-considerable economic, cultural, and social influence esting uses of the Web utilizing cooperative learning,(Squire, 2006) and is often used for cooperative is adventure learning programs, such as GoNorth (aendeavors. Many children, adolescents, and young free adventure learning program for K–12 classes;adults spend more time playing in digital worlds than www.PolarHusky.com) (Doering, 2006). From 2006they do watching television, reading, or watching films to 2010 a team of educators, scientists, and explorers(Funk et al., 1999; Williams, 2003). These games are will dogsled live to five circumpolar Arctic locationsthe leading edge of a culture of simulation. Simulations and share those experiences with students around thesuch as Full Spectrum Warrior and America’s Army world. A curriculum and activity guide are providedhave changed the training of soldiers in the U.S. Army. for each trek. Activities on the trail are synched realFarming and town simulations such as Animal Cross- time to the curriculum so students can engage in pow-ing and Harvest Moon have make it possible for young erful cooperative experiences with the educators, sci-children to plan and plant crops, pay off mortgages, entists, and explorers as well with the huskies pullingand essentially run a farm. Disney’s Toontown allows the dogsleds (i.e., classes can adopt a dog and getchildren from around the world to interact in a real- involved in its feeding and care as well as its dailytime, three-dimensional world where they meet and performance). Live field updates and field researchengage in cooperative quests. findings are presented in collaboration with NASA and the National Science Foundation. The result is a com- Simulations can utilize cooperative efforts to munity of over 3 million learners throughout the worldengage participants in ideological systems, learning acquiring knowledge from the expedition, the Arcticby performing, and designed experiences (Squire, peoples, subject-matter experts, and each other (Doer-2006). First, ideologies are taught by games such as ing, in press).Grand Theft Auto (which teaches students how tosurvive in a crime-filled society) and Civilization III Adding technology to a lesson inherently increases(which involves ruling a civilization from 4000 B.C. the lesson’s complexity. When students participate into the present, primarily teaching the ideologies of technology-supported instruction, they have the dualcolonialization, economic growth, and democracy). tasks of learning how to use the technology (i.e., theThe games immerse players in complex cooperative hardware and software required by the lesson) andsystems, allowing them to learn the points of view of mastering the information, skills, procedures, and pro-those systems and develop identities within the sys- cesses being presented within the technology. Whentems; thus, organizations such as the U.S. military areusing games to support their ideological agenda. Sec-416

cooperative learning groups are used, students have the Cooperation and the Use of Technologyadditional task of learning teamwork procedures andskills; consequently, the initial use of technology-sup- THE FUTURE OFported cooperative learning may take more time, but TECHNOLOGY-SUPPORTEDonce students and teachers master the new systems the COOPERATIVE LEARNINGresults will be worth the effort. The future of technology-supported cooperative learn-Cooperation with Computers ing seems bright, yet it is built primary upon its rapid evolution and its great promise. The full promise ofThe computer itself may be a member of a cooperative technology-supported cooperative learning will begroup. Pedagogical agents, human-like virtual charac- realized when a number of factors are emphasized.ters employed in electronic learning environments Social interdependence theory provides a framework(Baylor, 2002), can interact directly with students as for understanding the relationship between the instruc-if they themselves were human (Doering and Veletsi- tional use of technology and cooperative learning.anos, in press; Doering et al., in press; Veletsianos, When technology isolates students or places them in2006, 2007). Pedagogical agents have been utilized in competition with each other, learning will tend to bea variety of subject areas (Veletsianos, 2006, 2007). obstructed. When technology is combined with coop-Because humans tend to interact with computers and erative learning, academic achievement is likely to bemedia as if they were human, social interactions enhanced.between humans and computers may approximatesocial interactions among humans (Reeves and Nass, Research on technology-supported cooperative1996; Veletsianos, 2006). If the computer is repre- learning must be increased and should be more theo-sented as a human-like character able to dynamically retically based. Almost all of the existing research hasconverse and interact in real time with the user, the focused on the impact of specific software programsdistinction between human–human and human–com- on achievement and related variables without testingputer interaction may blur, creating a situation in theory. In the future, theoretically oriented researchwhich the pedagogical agent and the student work should be conducted, and the potential outcomes stud-together as a cooperatively pair. An interesting aspect ied should be expanded. The unique strengths of tech-of student–pedagogical agent interaction is that con- nology-supported cooperative learning have not beenflicts can arise when students become frustrated by the documented.way the agent interacts or by the lack of agentresponse. Student anger at an agent indicates that ped- The lack of theorizing and the narrowness of theagogical agents may soon be created that will be effec- research have created a corresponding limitation ontive members of students’ cooperative groups and will the operational procedures for implementation. Thebe interacted with similarly to interaction among implementation of technology-based cooperativehuman members. Some day further in the future, ped- learning has been driven by software development andagogical agents may even exhibit emotions and a by the traditional ways of structuring cooperation. Ashuman-like intelligence (Veletsianos, 2006). technology opens new avenues for cooperation, research should be conducted to provide better guid-Cost Effectiveness ance as to how to structure technology-supported cooperative learning in ways that optimize its impactThe use of cooperative learning increases the cost effec- and how to train instructors and students in implement-tiveness of technology. Although the range of technol- ing new procedures.ogy that could be used in schools is increasing yearly,the cost of adopting new technologies is an inhibiting It is clear from social interdependence theory andfactor to its use. Giving cooperative learning groups its validating research that the effective creation ofaccess to the latest technology is usually more cost operational procedures depends on the inclusion of fiveeffective (not only for initial cost, but also for mainte- basic elements: positive interdependence, individualnance and upkeep) than giving each individual student accountability, promotive interaction, appropriate useaccess. An historical example is the adoption of com- of social skills, and group processing. Groupware pro-puters by schools. By having groups work at computers grams need to include these five elements more explic-(instead of individuals) schools have been able to sig- itly in their framework.nificantly reduce the cost of obtaining and maintainingcomputers (Johnson and Johnson, 1986; Wizer, 1987). Longitudinal studies are necessary that track the use of technology-supported cooperative learning for at least one school year and ideally for several years. Although short-term studies of initial use can be quite helpful, investigating the long-term effects of using technology-supported cooperative learning is essential. 417

David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson opment (cognitive development, learning control, social competencies), positive relationships with team One might ask whether or not technology-sup- members, positive effects on both high- and low-per-ported instruction will increase inequality in educa- forming students and both male and female students,tional outcomes (Becker and Sterling, 1987). Students cost effectiveness, and innovation in groupware andwho learn how to use technology in a cooperative hardware.effort will have an advantage over those who do notand will tend to have more learning opportunities What this research illuminates is that cooperativeinvolving technology. learning and technology-supported instruction have complementary strengths. The more technology is Whereas advocates of technology see a revolution used to teach, the more necessary is cooperative learn-coming in instruction, historians point to the virtual ing. The computer, for example, can control the flowabsence of lasting or profound changes in classroom of work, monitor accuracy, give electronic feedback,practice over the past 100 years. Lepper and Gurtner and do calculations. Cooperative learning provides a(1989) argued that the last technology to have had a sense of belonging, the opportunity to explain andmajor impact on the way schools are run is the black- summarize what is being learned, shared mental mod-board. Most often new technologies are used in ways els, social models, respect and approval for efforts tothat do not disrupt regular classroom practices, which achieve, encouragement of divergent thinking, andmeans that they can be ignored or dropped with no interpersonal feedback on academic learning and thedisruption to ongoing classroom life. Similarly, soft- use of the technology.ware selection is often conducted with the intention ofsupporting existing classroom practices rather than There are few educational innovations that havetransforming them. Considerably more research is the promise of technology-supported cooperativeneeded on the implementation process by which the learning. The combination of cooperation and technol-combination of cooperative learning and learning tech- ogy may change the way courses are being delivered,nologies becomes integrated and institutionalized in instruction is taking place, and the nature of classroomclassroom and schools. and school life. More theorizing, research, and refine- ment of practice are needed to help the field realize itsSUMMARY possibilities.We live in a networked, information-based society in REFERENCESwhich teams and technology must manage the com-plexity of learning, work, and living. For education to Adams, D., Carson, H., and Hamm, M. (1990). Cooperativedevelop the technological and teamwork competencies Learning and Educational Media. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:of children, adolescents, and young adults, we must Educational Technology Publications.overcome the individualistic assumption that is histor-ically connected with technology-supported instruc- Ahuja, M. K. and Carley, K. M. (1998). Network structure intion and should utilize cooperative learning as an virtual organizations. J. Comput.-Mediated Commun., 3(4)inherent part of instruction. Technology may be more (http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue4/ahuja.html).productively utilized when it is combined with coop-erative learning. To be a cooperative group, five basic Allen, R. (2001). Technology and learning: how schools mapelements must be structured within the learning situa- routes to technology’s promised land. ASCD Curric. Update,tion: positive interdependence, promotive interaction, Fall, 1–3, 6–8.individual accountability, social skills, and group pro-cessing. The four types of cooperative learning are Amigues, R. and Agostinelli, S. (1992). Collaborative problem-formal cooperative learning, informal cooperative solving with computer: how can an interactive learning envi-learning, cooperative base groups, and academic con- ronment be designed? Eur. J. Psychol. Educ., 7(4), 325–337.troversy. The worldwide use of cooperative learning isbased on a well-formulated theory (i.e., social interde- Anderson, A., Mayes, T., and Kibby, M. (1995). Small grouppendence theory) that has been validated by numerous collaborative discovery learning from hypertext. In Com-research studies and operationalized into practical pro- puter Supported Collaborative Learning, edited by C.cedures that can be used at any level of education. O’Malley, pp. 23–38. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Technology-supported cooperative learning tends toencourage achievement (both academic achievement Baker, C. (1985). The microcomputer and the curriculum: aand learning how to use technology), positive attitudes critique. J. Curric. Stud., 17, 449–451.(toward technology and cooperation), healthy devel- Baker, M. J. (2003). Computer-mediated argumentative inter- actions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In Argu- ing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning Environments, edited by J. Andriessen, M. Baker, and D. Suthers, pp. 47–78. Dor- drecht: Kluwer. Baker, M. J. (2004). Recherches sur l’elaboration de connais- sances dans le dialogue [Research on knowledge elaboration in dialogues]. Synthese pour l’habilitation a diriger les recherches. Université Nancy 2.418

Cooperation and the Use of TechnologyBandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, Clements, D. and Nastasi, B. (1985). Effects of computer envi- NJ: Prentice Hall. ronments on social-emotional development: LOGO and com- puter-assisted instruction. Comput. Schools, 2(2/3), 11–31.Battista, M. and Clements, D. (1986). The effects of LOGO and CAI problem-solving environments on problem-solving Clements, D. and Nastasi, B. (1988). Social and cognitive inter- abilities and mathematics achievement. Comput. Hum. action in educational computer environments. Am. Educ. Behav., 2, 183–193. Res. J., 25, 87–106.Baylor, A. L. (2002). Expanding preservice teachers’ metacog- Cockayne, S. (1991). Effects of small group sizes on learning nitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagog- with interactive videodisc. Educ. Technol., 31(2), 43–45. ical agents. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 50(2), 5–22. Cosen, M. and English, J. (1987). The effects of grouping, self-Beane, W. and Lemke, E. (1971). Group variables influencing esteem, and locus of control on microcomputer performance the transfer of conceptual behavior. J. Educ. Psychol., 62(3), and help seeking by mildly handicapped students. J. Educ. 215–218. Comput. Res., 3, 443–460.Becker, H. (1984). School Uses of Microcomputers: Reports Cox, D. and Berger, C. (1985). The importance of group size from a National Survey, Issue No. 6. Baltimore, MD: The in the use of problem-solving skills on a microcomputer. J. Johns Hopkins University Press. Educ. Comput. Res., 1, 459–468.Becker, H. and Sterling, C. (1987). Equity in schools computer Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the Collaborative Experience use: national data and neglected considerations. J. Educ. of Learning. London: Routledge. Comput. Res., 3, 289–311. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and Machines: The Classroom UseBell, P. (2001). Using argument map representations to make of Technology Since 1920. New York: Teachers College thinking visible in the classroom. In CSCL2: Carrying For- Press. ward the Conversation, edited by T. Koschmann, R. Hall, and N. Miyake, pp. 449–485. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Dalton, D. (1990a). The effects of cooperative learning strate- Erlbaum Associates. gies on achievement and attitudes during interactive video. J. Comput.-Based Instruct., 17, 8–16.Berndt, T., Perry, T., and Miller, K. (1988). Friends’ and class- mates’ interactions on academic tasks. J. Educ. Psychol., 80, Dalton, D. (1990b). The Effects of Prior Learning on Learner 506–513. Interaction and Achievement During Cooperative Computer- Based Instruction. Paper presented at the Annual MeetingBiocca, F. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of the American Educational Research Association, April of social presence: review and suggested criteria. Presence, 16–20, Boston, MA. 12(5), 456–480. Dalton, D., Hannafin, J., and Hooper, S. (1987). Effects ofBonk, C. and King, K. (1998a). Computer conferencing and individual and cooperative computer-assisted instruction on collaborative writing tools: starting a dialogue about student student performance and attitudes. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., dialogue. In Electronic Collaborators: Learner-Centered 37(2), 15–24. Technologies for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse, edited by C. Bonk and K. King, pp. 3–24. Mahwah, NJ: Dalton, D., Hannafin, M., and Hooper, S. (1989). Effects of Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. individual and cooperative computer-assisted instruction on student performance and attitudes. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev.,Bonk, C. and King, K., Eds. (1998b). Electronic Collaborators: 37(2), 15–24. Learner-Centered Technologies for Literacy, Apprentice- ship, and Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso- Davis, J. and Huttenlocher, D. (1995). Shared annotation for ciates. cooperative learning. In Proceedings of CSCL95: First Inter- national Conference on Computer Support for CollaborativeBritton, J. (1990). Research currents: second thoughts on learn- Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ing. In Perspectives on Small Group Learning: Theory and Practice, edited by M. Brubacher, R. Payne, and K. Richett, Dees, R. (1991). The role of cooperative learning in increasing pp. 3–11. Oakville, Ontario: Rubicon. problem-solving ability in a college remedial course. J. Res. Math. Educ., 22(5), 409–421.Brush, T. (1997). The effects on student achievement and atti- tudes when using integrated learning systems with cooper- Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. ative pairs. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 45(1), 51–64. Hum. Relat., 2, 129–152.Carlson, H. and Falk, D. (1989). Effective use of interactive Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: some theoretical videodisc instruction in understanding and implementing notes. In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, edited by M. cooperative group learning with elementary pupils in social R. Jones, pp. 275–319. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska studies. Theory Res. Soc. Educ., 17(3), 241–158. Press.Carrier, C. (1984). Do learners make good choices? A review Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative of research on learner control in instruction. Instruct. Inno- learning? In Collaborative-Learning: Cognitive and Com- vator, 29(2), 15–17. putational Approaches, edited by P. Dillenbourg, pp. 1–19. Oxford: Elsevier.*Carrier, C. and Sales, G. (1987). Pair versus individual work on the acquisition of concepts in a computer-based Doering, A. (2006). Adventure learning: transformative hybrid instructional lesson. J. Comput.-Based Instruct., 14(1), online education. Dist. Educ., 27(2), 197–216. 11–17. Doering, A. (in press). Adventure learning: situating learningChernick, R. and White, M. (1981). Pupils’ Interaction with in an authentic context. Innovate-J. Online Educ. Microcomputers vs. Interaction in Classroom Settings. New York: Teachers College Press. Doering, A. and Veletsianos, G. (in press). Multi-scaffolding learning environment: an analysis of scaffolding and itsChernick, R. and White, M. (1983). Pupil Cooperation in Com- impact on cognitive load and problem-solving ability. J. puter Learning vs. Learning with Classroom Materials. Educ. Comput. Res. Paper presented at New York State Psychological Associa- tion Meeting, May, Liberty, NY. Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., and Yerasimou, T. (in press). Con- versational agents and their longitudinal afffordances on communication and learning. J. Interact. Learn. Res. 419

David W. Johnson and Roger T. JohnsonDruckman, D., Rozelle, R., and Baxter, J. (1982). Nonverbal Hooper, S. and Hannafin, M. (1988). Cooperative CBI: the Communication: Survey, Theory, and Research. Beverly effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous groups on the Hills, CA: Sage. learning of progressively complex concepts. J. Educ. Com- put. Res., 4(4), 413–424.Dwyer, D. (1994). Apple classrooms of tomorrow: what we’ve learned. Educ. Leadership, 51(7), 4–10. Hooper, S. and Hannafin, M. (1991). The effects of group com- position on achievement, interaction, and learning efficiencyDyer, L. (1993). An Investigation of the Effects of Cooperative during computer-based cooperative instruction. Educ. Tech- Learning on Computer Monitored Problem Solving. Ph.D. nol. Res. Dev., 39(3), 27–40.* dissertation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Hooper, S., Ward, T., Hannafin, M., and Clark, H. (1989). TheEraut, M. (1995). Groupwork with computers in British primary effects of aptitude composition on achievement during small schools. J. Educ. Comput. Res., 13(1), 61–87. group learning. J. Comput.-Based Instruct., 16, 102–109.Federico, P. (1980). Adaptive instruction: trends and issues. In Hooper, S., Temiyakarn, C., and Williams, M. (1993). The effects Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction. Vol. 1. Cognitive Pro- of cooperative learning and learner control on high- and aver- cess Analysis of Aptitude, edited by R. Snow, P. Federico, age-ability students. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 41(2), 5–18. and W. Montague, pp. 1–26. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Huang, C. (1993). The Effects of Feedback on Performance and Attitude in Cooperative and Individualized Computer-BasedFishman, B. and Gomez, L. (1997). How activities foster CMC Instruction. Ph.D. dissertation, Minneapolis: University of tool use in classrooms. In Proceedings of the Second Inter- Minnesota. national Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL’97), December 10–14, Toronto, Canada, Hythecker, V., Rocklin, T., Dansereau, D., Lambiotte, J., Larson, edited by R. Hall, N. Miyake, and N. Enyedy, pp. 37–44. C., and O’Donnell, A. M. (1985). A computer-based learning Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. strategy training module: development and evaluation. J. Educ. Comput. Res., 1(3), 275–283.Fletcher, B. (1985). Group and individual learning of junior high school children on a micro-computer-based task. Educ. Inkpen, K., Booth, K., Klawe, M., and Upitis, R. (1995). Playing Rev., 37, 252–261. together beats playing apart, especially for girls. In Proceed- ings of CSCL 1995: The First International Conference onFletcher-Flinn, C. and Gravatt, B. (1995). The efficacy of com- Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, edited by J. puter assisted instruction (CAI): a meta-analysis. J. Educ. Schnase and E. Cunnius, pp. 177–181. Hillsdale, NJ: Comput. Res., 12(3), 219–241. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Funk, J. B., Hagen, J. D., and Schimming, J. L. (1999). Children Isenberg, R. (1992). Social skills at the computer. Cooperative and electronic games: a comparison of parent and child Link, 2(6), 1–2. perceptions of children’s habits and preferences in a United States sample. Psychol. Rep., 85, 883–888. Jarvela, S. (1996). New models of teacher-student interaction: a critical review. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ., 6(3), 246–268.Garhart, C. and Hannafin, M. (1986). The accuracy of cognitive monitoring during computer-based instruction. J. Comput.- Jaspers, J. and Erkens, G. (2002). VCRI: Virtual Collaborative Based Instruct., 13, 88–93. Research Institute, Version 1.0. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Utrecht University.Gunawardena, C. N. and Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated con- Johnson, D. W. (1970). Social Psychology of Education. New ferencing environment. Am. J. Dist. Educ., 11(3), 8–26. York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.*Hannafin, M. (1984). Guidelines for using locus of instructional Johnson, D. W. (1991). Human Relations and Your Career. control in the design of computer-assisted instruction. J. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Instruct. Dev., 7(3), 6–10. Johnson, D. W. (2003). Social interdependence: the interrela-Hannafin, M. and Rieber, L. (1989). Psychological foundations tionships among theory, research, and practice. Am. Psy- of instructional design for emerging computer-based inter- chol., 58(11), 931–945. active technologies, Part II. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 37(2), 102–114. Johnson, D. W. (2006). Reaching Out: Interpersonal Effective- ness and Self-Actualization, 9th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn &Hativa, A. (1988). Computer-based drill and practice in arith- Bacon. metic: widening the gap between high- and low-achieving students. Am. Educ. Res. J., 25(3), 366–397. Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, F. (2006). Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills, 9th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn &Hawkins, S., Sheingold, K., Gearhart, M., and Berger, C. Bacon.* (1982). Microcomputers in schools: impact on the social life of elementary classrooms. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol., 3, Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. (1979). Conflict in the class- 361–373. room: controversy and learning. Rev. Educ. Res., 49, 51–70.Hiltz, S. R. (1998). Collaborative Learning in Asynchronous Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. (1986). Computer-assisted Learning Networks: Building Learning, http://web.njit.edu/ cooperative learning. Educ. Technol., 26(1), 12–18.* ~hiltz/collaborative_learning_in_asynch.htm. Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and Com-Homans, G. C. (1961). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. petition: Theory and Research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Company.*Hooper, S. (1992a). Effects of peer interaction during computer- Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. (1995). Creative Controversy: based mathematics instruction. J. Educ. Res., 85(3), Intellectual Challenge in the Classroom, 3rd ed. Edina, MN: 180–189. Interaction Book Company.Hooper, S. (1992b). Cooperation learning and computer-based Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. (2003). Controversy and peace instruction. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 40(3), 21–38. education. J. Res. Educ., 13(1), 71–91.Hooper, S. (2003). The effects of persistence and small group Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. (2005). New developments in interaction during computer-based instruction. Comput. social interdependence theory: the interrelationships among Hum. Behav., 19, 211–220. theory, research, and practice. Genet. Soc. Gen. Psychol. Monogr., 131(4), 285–358.420

Cooperation and the Use of TechnologyJohnson, D. W., Johnson, R., and Richards, P. (1986a). A scale Lehtinen, E., Hamalainen, S., and Malkonen, E. (1998). Learn- for assessing student attitudes toward computers: prelimi- ing Experimental Research Methodology and Statistical nary findings. Comput. Schools, 3(2), 31–38. Inference in a Computer Environment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational ResearchJohnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Richards, S., and Buckman, L. Association, April, San Diego, CA. (1986b). The effect of prolonged implementation of coop- erative learning on social support within the classroom. J. Lepper, M. and Gurtner J. (1989). Children and computers: Psychol., 119, 405–411.* approaching the twenty-first century. Am. Psychol., 44(2), 170–178.Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., and Stanne, M. (1989). Impact of goal and resource interdependence on problem-solving suc- Lesgold, A., Weiner, A., and Suthers, D. (1995). Tools for cess. J. Soc. Psychol., 129(5), 621–629. Thinking About Complex Issues. Paper presented at the 6th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruc-Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Stanne, M., and Garibaldi, A. (1990). tion, August 26–31, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. The impact of leader and member group processing on achieve- ment in cooperative groups. J. Soc. Psychol., 130, 507–516. Levin, J. and Kareev, Y. (1980). Problem-solving in everyday situations. Q. Newslett. Lab. Compar. Hum. Cogn., 2, 47–51.Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., and Holubec, E. (2002). Circles of Learning, 5th ed. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Lin, J., Wu, C., and Liu, H. (1999). Using SimCPU in cooperative learning laboratories. J. Educ. Comput. Res., 20(3), 259–277.Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., and Smith, K. (2006). Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom, 3rd ed. Love, W. (1969). Individual Versus Paired Learning of an Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.* Abstract Algebra Presented by Computer Assisted Instruc- tion. Tallahassee: Florida State University.Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., and Stanne, M. (1985). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., and Scanlon, E. (2004). Com- on computer-assisted instruction. J. Educ. Psychol., 77, bining interaction and context design to support collabora- 668–677. tive argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. J. Comput. Assist. Learn., 20(3), 194–204.Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., and Stanne, M. (1986c). A com- parison of computer-assisted cooperative, competitive, and McConnell, D. (1994). Managing open learning in computer individualistic learning. Am. Educ. Res. J., 23, 382–392. supported collaborative learning environments. Stud. Higher Educ., 19(3), 175–191.Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., Stanne, M., Smizak, B., and Avon, J. (1987). Effect of Composition Pairs at the Word Processor McDonald, C. (1993). Learner-Controlled Lesson in Coopera- on Quality of Writing and Ability to Use the Word Processor. tive Learning Groups During Computer-Based Instruction. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Ph.D. dissertation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Kelley, H. and Thibaut, J. (1978). Interpersonal Relations: A McGuire, T., Kiesler, S., and Siegel, J. (1987). Group and com- Theory of Interdependence. New York: Wiley. puter-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 52, 917–930.Keeler, C. and Anson, R. (1995). An assessment of cooperative learning used for basic computer skills instruction in the McInerney, V., McInerney, D., and Marsh, H. (1997). Effects of college classroom. J. Educ. Comput. Res., 19(4), 379–393. metacognitive strategy training within a cooperative group learn- ing context on computer achievement and anxiety: an aptitude-Khalili, A. and Shashaani, L. (1994). The effectiveness of com- treatment interaction study. J. Educ. Psychol., 89(4), 686–695. puter applications: a meta-analysis. J. Res. Comput. Educ., 27(1), 48–62. Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent Messages. Belmont, CA: Wads- worth.Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., and McGuire, T. (1984). Social psycho- logical aspects of computer-mediated communication. Am. Mevarech, Z. (1993). Who benefits from cooperative computer- Psychol., 39(10), 1123–1134. assisted instruction? J. Educ. Comput. Res., 9(4), 451–464.King, A. (1989). Verbal interaction and problem solving within Mevarech, Z., Stern, D., and Levita, I. (1987). To cooperate or computer-assisted cooperative learning groups. J. Educ. not to cooperate in CAI: that is the question. J. Educ. Res., Comput. Res., 5(1), 1–15. 80(3), 164–167.Klopfer, E. and Squire, K. (in press). Environmental detectives: Mevarech, Z., Silber, O., and Fine, D. (1991). Learning with the development of an augmented reality platform for envi- computers in small groups: cognitive and affective out- ronmental simulations. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. comes. J. Educ. Comput. Res., 7(2), 233–243.Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt Psychology. New York: Milheim, W. and Martin, B. (1991). Theoretical bases for the Harcourt, Brace. use of learner control: three different perspectives. J. Com- put.-Based Instruct., 18(3), 99–105.Kreijns, K. (2004). Sociable CSCL Environments: Social Affor- dances, Sociability, and Social Presence. Ph.D. dissertation. Muirhead, B. (2004). Encouraging interaction in online classes. Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands. Int. J. Instruct. Technol. Dist. Learn., 1(6).Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., and Jochems, W. (2003). Identi- Muller, A. and Perlmutter, M. (1985). Preschool children’s prob- fying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported lem-solving interactions at computers and jigsaw puzzles. J. collaborative learning environments: a review of the Appl. Dev. Psychol., 6, 173–186. research. Comput. Hum. Behav., 19, 335–353. Munneke, L., van Amelsvoort, M., and Andriessen, J. (2003).Lee, M. (1993). Gender, group composition, and peer interac- The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based tion in computer-based cooperative learning. J. Educ. Com- learning. Int. J. Educ. Res., 39, 113–131. put. Res., 9(4), 549–577. Nastasi, B. and Clements, D. (1992). Social-cognitive behaviorsLehtinen, E. and Repo, S. (1996). Activity, social interaction and and higher-order thinking in educational computer environ- reflective abstraction: learning advanced mathematics in a ments. Learn. Instruct., 2, 215–238. computer environment. In International Perspectives on the Design of Technology Supported Learning Environments, Nastasi, B., Clements, D., and Battista, M. (1990). Social-cog- edited by S. Vosniadou, E. DeCorte, R. Glaser, and H. Mandl, nitive interactions, motivation, and cognitive growth in pp. 105–128. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. LOGO programming and CAI problem-solving environ- ments. J. Educ. Psychol., 82, 150–158. 421

David W. Johnson and Roger T. JohnsonNoell, J. and Carnine, D. (1989). Group and individual com- Rubin, A. (1983). The computer confronts language arts: cans puter-based video instruction. Educ. Technol., 29(1), 36–37. and shoulds for education. In Classroom Computers and Cognitive Science, edited by A. Wilkinson, pp. 201–218. SanOcker, R. J. and Yaverbaum, G. (1999). Asynchronous com- Diego, CA: Academic Press. puter-mediated communication versus face-to-face collabo- ration: results on student learning, quality, and satisfaction. Rysavy, D. and Sales, G. (1991). Cooperative learning in com- Group Decis. Negot., 8, 427–440. puter-based instruction. Educ. Technol., Res. Dev., 39(2), 70–79.Okey, J. R. and Majer, K. (1976). Individual and small-group learning with computer-assisted instruction. AV Commun. Salomon, G. (1983). The differential investment of mental effort Rev., 24(1), 79–86. in learning from different sources. Educ. Psychol., 18(1), 42–50.O’Mahony, S. and Barley, S. (1999). Do digital telecommuni- cations affect work and organization? The state of our Salomon, G. (1985). Information technologies: what you see is knowledge. Res. Org. Behav., 21, 125–161. not (always) what you get. Educ. Psychol., 20(4), 207–216.*Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Pow- Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLearn, R., Swallow, J., and erful Ideas. New York: Basic Books.* Woodruff, D. (1989). Computer supported intentional learn- ing environments. J. Educ. Comput. Res., 5(1), 51–68.*Pauli, C. and Reusser, K. (1997). Supporting collaborative prob- lem solving: supporting collaboration and supporting prob- Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, K., and Lamon, M. (1994). The lem solving. In Proc. of Swiss Workshop on Collaborative CSILE project: trying to bring the classroom into world 3. and Distributed Systems, May 2, Lausanne, Switzerland. In Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice, edited by K. McGilly, pp. 201–228.Pea, R. D., Edelson, E., and Gomez, L. (1994). The CoVis Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press. Collaboratory: High School Science Learning Supported by a Broadband Education Network with Scientific Visu- Shlechter, T. (1990). The relative instructional efficiency of alization, Videoconferencing, and Collaborative Comput- small group computer-based training. J. Educ. Comput. Res., ing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the 6, 329–341.* American Educational Research Association, April 4–8, New Orleans, LA. Short, J., Williams, E., and Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: Wiley.Piaget, J. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence. New York: Harcourt.* Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., and McGuire, T. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication.Pilkington, R. and Walker, A. (2003). Facilitating debate in Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. Proc., 37, 157–187. networked learning: reflecting on online synchronous dis- cussion in higher education. Instruct. Sci., 31, 41–63. Simsek, A. and Hooper, S. (1992). The effects of cooperative versus individual videodisc learning on student performancePostthast, M. (1995). Cooperative Learning Experiences in and attitudes. Int. J. Instruct. Media, 19(3), 209–218. Introductory Statistics. Paper presented at the Annual Meet- ing of the American Educational Research Association, April Simsek, A. and Tsai, B. (1992). The impact of cooperative group 18–22, San Francisco, CA. composition on student performance and attitudes during interactive videodisc instruction. J. Comput.-Based Instruct.,Prusak, L. and Cohen, D. (2001). In Good Company: How 19(3), 86–91. Social Capital Makes Organizations Work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Skinner, B. (1968). The Technology of Teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.*Reeves, B. and Nass, C. I. (1996). The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media as Real Snow, R. (1980). Aptitude, learner control, and adaptive instruc- People and Places. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University tion. Educ. Psychol., 15, 151–158.* Press. Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. (1991). Computers, networks andRegin, G. (1990). The effects of individualized and cooperative work. Sci. Am., 65, 116–123. computer assisted instruction on mathematics achievement and mathematics anxiety for prospective teachers. J. Res. Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: videogames as Comput. Educ., 22, 404–412. designed experience. Educ. Res., 35(8), 19–29.Reigeluth, C. M. and Stein, F. S. (1983). The elaborative theory Steinberg, E. R. (1977). Review of student control in computer- of instruction. In Instructional Design Theories and Models, assisted instruction. J. Comput.-Based Instruct., 3(3), 84–90. edited by C. M. Reigeluth, pp. 335–382. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Steinberg, E. R. (1984). Teaching Computers to Teach. Hills- dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Repman, J. (1993). Collaborative, computer-based learning: cognitive and affective outcomes. J. Educ. Comput. Res., Steinberg, E. R. (1989). Cognition and learner control: a liter- 9(2), 149–163. ature review, 1977–1988. J. Comput.-Based Instruct., 16(4), 117–124.*Rocklin, T., O’Donnell, A., Dansereau, D., Lambiotte, J., Hyth- ecker, V. I., and Larson, C. (1985). Training learning strat- Stephenson, S. (1992). Effects of student-instructor interaction egies with computer-aided cooperative learning. Comput. and paired/individual study on achievement in computer- Educ., 9(1), 67–71. based training (CBT). J. Comput.-Based Instruct., 19(1), 22–26.*Rourke, L. (2000). Operationalizing social interaction in com- puter conferencing. In Proc. of the 16th Annual Conf. of the Susman, E. (1998). Cooperative learning: a review of factors Canadian Association for Distance Education, http:// that increase the effectiveness of cooperative computer- www.ulaval.ca/aced2000cade/english/proceedings. html. based instruction. J. Educ. Comput. Res., 18(4), 303–332.Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., and Archer, W. Suthers, D. D. (1998). Computer Aided Education and Training (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text- Initiative, Technical Report 12. Pittsburgh, PA: Learning and based computer conferencing. J. Dist. Educ., 14(3), 51–70. Research Development Center, University of Pittsburgh. Suthers, D. D. (2001). Towards a systematic study of represen- tational guidance for collaborative learning discourse. J. Universal Comput. Sci., 7(3), 254–277.422

Cooperation and the Use of TechnologySuthers, D. D. (2003). Studies of representational support for Veletsianos, G. (2007). Conversing with intelligent agents: a collaborative inquiry with Belvedere. In Arguing to Learn: phenomenological exploration of communication with dig- Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collabora- ital entities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the tive Learning Environments, edited by J. Andriessen, M. American Educational Research Association, April 9–13, Baker, and D. Suthers, pp. 27–46. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Chicago, IL.Suthers, D. D. and Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard study of the effects of representational guidance on collab- University Press.* orative learning processes. J. Learn. Sci., 12(2), 183–218. Webb, N. (1984). Microcomputer learning in small groups:Sutton, S. (1996). Planning for the twenty-first century: the cognitive requirements and group processes. J. Educ. Psy- California State University. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci., 47(11), chol., 76, 1076–1088. 821–825. Webb, N., Ender, P., and Lewis, S. (1986). Problem solvingTennyson, R. D., Christensen, D., and Park, O. (1984). The Min- strategies and group processes in small group learning com- nesota Adaptive Instructional System: a review of its theory puter programming. Am. Educ. Res. J., 23(2), 243–261. and research. J. Comput.-Based Instruct., 11(1), 2–13.* Weinberger, A., Etrl, B., Fischer, F., and Mandl, H. (2005).Tobias, S. (1987). Mandatory text review and interaction with Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collab- student characteristics. J. Educ. Psychol., 79, 154–161. orative learning. Instruct. Sci., 33, 1–30.Trevino, L., Lengel, R., and Daft, R. (1987). Media symbolism, Wertheimer, M. (1923). Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der media richness, and media choice in organizations: a sym- Gestalt: II. Psychologische Forschung, 4, 301–350. bolic interactionist perspective. Commun. Res., 14, 553–574. Whitelock, D., Scanlon, E., Taylor, J., and O’Shea, T. (1995).Trowbridge, D. and Durnin, R. (1984). Results from an Inves- Computer support for pupils collaborating: a case study on tigation of Groups Working at the Computer. Washington, collisions. In Proceedings of CSCL 1995: The First Inter- D.C.: National Science Foundation. national Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, edited by J. Schnase and E. Cunnius, pp. 380–384.Tu, C. H. and Corry, M. (2002). The Relationships of Social Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Presence, Tasks, and Social Relationships in Online Learn- ing Environment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., the American Educational Research Association, April 1–5, and Haythornwaite, C. (1996). Computer networks as social New Orleans, LA. networks: collaborative work, telework, and virtual commu- nity. Annu. Rev. Soc., 22, 213–238.Tu, C. H. and McIsaac, M. S. (2002). An examination of social presence to increase interaction in online classes. Am. J. Dist. Williams, D. (2003). The video game lightning rod. Inform. Educ., 16(3), 131–150. Commun. Soc., 6(4), 523–550.Underwood, G. and McCaffrey, M. (1990). Gender differences Wizer, D. R. (1987). Cooperative learning with microcomput- in a cooperative computer-based language task. Educ. Res., ers. Pointer, 32, 31–33. 32, 44–49. Yager, S., Johnson, D. W, and Johnson, R. (1985). Oral discus-van Bruggen, J. M., Boshuizen, H. P. A., and Kirschner, P. A. sion, group-to-individual transfer, and achievement in coop- (2003). A cognitive framework for cooperative problem erative learning groups. J. Educ. Psychol., 77(1), 60–66. solving with argument visualization. In Visualizing Argu- mentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Education Yager, S., Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., and Snider, B. (1986). Sense-Making, edited by P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckinghan The impact of group processing on achievement in cooper- Shum, and C. S. Carr, pp. 25–47. London: Springer. ative learning groups. J. Social Psychol., 126, 389–397.Veerman, A. L. (2000). Computer-Supported Collaborative Yeuh, J. and Alessi, S. (1988). The effects of reward structure Learning through Argumentation. Ph.D. dissertation. Utre- and group ability composition on cooperative computer- cht, the Netherlands: Utrecht University. assisted instruction. J. Comput.-Based Instruct., 15, 18–22.Veletsianos, G. (2006). Contextual Pedagogical Agents: Stereo- * Indicates a core reference. types and First Impressions and their Impact on Student Learning and Perceptions of Agent Persona. Master’s thesis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. 423