This study investigated the effects of four different goal structures on mathematics achievement among students assigned to work with partners on a computer-assisted instruction (CAI) arithmetic task.
Forty-six mildly handicapped junior high school students were paired and assigned to cooperative, competitive, individualistic, and no goal control conditions. Dyads worked ten minutes per day, three days per week, over a four-week period on a mathematics game designed to increase single-digit computation fluency. Students practiced with their partners, recorded and graphed daily computer scores, and received points for backup reinforcers according to the goal condition under which they worked.
Two-way analyses of variance for repeated measures on paper-and-pencil and computer-based achievement scores indicated that students improved their rates of correct responding over time, regardless of goal condition. A discussion of findings and implications for future research are included.
BeckerH.J. (1986). Instructional uses of school computers: Reports from the 1985 national survey (Issue No. 1). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University, The Center for Social Organization of Schools.
3.
BeckerH.J. (1987). Instructional uses of school computers: Reports from the 1985 national survey (Issue No. 4). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University, The Center for Social Organization of Schools.
4.
BryanT.CosdenM.PearlR. (1982). The effects of cooperative goal structures and cooperative models on LD and NLD students. Learning Disability quarterly, 5(4), 415–421.
CosdenM.A.EnglishJ.P. (1986). The effects of grouping, self-esteem, and locus of control on microcomputer performance and help seeking by mildly handicapped students (Tech. Rep. No. 30). Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, Project TEECh.
7.
CosdenM.A.GerberM.M.SemmelD.S.GoldmanS.R.SemmelM.I. (1987). Microcomputer use within micro-educational environments. Exceptional Children, 53(5), 399–409.
8.
CosdenM.A.LieberJ. (1986). Grouping students on the microcomputer. Academic Therapy, 22(2), 165–172/
9.
CosdenM.A.PearlR.BryanT.H. (1985). The effects of cooperative and individual goal structures on learning disabled and nondisabled students. Exceptional Children, 52(2), 103–114.
10.
HasselbringT.S.GoinL.I.BransfordJ.D. (1988). Developing math automaticity in learning handicapped children: The role of computerized drill and practice. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20(6), 1–7.
11.
HausG.J. (1983). The development and evaluation of a microcomputer-based math assessment and remediation program for mildly mentally handicapped junior high school students. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
12.
JohnsonD.W.JohnsonR.T. (1975). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition, and individualization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
13.
JohnsonD.W.JohnsonR.T.ScottL. (1978). The effects of cooperative and individualized instruction on student attitudes and achievement. Journal of Social Psychology, 104, 207–216.
14.
JohnsonR.T.JohnsonD.W.StanneM.B. (1986). Comparison of computer-assisted cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. American Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 382–392.
15.
JohnsonD.W.MaruyamaG.JohnsonR.NelsonD.SkonL. (1981). The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47–62.
16.
LieberJ.SemmelM.I. (1987). The relationships between group size and performance on a microcomputer problem-solving task for learning handicapped and nonhandicapped students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3(2), 171–187.
17.
LittlejohnT.D.RossR.P.GumpP.V. (1984, April). Using computers in elementary schools: Implementation issues. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
18.
MaddenN.SlavinR. (1983). Effects of cooperative learning on the social acceptance of mainstreamed academically handicapped students. The Journal of Special Education, 17, 171–182.
19.
MevarechZ.R.SternD.LevitaI. (1987). To cooperate or not to cooperate in CAI: That is the question. Journal of Educational Research, 80(3), 164–167.
20.
Office of Technology Assessment. (1988). Power On! New Tools for Teaching and Learning (No. 052-003-01125-5). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
21.
OwensL. (1986). Cooperation. In DunkinM.J. (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Teaching and Teacher Education. New York: Pergamon Press.
22.
SlavinR.E. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.
23.
SlavinR.MaddenN.LeaveyM. (1984). Effects of team assisted individualization on the mathematics achievement of academically handicapped and nonhandicapped students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(8), 13–19.
24.
SterlingD.A. (1976). Sterling Informal Math Inventory.
25.
Tateyama-SniezekK.M. (1990). Cooperative learning: Does it improve the academic achievement of students with handicaps?Exceptional Children, 56(5), 426–437.
26.
YuehJ.AlessiS.M. (1988). The effect of reward structure and group ability composition on cooperative computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15(1), 18–22.
