DOCUMENT RESUME IR 018 431 ED 409 842 AUTHOR Klein, James D.; And Others Effects of Cooperative Learning and Affiliation during an TITLE ITV Lesson. PUB DATE 97 8p.; In: Proceedings of Selected Research and Development NOTE Presentations at the 1997 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (19th, Albuquerque, NM, February 14-18, 1997); see IR 018 421. Speeches/Meeting Papers (150) PUB TYPE Research (143) Reports MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. EDRS PRICE *Academic Achievement; *Affiliation Need; *Cooperative DESCRIPTORS Learning; Data Analysis; *Educational Television; Higher Education; *Individual Instruction; Instructional Effectiveness; Interaction; Interpersonal Relationship; *Student Attitudes; Undergraduate Students ABSTRACT This study examines the effect of cooperative versus individual learning strategies and the need for affiliation on achievement, attitude, and student interactions when receiving instructional television lessons. Subjects (n.126) were undergraduate education majors enrolled in a required course in educational psychology. Subjects classified as high or low affiliation used either a cooperative or individual learning strategy while receiving instruction from a television lesson. Study participants completed a need for affiliation scale, viewed an instructional television program on objectives-based assessment, answered questions for practice and read feedback sections in a workbook, and took a posttest following the program. The television lesson was designed following a competency-based approach and included objectives, information, examples, practice, feedback, and review. (1) there was no significant difference between subjects who Results include: used cooperative and individual learning strategies when overall achievement (2) subjects who worked alone performed and application were tested; significantly better on the knowledge portion of the posttest than those who (3) the need for affiliation was related to attitude worked cooperatively; toward future learning activities; and (4) the need for affiliation was related to student interaction behaviors. Study results indicate that cooperative learning does not always increase learning from instructional television that has been systematically designed. (Contains 24 references.) (SWC) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. * * ******************************************************************************** Effects of Cooperative Learning and Affiliation During an ITV Lesson U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as James D. Klein received from the person or organization originating it. Heidi L. Schnackenberg Minor changes have been made to Kristl J. Smith improve reproduction quality. Arizona State University Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official 0E131 position or policy. Over the past two decades, a number of researchers have examined the effect of cooperative learning on student achievement and motivation. Reviews of research have generally suggested that cooperative learning has a positive influence on student achievement, productivity, transfer of learning, time on task, and attitude (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Sharan, 1980; Slavin, 1990). According to Widaman and Kagan (1987), the results of these reviews have led many educators to erroneously conclude that cooperative learning is superior to traditional instruction for all However, even advocates of cooperative students because it results in greater achievement by average students. learning have indicated that some learners are more predisposed than others to act cooperatively (Johnson and Johnson, 1989) and that this predisposition may influence how students cooperate when they work with others (Slavin, 1983). There is some empirical evidence that a student's need for affiliation may influence outcomes in a represented by a desire to participate in cooperative, The need for affiliation is cooperative learning setting. noncompetitive activities and by a desire for close, friendly relationships with others (McClelland, 1965, 1976). Individuals with a high need for affiliation are more friendly, sociable, and cooperative than those with a low need for affiliation (Jackson, 1974). A recent study by Klein and Pridemore (1992) revealed that need for affiliation interacted College students with high affiliation with cooperative/individual learning to influence performance and attitude. need who worked alone performed worse than students in all other conditions when asked to apply what they had learned. Furthermore, Chan (1980-81) found that high school students with high need for affiliation reported better attitudes toward cooperative learning than those with low need for affiliation after using both cooperative and individual instruction. A few other researchers have reported that social orientation may influence how students perform in cooperative learning settings. Hall et al. (1988) found that pairs of college students with moderate to high levels of social orientation outperformed pairs with low levels of social orientation; students with a low social orientation performed better when working alone. Widaman and Kagan (1987) reported that cooperatively-oriented elementary school students performed better when placed in cooperative learning structures, while competitively-oriented students performed better in competitive learning structures. Sutter and Reid (1969) found that college students with high levels of sociability performed better than introverted students on cooperative computer-assisted instruction, while introverted students performed better on individual CM. Finally, Jones (1995) found that pairs of college students with a high preference for group work spent more time working through computer instruction, exhibited more cooperative behaviors, and more off -task behaviors than pairs with a low preference for group work. The purpose of the current study was to examine the effect of cooperative versus individual learning strategies and the need for affiliation on achievement, attitude, and student interactions. The study is a continuation of a program of research on how cooperative learning can be effectively implemented with instructional television. Johnson & Johnson (1994) have suggested that informal cooperative learning structures such as paired discussions can ensure that students are cognitively active during the presentation of a videotape. Furthermore, Adams, Carson, and Hamm (1990) have speculated that cooperative strategies will enhance learning and motivation when instructional television is presented to students. However, few research studies have been conducted to examine the effect of using cooperative learning strategies with instructional television. In this study, subjects classified as high or low affiliation used either a cooperative or individual learning Based on previous research, it was hypothesized that strategy while receiving instruction from a television lesson. It was expected instructional condition would interact with need for achievement to influence learning and attitude. that high affiliation students would achieve more and report better attitudes under the cooperative condition and that low affiliation students would achieve more and report better attitudes under the individual condition. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that high affiliation dyads would exhibit more cooperative interactions and more off-task "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS interactions than low affiliation dyads. MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY M. Simonsen 107 2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." Method Design and Subjects instructional method (individual versus cooperative) A 2 X 2 factorial design was used in this study, with variables. The dependent variables were achievement and and need for affiliation (high versus low) as the independent for subjects in the cooperative treatment. attitude. Data for student interaction behaviors were also collected females) enrolled in the first semester of a Subjects were 126 undergraduate education majors (34 males, 92 All subjects were enrolled in a required course in teacher training program at a large southwestern university. required to participate in one research study during educational psychology. Although students in this course were voluntary. the semester, participation in this particular study was Materials and an instrument to measure the need Materials used in this study were an instructional television lesson from the series Instructional Theory: A nine unit mini-course for affiliation. The instructional television lesson was provided instruction on the topic of The lesson included a videotape and a workbook that (Gerlach, 1973). information and The videotape was divided into seven segments which presented objectives-based assessment. in The videotape portion of the lesson was approximately 30 minutes examples on the content of the lesson. their workbook for practice and feedback on length. After each segment, the videotape instructed subjects to turn to Segment 4 provided instruction on the use of paper-and-pencil the content presented in that segment. For example, of performance or product. After providing information and examples tests, interviews, and observations of student presented viewers with three instructors who wished to these three types of objectives-based assessment, the tape directed subjects to "Turn to Exercise 4 in your workbook" evaluate a student's work of sculpture. The videotape objectives-based assessment for this situation." The workbook where they were asked to "Describe the best type of the following page. then provided written feedback to this practice item on This used to measure need for affiliation. The affiliation scale of the Personality Research Form-E was which an individual is motivated to affiliate with others. A scale consists of 16 items that measure the degree to with statements such as "Sometimes I have to true-false format is used to indicate whether or not a person agrees time visiting friends." According to Jackson (1974), a high score make a real effort to be social" and "I spend lots of readily, and makes an effort that the individual enjoys being with other people, accepts people on this scale suggests is 8.6 (SD with others. Norming data indicate that the mean for this scale to have friends and maintain associations For students (Jackson, 1974). internal consistency reliability is .86 when used with college = 3.35) and that the 3.59), and the range was 2 - 16. subjects in the current study the mean was 9.98 (SD = Procedures subjects completed the need for affiliation scale. Several weeks before the treatments were implemented, all Subjects with scores at or high and low categories of affiliation. A median split was used to block subjects into ffi = 12.4, SD = 2.0, n = 75) and those above the median (M4 = 10) were assigned to the high affiliation category Subjects affiliation category ffl = 6.4, SD = 2.1, n = 51). with scores below the median were assigned to the low of the two treatment conditions (cooperative or blocked by affiliation score were randomly assigned to one pairing subjects from the same affiliation category individual). Cooperative dyads were then formed by randomly affiliation subjects were paired). (i.e., a high affiliation subjects were paired and a low in separate rooms; each room had more than During the study, each treatment condition was implemented would be Subjects in both treatment conditions were informed that they one individual or dyad present at a time. and that they would be using a viewing an instructional television program on objectives-based assessment Subjects were told to write the answer to lesson. workbook to receive practice and feedback on the content of the Additionally, all subjects that followed each exercise. each practice exercise in the workbook and read the feedback the lesson. were informed that a short test would follow Subjects individual versus cooperative strategies. Subjects received specific directions for implementing independently during the lesson, and told to do their working alone were each given a workbook, instructed to work receive bonus points toward their course grade if they best work. Individuals were also informed that they would given a workbook and told to work together achieved 90% or better on the lesson test. Each cooperative dyad was disagreements over the answers, and discuss the given during the lesson, discuss all practice exercises and any 108 feedback. Cooperative subjects were also informed that they would individually complete the lesson test and would receive bonus points if both partners achieved 90% or better on this test. After the above instructions were provided, the videotape was started for each treatment condition. When Segment 1 was completed, the tape was stopped and subjects completed Exercise 1. When subjects indicated that they were ready, the videotape was started again. This cycle was continued until all seven sections of the lesson were completed. During the lesson, observers watched the dyads work and recorded instances of student interactions. An observer also watched individuals work and took notes on their behaviors. Upon completion of the lesson, all workbooks were collected and each subject individually completed an attitude survey. Each subject then took the posttest. Criterion Measures Criterion measures used in this study were student achievement and attitude. In addition, student interaction behaviors for subjects in the cooperative treatment were observed and recorded. Achievement was measured using a 15-item, constructed response posttest. The items were developed to evaluate student mastery of the instructional objectives for the lesson on objectives-based assessment. The posttest measured both application and knowledge of the lesson content. The application portion of the test consisted of ten items and the knowledge portion consisted of five items. Each section of the test was worth a total maximum score of ten points. Individual answers were checked against a scoring key and points were assigned for each answer. Partial credit was given for questions that required a multiple response such as "List three types of objectives-based assessment." The internal-consistency reliability of this posttest was .86 (Klein, Erchul, & Pridemore, 1994). Attitude was assessed using a 10-item, paper-and pencil survey. This survey consisted of six questions from the Instructional Materials Motivation Scale (Keller, 1986) that measured student satisfaction toward instructional activities and four items that assessed the degree to which a student would be willing to return to tasks like those used in the study. A five-point Likert scale (1 = not true, 5 = very true) was used to respond to the following items: Participating in the activity gave me a satisfying feeling of accomplishment; (1) (2) The practice and feedback helped me feel satisfied while participating in the activity; I enjoyed the activity so much that I would like to participate in a similar activity; (3) I really did not enjoy the activity; (4) It felt good to successfully complete this activity; (5) It was a pleasure to work on such a well-designed activity; (6) I would like to receive more instructional television lessons in the future; (7) I would like to learn more about objectives-based assessment in the future; (8) I would like to participate in future activities that allow me to work with another person; (9) (10) I would like to participate in future activities that allow me to work by myself. The Cronbach alpha internal-consistency reliability estimate of this survey was .83. The number of student interactions exhibited by cooperative dyads were observed and recorded on an observation sheet. This observation sheet included interaction behaviors that other researchers have suggested as necessary for successful group work (Klein & Doran, 1997; Klein & Pridemore, 1994; Webb, 1982, 1987). These interaction behaviors were grouped into the four categories of helping behaviors (asking questions, answering questions, giving unsolicited hints, suggestions, or explanations) on-task group behavior (taking turns, sharing materials, group discussion of content), on-task individual behavior (assuming control, taking notes, working alone), and off-task behavior (talking to other about something unrelated to the lesson and non-verbal actions such as reading a newspaper). A trained observer was stationed among five dyads to observe each dyad for two minute intervals during the lesson. The observer placed a mark on the observation sheet when a dyad exhibited an interaction behavior. Prior to the study, observers watched a videotape of one dyad working through a lesson and used the data collection form to record interaction behaviors. Reliability of observations was based on observers having similar totals for each set of behaviors exhibited by this videotaped dyad. The inter-rater reliability between observers was .90 for helping behaviors, .75 for on-task group behaviors, .90 for on-task individual behaviors, and 1.0 for off-task behaviors. 109 Data Analysis Data for 122 subjects were included in the analyses, since inspection of residuals indicated that posttest scores for four subjects were extreme outliers (z > 2.25). Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used, to test for an overall difference between groups on the posttest. This analysis was followed by univariate analyses on the knowledge and application portions of the test. MANOVA was also used to test for an overall difference between groups on the attitude survey. This analysis was followed by univariate analyses on the individual attitude items. The number of interaction behaviors exhibited by subjects in the cooperative treatment were totaled for 26 dyads and separate chi-square analyses were conducted on each category of interaction behavior. Interaction data for five high affiliation dyads were randomly eliminated prior to conducting these analyses in order to create a balanced design (13 high and 13 low affiliation dyads). Alpha was set at .05 for all statistical tests. Results Achievement Achievement was measured using the 15-item, constructed response posttest. The posttest measured both knowledge and application of the lesson content. Mean scores and standard deviations for both portions of the posttest can be found in Table 1. Table 1. Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Achievement Type of Items Condition Application Total Knowledge Individual Learning Low Affiliation 5.42 M 7.08 12.17 SD 2.19 (n = 24) 2.77 1.70 5.67 M High Affiliation 5.60 12.33 SD (n = 36) 2.13 1.76 1.15 5.57 Total M 6.26 12.26 SD 2.39 (n = 60) 1.93 1.58 Cooperative Learning 4.54 Low Affiliation 12.90 M 6.83 2.06 SD (n = 26) 3.41 1.52 High Affiliation 5.00 12.96 M 6.81 SD 3.34 (n = 36) 2.11 1.03 Total 4.81 6.82 M 12.93 2.09 3.32 SD (n = 62) 1.29 A MANOVA conducted on the posttest data did not reveal a significant multivariate effect for either instructional method or need for affiliation. However, univariate analysis conducted on each section of the posttest revealed that instructional method had a significant effect on knowledge acquisition F(1, 118) = 4.32, p < .05. Subjects who worked alone (M = 5.57, 5_12 = 1.93). performed significantly better on the knowledge portion of the posttest than those who worked cooperatively (M = 4.81, SD = 2.09). No other results were found for achievement. 110 Attitude MANOVA revealed a significant main effect for Attitude was measured using the 10-item survey. instructional method F(10, 109) = 2.26, 2 < .05. Univariate analyses indicated that subjects who worked alone were significantly more likely than those who worked cooperatively to agree with the statement: I would like to participate in future activities that allow me to work by myself, E(1, 118) = 4.59, g < .05. MANOVA also revealed a significant main effect for affiliation, E(10, 109) = 2.29, g < .05. High affiliation subjects were significantly more likely than low affiliation subjects to agree with the statement: I would E(1, 118) = 7.34, 2 < .05. like to participate in future activities that allow me to work with another person, Furthermore, low affiliation subjects were more likely to agree with the statement: I would like to participate in future activities that allow me to work by myself, E(1, 118) = 3.67, 2 = .058. Student Interactions High affiliation dyads exhibited 90 helping behaviors, 97 on-task group behaviors, 47 on-task individual behaviors, and 25 off-task behaviors. Low affiliation dyads exhibited 92 helping behaviors, 67 on-task group behaviors, 57 on-task individual behaviors, and 8 off -task behaviors. Chi-square analyses were performed on each of the four categories of student interactions to determine the influence of affiliation. These analyses indicated a significant difference between high and low affiliation dyads on two of the four behaviors. Results revealed that high affiliation dyads exhibited significantly more on-task group behaviors (discussion of content, sharing materials, taking turns) than low affiliation dyads, 2 = 5.49, p < .05. In addition, high affiliation dyads exhibited significantly more off -task behaviors than low affiliation dyads, 2 = 15.13, p < .05. Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of cooperative versus individual learning and the need College students classified as high or low for affiliation on achievement, attitude, and student interactions. affiliation used either a cooperative or individual learning strategy while receiving instruction from a television lesson. Results did not reveal a significant difference between subjects who used cooperative and individual learning strategies when overall achievement and application were tested. This is likely due to the instructional materials used in the study. The television lesson was designed following a competency-based approach and included Some researchers have suggested that studies objectives, information, examples, practice, feedback, and review. comparing individual and cooperative learning strategies do not consistently favor small group methods when well designed instructional materials are used (Bossert, 1988-89; Cavalier, 1996; Klein & Doran, 1997; Snyder, 1993). Others have indicated that many studies which produce positive results in favor of cooperative learning have compared carefully designed materials for groups to poorly designed instructional materials for individuals (Bossert, In the current study, subjects in both the individual and cooperative treatments used well designed 1988-89). instructional materials. While overall achievement and application were not influenced in this study, results indicated that subjects who worked alone performed significantly better on the knowledge portion of the posttest than those who worked Furthermore, subjects who worked alone expressed better attitudes than those who worked cooperatively. These findings partially support the work of cooperatively toward future activities that require individual work. others who have suggested that individual strategies may be more effective than cooperative strategies for enhancing learning and motivation during instructional television lessons (Klein, Erchul, & Pridemore, 1994). Results of the current study also revealed that need for affiliation was related to attitude toward future learning activities. It is not surprising that high affiliation students expressed a positive attitude toward future group work and that low affiliation subjects expressed a positive attitude toward future individual activities. Other researchers have reported that need for affiliation is related to attitudes when student implement individual and cooperative learning methods (Chan, 1980-81; Klein & Pridemore, 1992). In addition to attitudes, results indicated that need for affiliation was related to student interaction behaviors. High affiliation dyads exhibited significantly more on-task group behaviors (discussion of content, sharing materials, taking turns) and significantly more off-task behaviors than low affiliation dyads. These results support the notion that individuals with a high need for affiliation are more cooperative and social than those with a low need for The findings are also consistent with results reported by Jones affiliation (Jackson, 1974; McClelland, 1976). (1995) who found that pairs of college students with a high preference for group work exhibited more cooperative behaviors and more off-task behaviors than pairs with a low preference for group work. 111 Combined with previous research, the current study provides some implications for educators who plan to implement cooperative learning strategies with media that was originally designed for individual learning. Results suggests that educators should consider student characteristics such as need for affiliation when forming cooperative learning groups. Furthermore, while some theorists have suggested that cooperative learning structures can enhance active learning during videotaped instruction (Adams, Carson, & Hamm, 1990; Johnson & Johnson, 1994), the current study indicates that cooperative learning does not always increase learning from instructional television that has been systematically designed. Future research should continue to examine the effect of learning structures and student characteristics when students participate in mediated lessons. References Adams, D., Carson, H., & Hamm., M. (1990). Cooperative learning and educational media. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Bossert, S. T. (1988-89). Cooperative activities in the classroom. In E. Z. Rothkopf (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (pp. 225-250). Washington, D. C., American Educational Research association. Cavalier, J. C. (1996). Effects of learning strategy and orienting activity during computer-based learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University. Chan, R. M. (1980-81). The effect of student need for affiliation on performance and satisfaction in group learning. Interchange, 11, 39-46. Gerlach, V. (1973). Instructional theory: A nine unit mini-course. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Educational Television Council for Higher Education. Hall, R. H., Rocklin, T. R., Dansereau, D. F., Skaggs, L. P., O'Donnell, A. M., Lambiotte, J. G., & Young, M. D. (1988). The role of individual differences in the cooperative learning of technical material. Journal of Educational Psychology, B.Q, 172-178. Jackson, D. N. (1974). Personality research form manual. Goshen, NY: Research Psychologists Press. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition; Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. ones, E. E. K. (1995). The effects of matching learner preference for instructional method on achievement and attitude. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona Sate University. Keller, J. M. (1987). Instructional materials motivation scale (IMMS). Unpublished manuscript, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. Klein, J. D., & Doran, M. S. (1997, in press). Implementing individual and small group learning structures with a computer simulation. Educational Technology. Klein, J. D., Erchul, J. A., & Pridemore, D. R. (1994). Effects of individual versus cooperative learning and type of reward on performance and continuing motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 24-32. Klein, J. D., & Pridemore, D. R. (1994). Effects of orienting activities and practice on achievement, continuing motivation, and student behaviors in a cooperative learning environment. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 42(4), 41-54. McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist, 20, 321-333. McClelland, D. C. (1976). The achieving society. New York: Irvington Publishers. Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, IQ, 241-272. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Snyder, T. E. (1993). Effects of cooperative and individual learning on student misconceptions in science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University. Sutter, E. G., & Reid, J. B. (1969). Learner variables and interpersonal conditions in computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 153-157. Webb, N. M. (1982). Peer interaction and learning in small cooperative groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 14, 642-655. 112 Webb, N. M. (1987). Peer interaction and learning with computers in small groups. Computers in Human $ehavior, 2, 193-209. Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational research, no ), 21-39. F., & Kagan, S. (1987). Cooperativeness and Achievement: Interaction of student Widaman, K. cooperativeness with cooperative versus competitive classroom organization. Journal of School Psychology 21, 355-365. 8 113 ERIC U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and improvement (OERI) Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) NOTICE REPRODUCTION BASIS This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release [6........_______ (Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all or classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore, does not require a "Specific Document" Release form. This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission to reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may be reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket"). . (9/92)