We used a 2 × 2 design to compare the performance of low-aptitude remedial participants learning to solve mathematics word problems. Participants worked either alone or as a member of a collaborative dyad, and received up to twelve hours of instruction and practice using either the Word Problem-Solving Environment (WPSE), an exploratory system over which users exercise considerable control, or Solver, a very structured and sometimes directive tutor. Individuals who worked with the WPSE showed the greatest average improvement between pretest and posttest scores. Dyad members showed relatively moderate improvements after working with either the directive tutor or the problem-solving environment. There were no significant changes between pretest and posttest scores for individuals who worked with the directive tutor. We discuss possible reasons for this pattern of results and present an analysis of data concerning the number of operations used in solving problems, the number of errors made, and the number of help requests, to support our discussion.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
WebbN. M., Peer Interaction and Learning with Computers in Small Groups, Computers in Human Behavior, 3, pp. 193–209, 1987.
2.
SlavinR. E., Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1990.
3.
SlavinR. E., Synthesis of Research on Cooperative Learning, Educational Leadership, 48: 5, pp. 71–82, 1991.
4.
JohnsonD. W. and JohnsonR. T., Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning (3rd Edition), Allyn & Bacon, Boston, 1991.
5.
GoorM. B. and SchwennJ. O., Accommodating Diversity and Disability with Cooperative Learning, Intervention in School and Clinic, 29: 1, pp. 6–16, 1993.
6.
JonassenD., Aptitude vs. Content Treatment Interactions: Implications for Instructional Design, Journal of Instructional Development, 5: 4, pp. 15–27, 1982.
7.
SharanS.AckermanZ., and Hertz-LazarowitzR., Academic Achievement of Elementary Education School Children in Small Groups, Journal of Experimental Education, 48, pp. 125–129, 1980.
8.
HooperS., Effects of Peer Interaction during Computer-Based Mathematics Instruction, Journal of Educational Research, 85, pp. 180–189, 1992.
9.
WebbN. M., Task-Related Verbal Interaction and Mathematics Learning in Small Groups, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, pp. 366–389, 1991.
10.
HooperS.TemiyakarnC., and WilliamsM. D., The Effects of Cooperative Learning and Learner Control on High- and Average-Ability Students, Educational Technology Research and Development, 41, pp. 5–18, 1993.
11.
TeasleyS. D., The Role of Talk in Children's Peer Collaborations, Developmental Psychology, 31: 2, pp. 207–220, 1995.
12.
BerkL. E., Children's Private Speech: An Overview of Theory and the Status of Research, in Private Speech: From Social Interaction to Self-Regulation, DiazR. M. and BerkL. E. (eds.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 17–53, 1992.
13.
StephensonS. D., The Effects of Student-Instructor Interaction and Paired/Individual Study on Achievement in Computer-Based Training (CBT), Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19: 1, pp. 22–26, 1992.
14.
SteinbergE. R., Review of Student Control in Computer-Assisted Instruction, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 3, pp. 84–90, 1977.
15.
KinzieM. B., Requirements and Benefits of Effective Interactive Instruction: Learner Control, Self-Regulation, and Continuing Motivation, Educational Technology Research and Development, 38, pp. 1–21, 1990.
16.
AvnerR. A.MooreC., and SmithS., Active External Control: A Basis for Superiority of CBI, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 6, pp. 115–118, 1980.
17.
RubincamI. and OlivierW. P., An Investigation of Limited Learner-Control Options in a CAI Mathematics Course, AEDS Journal, pp. 211–226, Summer 1985.
18.
GrayS. H., The Effect of Sequence Control on Computer-Assisted Learning, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14, pp. 54–56, 1987.
19.
DaltonD. W., The Effects of Cooperative Learning Strategies on Achievement and Attitudes during Interactive Video, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 17, pp. 8–16, 1990.
20.
MorrisonG. R.RossS. M., and BaldwinW., Learner Control of Context and Instructional Support in Learning Elementary School Mathematics, Educational Technology Research and Development, 40, pp. 5–13, 1992.
21.
PridemoreD. R. and KleinJ. D., Control of Feedback in Computer-Assisted Instruction, Educational Technology Research and Development, 39, pp. 27–32, 1991.
22.
HickenS.SullivanH., and KleinJ., Learner Control Modes and Incentive Variations in Computer-Delivered Instruction, Educational Technology Research and Development, 40, pp. 15–26, 1992.
23.
KinzieM. B.SullivanH. J., and BerdelR. L., Learner Control and Achievement in Science Computer-Assisted Instruction, Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, pp. 299–303, 1988.
24.
MilheimW. D. and MartinB. L., Theoretical Bases for the Use of Learner Control: Three Different Perspectives, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18, pp. 99–105, 1991.
25.
ButlerD. L. and WinneP. H., Feedback and Self-Regulating Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis, Review of Educational Research, 65, pp. 245–282, 1995.
26.
NiemiecR. P.SikorskiC., and WalbergH. J., Learner-Control Effects: A Review of Reviews and Meta-Analysis, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15: 2, pp. 157–174, 1996.
27.
HooperS.WardT. W.HannafinM. J., and ClarkH. T., The Effects of Aptitude Composition on Achievement during Small Group Learning, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16, pp. 102–109, 1989.
28.
SteinbergE. R., Cognition and Learner Control: A Literature Review, 1977–1988, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16, pp. 117–121, 1989.
29.
TennysonC. L.TennysonR. D., and RothenW., Content Structure and Instructional Control Strategies as Design Variables in Concept Acquisition, Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, pp. 499–505, 1980.
30.
GayG., Interaction of Learner Control and Prior Understanding in Computer-Assisted Video Instruction, Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, pp. 225–227, 1986.
31.
LeeS. S. and LeeY. H. K., Effects of Learner-Control versus Program Control Strategies on Computer-Aided Learning of Chemistry Problems: For Acquisition or Review?Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, pp. 491–498, 1991.
32.
LeeS. S. and WongS. C.-H., Adaptive Program vs. Learner Control Strategy on Computer Aided Learning of Gravimetric Stoichiometry Problems, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 21, pp. 367–379, 1989.
33.
TennysonR. D. and RothenW., Management of Computer Based Instruction: Design of an Adaptive Control Strategy, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 5, pp. 63–71, 1979.
34.
RossS. M. and RakowE. A., Learner Control versus Program Control as Adaptive Strategies for Selection of Instructional Support on Math Rules, Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, pp. 745–753, 1981.
35.
HooperS. and HannafinM. J., Cooperative CBI: The Effects of Heterogeneous versus Homogeneous Grouping on the Learning of Progressively Complex Concepts, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, pp. 413–424, 1988.
36.
NastasiB. K. and ClementsD. H., Research on Cooperative Learning: Implications for Practice, School Psychology Review, 20, pp. 110–131, 1991.
37.
HooperS. and HannafinM. J., Cooperative Learning and Computer-Based Instruction: Achievement, Interaction, and Performance, Proceedings of the 31st International Conference of the Association for the Development of Computer-Based Instructional Systems, ADCIS, Washington, D.C., pp. 279–286, 1989.
38.
SteinbergE. R.BaskinA. B., and MatthewsT. D., Computer-Presented Organizational/Memory Aids as Instruction for Solving Pico-Fomi Problems, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 12, pp. 44–49, 1985.
39.
ReedS. K.DempsterA., and EttingerM., Usefulness of Analogous Solutions for Solving Algebra Word Problems, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, pp. 106–125, 1985.
