Based on 198 independent findings from 71 studies with experimental or statistical controls, the results of this meta-analysis indicate that, on average, students learning with computers in small groups attempted a greater amount of task (d+ = +0.15), used more learning strategies (d+ = +0.36), had more positive attitude toward small group learning (d+ = +0.54), but needed more task completion time (d+ = −0.21) as compared to students learning with computers individually. No significant difference was found on student attitude toward instruction whether they learned in small groups or individually. However, effect sizes varied significantly, ranging from extremely positive to extremely negative in each of the outcomes analyzed. Significant predictors concerning technology and task characteristics included type of programs, instructional control, feedback, and task structure. Significant predictors concerning grouping and learner characteristics included group learning strategy, group work experience, and group size.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
References marked with an asterisk (*) indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
2.
AbramiP. C.CohenP., & d'ApolloniaS. (1988). Implementation problems in meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 58(2), 151–179.
3.
AbramiP. C.d'ApolloniaS., & CohenP. A. (1990). Validity of student ratings of instruction: What we know and what we do not. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 219–231.
4.
AbramiP. C.ChambersB.PoulsenC.DeSimoneC.d'ApolloniaS., & HowdenJ. (1995). Classroom connections: Understanding and using cooperative learning.Toronto, ONT: Harcourt-Brace.
5.
AmiguesR., & AgostinelliS. (1992). Collaborative problem solving with a computer: How can an interactive learning environment be designed?European Journal of Psychology of Education, 7(4), 325–337.
6.
AtkinsonJ. W. (1966). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. In AtkinsonJ. W. and FeatherN. T. (Eds.), A theory of achievement motivation.Huntington, NY: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company.
7.
AzevedoR., & BernardR. M. (1995). A meta-analysis of the effects of feedback in computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(2), 111–127.
8.
Benbunan-FichR. (1997). Effects of computer-mediated communication systems on learning, performance and satisfaction: A comparison of groups and individuals solving ethical scenarios (Doctoral Dissertation, Rutgers State University of New Jersey Newark, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 04A.
9.
Benbunan-FichR., & HiltzS. R. (1999). Impacts of asynchronous learning networks on individual and group problem solving: A field experiment. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8, 409–426.
10.
BerkowitzM. S., & SzaboM. (1977, March). Individual and dyadic problem solving on a computer based task as a function of mental ability. Paper presented at the 50th annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Cincinnati, Ohio.
BlayeA., & ChambresP. (1991). HyperCard as a psychological research tool—Experimental studies. In OliveiraA. (Ed.), Hypermedia courseware: Structures of communication and intelligent help.Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
13.
BlayeA.LightP.JointerR., & SheldonS. (1991). Collaboration as a facilitator of planning and problem solving on a computer-based task. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 471–483.
14.
BoydG. (1993). A theory of distance education for the cyberspace era. In KeeganD. (Ed.), The principles of distance education.London: Routledge.
15.
CarrierC. A., & SalesG. C. (1987). Pair versus individual work on the acquisition of concepts in a computer based instructional lesson. Journal of Computer Based Instruction, 14(1), 11–17.
16.
CavalierJ. C., & KleinJ. D. (1998). Effects of cooperative versus individual learning and orienting activities during computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(1), 5–17.
17.
ChapmanD. M. (1985). Teaching and evaluating clinical reasoning through computer based patient management simulations (medical education, clinical skills, small group study, learning strategies, computer based instruction) (Doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1985). Dissertation Abstract International, 46, 784B.
18.
ChiuC. H. (2002). The effects of collaborative teamwork on secondary science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 262–271.
19.
CobbT. (1997). Cognitive efficiency: Toward a revised theory of media. Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(4), 21–35.
20.
CockayneS. (1990). Effects of small group sizes on learning with interactive videodisc (Doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1990). Dissertation Abstract International, 51, 394A.
21.
CohenE. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.
22.
ColeyR. J.CradlerJ., & EngelP. K. (2000). Computers and the classroom: The status of technology in U.S. schools.Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.
23.
CoxD. A., & BergerC. F. (1985). The importance of group size in the use of problem-solving skills on a microcomputer. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1, 459–468.
24.
CrooksS. M.KleinJ. D.SavenyeW., & LeaderL. (1998). Effects of cooperative and individual learning during learner-controlled computer-based instruction. Journal of Experimental Education, 66(3), 223–244.
25.
DaluteC. (1989). Play as thought: Thinking strategies of young writers. Harvard Educational Review, 59, 1–23.
26.
DaltonD. W.HannafinM., & HooperS. (1989). Effects of individual and cooperative computer assisted instruction on student performance and attitudes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 15–24.
27.
DerryS. J. (1990, April). Flexible cognitive tools for problem solving instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
28.
DerryS.TookeyK., & RothB. (1993). The effects of collaborative interaction and computer tool use on the problem solving processes of lower ability students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED374 776).
29.
DiehlC. L. (2000, April). “Reasoner's workbench” program supports students' individual and collaborative argumentation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
30.
DossettD. H., & HulvershomP. (1983). Increasing technical training via computer assisted instruction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 552–558.
31.
DurninR. G. (1985). Computer-based education: A study of student interactions and achievement in small group and individual settings (Doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, 1985). Dissertation Abstract International, 45, 3530A.
32.
DyerL. D. (1993). An investigation of the effects of cooperative learning on computer-monitored problem-solving. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
33.
FootT. (1986). The influence of peer interaction in microcomputer based problem solving. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton.
34.
GlassG. V.McGawB., & SmithM. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
35.
GleserL. J., & OlkinI. (1994). Stochastically dependent effect sizes. In CopperH. & HedgesL. V. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
36.
GoltonR. F. (1975). The effects of student interaction on computer-assisted instruction in mathematics at the sixth grade. Dissertation Abstract International, 37, 166A.
37.
GoodmanH. J. A. (1968). The effects of team learning and of the counteracting of misinformation upon attitudes towards computer instructed learning. (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1968). Dissertation Abstract International, 29, 1822A.
38.
GrossmanE. S. (1983). A comparison of instructional methods employing group and individual programming in an introductory microcomputer science course. (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University Teachers College). Dissertation Abstract International, 44, 2663A.
39.
GrubbR. E. (1964). Effects of paired student interaction in the computer tutoring of statistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED319 146).
40.
GuntermannE., & TovarM. (1987). Collaborative problem solving with LOGO: Effects of group size and group composition. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3(3), 313–334.
41.
HarrisonD. A. C. (1991). The effects of cooperative grouping and ability on achievement by subjects using a computer-based lesson with instructional options (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 1193A.
HedgesL. V.ShymanskyJ. A., & WoodworthG. (1989). A practical guide to modern methods of meta-analysis. Report No. ISBN-0–87355–081–1. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 309 952).
44.
HendersonJ. L. (1992). The effects of cooperative learning teams on teaching business computer applications and operations at the college level computer instruction (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1992). Dissertation Abstract International, 53, 49A.
45.
HooperS. (1992). Effects of peer interaction during computer based mathematics instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 85(3), 180–189.
46.
HooperS.TemiyakarnC., & WilliamsM. D. (1993). The effects of cooperative learning and learner control on high and average ability students. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 41(2), 5–18.
47.
HuangC. (1993). The effects of types of feedback on performance and attitude in cooperative and individualized computer-based instruction (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 1655A.
48.
HunterE. J., & SchmidtF. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
49.
InkpenK.BoothK. S.KlaweM., & UpitisR. (1995). Playing together beats playing apart, especially for girls. In CSCL 1995 Proceedings.
50.
TversK.-S. (1994). The effects of computer-based cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning conditions on adult learners' achievement and near transfer performance (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 05A.
51.
TversK. S., & BarronA. E. (1998). Using paired learning conditions with computer-based instruction to teach preservice teachers about telecommunications. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 6(2–3), 183–191.
52.
JacksonA. C. (1987, April). Group and individual performance on microcomputer-based problems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Computer Based Education, Hatfield Polytechnic.
53.
JacksonA.FletcherB., & MesserD. J. (1992). When talking doesn't help: An investigation of microcomputers-based group problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 2, 185–197.
54.
Jannasch-PennellA.DiGangiS. A.YuA.AndrewsS., & BabbJ. S. (1999, February). Impact of instructional grouping on navigation and student learning in a Web-based learning environment. Paper presented at the National Convention of Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Houston, TX.
55.
JohnsonD. W., & JohnsonR. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research.Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
56.
JohnsonD. W., & JohnsonR. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (4th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
57.
JohnsonR. T.JohnsonD. W., & StanneM. (1986). Comparison of computer assisted cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 382–392.
JonassenD. H. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
60.
JonassenD. H.WilsonB. G.WangS., & GrabingerR. S. (1993). Constructivist uses of expert systems to support learning. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(3), 86–94.
61.
KacerB.WeinholtzD., & RocklinT. (1992). Individual versus small group instruction of computer applications: A quantitative and qualitative comparison. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 9(1), 6–12.
62.
KeelerC. M., & AnsonR. (1995). An assessment of cooperative learning used for basic computer skills instruction in the college classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 379–393.
63.
KellyA. E., & O'DonnellA. (1994). Hypertext and the study strategies of preservice teachers: Issues in instructional hypertext design. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10(4), 373–387.
64.
KinzieM. B. (1990). Requirements and benefits of effective interactive instruction: Learner control, self-regulation, and continuing motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 23, 382–392.
65.
KleinJ. D., & DoranM. S. (1999). Implementing individual and small group learning structures with a computer simulation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 97–110.
66.
KnowlesM. (1978). The adult learner: A neglected species (2nd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.
KulikC.-L. C., & KulikJ. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75–94.
70.
LajoieS. P., & DerryS. J. (Eds.). (1993). Computer as cognitive tools.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence.
71.
LealiS. A. (1992). Cooperative and individualized learning with computer assisted instruction in mathematics for at-risk high school students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 3788A.
72.
LeBelC. (1982). Cooperation between adolescents in computer-assisted algebraic problem solving. Unpublished thesis, Concordia University.
73.
LeeD. W. (1991). A comparison of the effectiveness between the cooperative and individual learning on students' achievement and attitudes on a computer assisted mathematics problem solving task (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa. 1991). Dissertation Abstract International, 52, 2391A.
74.
LidtkeD. (1979). Paired and individual learning in computer programming: An evaluation of student achievement and cost effectiveness (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 1919). Dissertation Abstract International, 40, 2752B.
75.
LieberJ., & SemmelM. I. (1987). The relationship between group size and performance on a microcomputer problem-solving task for learning handicapped and non-handicapped students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, 171–188.
76.
LightP., & BlayeA. (1990). Computer-based learning: The social dimensions. In FootH. C.MorganM. J., & ShuteR. H. (Eds.), Children helping children.John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
77.
LightP., & GlachanM. (1985). Facilitation of individual problem solving through peer interaction. Educational Psychology, 5, 217–225.
78.
LightP.FootT.ColbournC., & McClellandI. (1987). Collaborative interactions at the microcomputer keyboard. Educational Psychology, 7(1), 13–21.
79.
LouY. (2004). Learning to solve complex problems through online between-group collaboration. Distance Education, 25(1), 49–66.
80.
LouY.AbramiP. C., & d'ApolloniaS. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 449–521.
81.
LouY.AbramiC. A.SpenceJ. C.PoulsenC.ChambersB., & d'ApolloniaS. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458.
82.
LouY., & MacGregorS. K. (2002, November). Enhancing online learning with between group collaboration. Paper presented at the Teaching Online in Higher Education Online Conference.
83.
LoveW. P. (1969). Individual versus paired learning of an abstract algebra presented by computer assisted instruction [Technical report]. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 034 403).
84.
Lundgren-CayrolK. (1996). Computer-conferencing: A collaborative learning environment for distance education students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Concordia University, Montreal.
85.
MacGregorS. K. (1987). Instructional design for computer-mediated text systems: Effects of motivation, learner control, and collaboration on reading performance. Journal Experimental Education, 56, 142–147.
86.
MakuchJ. R.RobillardP. D., & YoderE. P. (1992). Effects of individual versus paired/cooperative computer assisted instruction on the effectiveness and efficiency of an in-service training lesson. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 20(3), 199–208.
87.
MevarechZ. R., & KramarskiB. (1993). Vygotsky and Papert: Social cognitive interactions with LOGO environments. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1), 96–109.
88.
MevarechZ. R.SilbeerO., & FineD. (1991). Learning with computers in small groups: Cognitive and affective outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(2), 233–243.
89.
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.
90.
NiemiecR.SamsonG.WeinsteinT., & WalbergH. J. (1987). The effects of computer-based instruction in elementary schools: A quantitative synthesis. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 20, 85–103.
91.
NobleG. (1967). A study of the differences between paired and individual learning from a branching program. Programmed Learning, 4, 108–112.
92.
OkeyJ. R., & MajerK. (1976). Individual and small group learning with computer assisted instruction. AV Communication Review, 24(1), 79–86.
93.
OrrK. L., & DavidsonG. V. (1993, January). The effects of group computer based instruction and learning style on achievement and attitude. In Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology sponsored by the Research and Theory Division, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 362 192).
ParkI. H. (1993). Cooperative learning and individual learning with computer-assisted instruction in an introductory university level chemistry course (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1993). Dissertation Abstract International, 54, 2972A.
96.
PeaR. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167–182.
97.
PerlmutterM.BehrendS., & MullerA. (1985, August). Social influence on preschool children's computer activity. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angelas, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 264 962).
98.
QuinnJ.PenaC., & McCuneL. (1996). The effects of group and task structure in an instructional simulation. In Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis, IN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 826).
99.
ReevesT. C. (1998). The impact of media and technology in schools.Atlanta, GA: Bertelsmann Foundation.
100.
ReglinG. L. (1990). The effects of individualized and cooperative computer assisted instruction on mathematics achievement and mathematics anxiety for prospective teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 22, 404–412.
101.
ReiterJ. J. (1994). The comparative effects of direct instruction of problem-solving followed by computer practice in a cooperative learning environment versus direct instruction of problem-solving followed by individualized computer practice. Unpublished dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.
102.
RepmanJ.WellerH. G., & LanW. (1993). The impact of social context on learning in hypermedia based instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 2(3), 283–298.
103.
ResnickL.LevineS., & TeasleyS. (1991). Perspectives on socially shared cognition.Hyattsville, MD: American Psychological Association.
104.
RosenthalR. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (rev. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
105.
RysavyS. D. M., & SalesG. C. (1989). Cooperative learning in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 39(2), 70–79.
106.
SalomonG. (1993a). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
107.
SalomonG. (1993b). On the nature of pedagogic computer tools. The case of the writing partner. In LaJoieS. P. & DerryS. J. (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
108.
SalomonG.PerkinsD. N., & GlobersonT. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.
109.
SancilioL. (1992). Two versus one? The effects of pairing friends on cognition during collaborative learning with LOGO (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 3152A.
110.
SavardM.MitchellS.AbramiP. C., & CorsoM. (1995). Learning together at a distance. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 24, 117–131.
111.
SavittC. (1996). The effect of cooperative learning on computer anxiety, attitude and performance when learning Internet skills (Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 10A.
112.
SedlmeierP., & GigerenzerG. (1989). Do studies of statistical power have an effect on the power of studies?Psychological Bulletin, 105, 309–316.
113.
SeymourS. R. (1994). Operative computer learning with cooperative task and reward structures. Journal of Technology Education, 5(2), 40–51.
114.
ShlechterT. M. (1990). The relative instructional efficiency of small group computer based training. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6(3), 329–341.
115.
ShlechterT. M. (1991, November). What do we really know about small group CBT? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for the Development of Computer-Based Instructional Systems, St. Louis, MO.
116.
ShoffnerM. B. W. (1997). Effects of instructional strategies on emerging technology-based visual literacy instruction: Problem-based learning, networked hypermedia-based instruction, and cooperative learning strategies (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 07A.
117.
SimsekA., & HooperS. (1992). The effects of cooperative versus individual videodisc learning on student performance and attitudes. International Journal of Instructional Media, 19(3), 209–218.
118.
SinghanayokC. (1993). Learner-controlled lessons in cooperative learning groups during computer-based instruction (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 12A.
119.
Sivin-KachalaJ., & BialoE. R. (1994). Report on the effectiveness of technology in schools, 1990–1994. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 371 726).
120.
SlavinR. E. (1989). Cooperative learning and student achievement. In SlavinR. E. (Ed.), School and classroom organization (pp. 129–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
121.
SolY.-H. (1995). Effects of cooperative computer-assisted instruction: Using learning style preferences in a self-instructional class. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University.
122.
SpauldingR. R. (1984). An evaluation of computer programming courses in a junior high school relating student grouping to the quality of learning (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 1949A.
123.
Temiyakam-McDonaldC. S. (1993). Learner-controlled lessons in cooperative learning groups during computer-based instruction (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1993). Dissertation Abstract International, 54, 4414A.
124.
UnderwoodG.McCaffreyM., & UnderwoodJ. (1990). Gender differences in a cooperative computer-based language task. Educational Research, 32(1), 44–49.
125.
UribeD.KleinJ. D., & SullivanH. (2003). The effect of computer-mediated collaborative learning on solving ill-defined problems. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 51(1), 5–24.
126.
Van Der VyverG., & LaneM. (2003). Using team-based approach in an IS course: An empirical study. Journal of Information Technology Education, 2, 393–405.
127.
WaxmanH. C.ConnellM. L., & GrayJ. (2002). A quantitative synthesis of recent research on the effects of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes.North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL). Retrieved December 4, 2003, from http://www.ncrel.org/tech/effects/
128.
WebbN. M. (1984). Stability of small group interaction and achievement over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 211–224.
129.
WebbN. M. (1997). Assessing students in small collaborative groups. Theory into Practice, 36, 205.
130.
WeinerN. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
131.
WellerH. G.RepmanJ.LanW., & RoozeG. (1995). Improving the effectiveness of learning through hypermedia-based instruction: The importance of learner characteristics. Computers in Human Behaviors, 11, 451–465.
132.
WernerL., & KleinJ. D. (1999, February). Effects of learning structure and summarization during computer-based instruction. In Proceedings of selected research and development papers presented at the Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (21st), Houston, TX.
133.
WhitelockD.ScanlonE.TaylorJ., & O'SheaT. (1995). Computer support for pupils collaborating: A case study on collisons. In CSCL 1995 Proceedings.
134.
WolfB. A. (1994). Effects of cooperative learning and learner control in computer-based instruction. Unpublished dissertation, Arizona State University.
135.
YellandN. (1993). Young children's learning with Logo: An analysis of strategies and interactions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9(4), 465–486.
