209

Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Arguments for Group Work in Computer Learning Environments

Martin VALCKE Department of Education, State University Gent, Henri Dunant- laan 1, B-9000 Gent, Belgium

In this article, theoretical foundations and empirical argu- ments for group work are reviewed. There is already a vast amount of literature in this field; but the relevance of 'group work' in the field of educational computing still remains as a question. Only recently, research has shifted its attention to- wards the interaction processes during group work when using computers. This body of research is still limited; nevertheless, its conclusions are of significance. It reveals the multi-dimen- sional nature of computer learning settings.

In this article, a definition for group work in a computer setting is presented. And already when looking for this defini- tion, it becomes obvious that studying cooperative learning is a very complex domain. The next part of the article gives an overview of empirical findings, sustaining or questioning the relevance of group work in this particular teaching and learn- ing context.

Keywords: Computer learning environment, Group work, Co- operative learning.

Martin Valcke is a researcher who has started to work recently in the field of educational computing. His main focus has been on computer use in primary schools. Besides the development of software and the evaluation of Logo microworlds, he is responsible for several teacher training projects. At the international level he has been in- volved in the organisation of European Summer Universities on educational computing, European Logo projects and the organisation of the Eurologo conferences.

Education & Computing 4 (1988) 209-215 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

0167-9287/89/$3.50 © 1989, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

Introduction

Although the use of computers in educational settings is growing, the average ratio of com- puters/pupils in primary school settings is still limited. The Becker study in the U.S.A. in 1985 stated that the average ratio was about 1 /60 in elementary schools.

In the Flemish educational setting in 1987, this ratio in primary schools is about 1/120. This limited availability of computer resources ques- tions the potential relevance of educational com- puter use. A possible way out of this situation is group work. In this way, pupils can get a more regular access to this learning tool. In much ex- plorative and experimental research, group work is accepted as a sound and acceptable way of setting up computer learning environments. This is a pragmatic, but nonetheless realistic answer to this shortage of learning tools. But, one can question whether group work is- -a l though being a prag- matic solut ion--relevant in terms of sustaining the goal-directedness of learning activities. Or, in other terms, whether group work is really as rele- vant or effective as expected.

There is already a vast amount of literature in this field; but, the relevance of group work in the field of educational computing still remains as a question. Only recently, research has shifted its attention towards interaction processes during group work when using computers. This body of research is still limited; nevertheless, its conclu- sions are of significance. It reveals the multi-di- mensional nature of computer learning settings.

In this article, we focus on group work in computer learning environments from several points of view. But before reviewing theoretical and empirical grounds for 'group work', we pre- sent a preliminary definition for what we under- stand as being group work. In clarifying what we consider to be a correct conceptualisation of group

210 M. Valcke / Group Work in Computer Learning Environments

work, some other aspects/dimensions of the wider teaching and learning context can also be clari- fied.

A Preliminary Definition of Group Work

In the literature, the term 'group work' is only one among many concepts referring to a way of organising teaching and learning: cooperative learning, peer work groups, instructional groups, peer education, small group learning, peer col- laboration, group-investigation approach, etc. In the context of this article, we shall use the concept of 'group work' with the following definition: "Group work implies defining and making ex- plicit the learning problem, the planning and the elaboration of its solution, in a cooperative way. A group consists of pupils of the same grade level. This may guarantee more 'equality' in knowledge and experience and more 'mutuality' in the com- munication pattern. Group work is sustained by impficit and/or explicit teacher interventions."

This definition of group work is very analogous to what Damon and Phelps [8, p. 9] consider as 'Peer Collaboration', to what Stodolsky [21, p. 114] designates as 'Cooperative peer-work groups', and to what Sharan [18, p. 241] calls 'Group-In- vestigation approaches'. But there is one im- portant difference: teacher interventions are not explicitly part of their definitions.

Theoretical Foundations of Group Work

Slavin [19,20] argues that there are two schools of thought concerning cooperative learning and its effects: development-theories and motivational- theories.

The motivational-theories assume that rewards are necessary to get children to interact produc- tively and to produce learning benefits (note the influence of behaviorist approaches: Lewin, Skinner, Deutsch, Atkinson, Skinner and others). Damon and Phelps [8, pp. 15-16] cite empirical facts, calling in question the relevance of rewards. Moreover, they find it remarkable that this type of theory is rather oriented towards explaining learn- ing processes in a narrow range of learning tasks (short term effects). The developmental perspec- tive puts group work at the centre of the individ-

ual development in relation to learning and think- ing. Concepts like 'co-construction' and 'social- cognitive conflict' are used in this context. The developmental perspective is oriented towards ex- plaining: "basic cognitive shifts in children's un- derstanding of new conceptual material" [8, p. 15]. This type of theory is particularily useful for com- puter learning environments; we can, for example, refer to research related to Logo-learning.

More specifically, the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky are advanced in this context. When dis- cussing both these developmental theories below, it will become apparent that, in fact, their theoret- ical foundations for group work are rather re- stricted. Forman [12] also comes to this conclusion when he writes: " ( . . . ) neither Piaget nor Vygot- sky provides us with a fully articulated theory to support assertions about the role of social rela- tions or, more specifically, peer relations in the social construction of knowledge" [12, p. 56]. But both theoretical approaches have been, and are being elaborated by the schools of thought they inspired. This creates a problem in the literature because it is not always clear whether authors, when citing Vygotsky or Piaget, do so explicitly, or are just interpreting them.

Empirical Arguments for Group Work

Only very recently has empirical research in relation to cooperative learning attracted the at- tention of researchers. Some authors have already made well-documented meta-analyses of this re- search domain (see, e.g., [18,19,20,21,23]). The re- search findings are not always consistent and are certainly not easily comparable. The already men- tioned terminological confusion may be responsa- ble for this. But also the type of research and the research design have to be taken into account. One can distinguish three types of research: - E f f e c t i v i t y s tud ies : quantitative research, based

on pretest/post-test design with experimental and control groups.

- D e s c r i p t i v e s tud ies : surveys of the state of the art in relation to group work.

- S t u d i e s o f the in t e rac t ion p roces se s : qualitative research into the dynamics of learning in groups. Most research reports can be classified as effec-

tivity studies, using the pre-test/post-test design.

M. Valvke / Group Work in Computer Learning Environments 211

Too few studies pay attention to the dynamics of the 1earning process in the social interaction. As a consequence, a lot of authors ask for a re-orien- tation in group research (cf., e.g., [14, p. 314], [23, p. 421], [18, pp. 256-257]). So, we hardly find any examples of good research reports. For the con- text of this article and our research projects, the few available examples are of great importance, because they have been set up in computer learn- ing environments (see, e.g., [6,10,11,14,15,22,24]).

In the further discussion of the empirical argu- ments for group work, we try to follow a scheme of Stodolsky [21], in which she outlines the varia- bles influencing the processes and outcomes of group work. Depending on the availability of re- search findings, some categories in this scheme will be richly or poorly documented. We repeat that we have restricted our analysis to empirical research set up in computer learning environ- ments. Besides the categories in the scheme, descriptive research will also be briefly discussed.

Research in Relation to the "History of the Experience" and Preparation of the Group Work Activities

We do not find details, data, conclusions in relation to this-- in our opinion--very important variables in successful group work. The fact is that group work implies several parallel learning processes at different content levels: cognitive learning processes and social-affective processes. The latter are not acquired spontaneously by the pupils in the peer groups.

And it is of no use to tell them to cooperate. The few available research findings suggest that it is necessary to 'structure' the activity in order to attain objectives in specific subject domains, but such data have not been found in relation to social-affective processes. Only very general rec- ommendations or sidelong remarks/conclusions suggest that this aspect of group work remains problematical: - Some authors stress the importance of giving

information about task division or task descrip- tion [21, p. 119].

- Clements [4, p. 23] concludes, when discussing the interrelation between Logo and social devel- opment: " I t is helpful to monitor each pair's activity". This monitoring activity of the teacher may vary from explicitly encouraging cooper-

ation (when pupils want to work individually) to expficitly disapproving competition.

- Azmitia [1, p. 4] stresses the importance of guidance by an adult facilitator to prevent pupils from working in parallel or individually and to counter less successful grouping of pupils.

- Webb [23] and Slavin [19] discuss the role of giving 'rewards'. The results of the studies they present are very

consistent: giving rewards heightens the group productivity. This does not imply a causal interre- lation between the two variables. Rewards can, for example, make pupils more willing to give help to each other, thus making it possible to enhance productivity.

Research in Relation to the Impact of Group Composition

When discussing group working, common sense dictates the expectation that older, more bright and able boys will have a dominant impact on the social interaction. To what degree, is this expecta- tion confirmed by research findings?

Sex

Sex differences in the domain of physics, mathematics and computer use are also widely discussed in the literature. In the context of this article, we cannot review this literature; we restrict our attention to those authors linking sex dif- ferences to group settings in computer learning environments. - A research project of Webb [24] could not

detect differences between boys and girls when working cooperatively. Both groups acquired a comparable programming expertise. But the author does question the representativity of the girls involved in her study.

- Guntermann and Tovar [14] found significant differences in the interaction processes between groups of boys, groups of girls and mixed groups. But these interaction differences were not reflected in differences in achievement (see [14, p. 3131).

- Culley [7] detected differences between girls and boys when researching the differential access to computers during optional computer activities. She stresses the importance of organisation of the computing activities to deal with these differences (see [7, p. 4]).

212 M. Valcke / Group Work in Computer Learning Environments

- Research of Bramel and Azmitia [3], with 6- to 8-year old pupils, reveals that cooperation is enhanced with age.

- Webb [24, p. 1085] states that the factor of age no longer influences the way 11- to 14-year olds interact in group settings.

Expertise--Ability Ability is by far the most researched co-varia-

ble in research about group work. Stodolsky [21, p. 121] carefully concludes that:

"There is some suggestion that ability has its strongest effects in helping groups (peer tutoring)". Cooperative groups may be less affected by ability composition. In a research project of Webb [24], expertise was one of the main co-variables. She discovered that: "abilities ( . . . ) tended not to predict their experience in the group setting" [24, p. 1087].

Webb [23], when summarizing findings from several studies, comes to the conclusion that: "the effects of ability composition on group interaction depend on the mean level of group ability, as well as the range of ability in the group" [23, p. 432]. This suggests that, in group composition, enough attention must be paid to the heterogeneity or homogeneity of the groups. Azmitia [1,2] reveals in this respect that a group of homogeneous less able students does not profit from a cooperative learning setting, and that this contrasts with homogeneous groups of able students or heteroge- neous groups. Azmitia [1] explains this by refer- ring to two parallel problems which the less able pupils have to deal with: "the child must allocate resources not only to the cognitive demands of the task, but also to the social demands of the interac- tion" [1, p. 5]. Later research of Bramel and Azmitia [3] and Azmitia reveals that: "for novices, collaboration produced superior learning and learning was maximized when working with an expert partner" [3, p. 94]. But, for the more able pupils cooperation seems to become less and less relevant: "once a certain level of proficiency is attained, interaction becomes less instrumental for learning ( . . . )" .

Sharan [18] quotes a research report where all ability levels profited from the cooperative setting. A qualitative analysis of the interaction helped to clarify that: "superior achievement ( . . . ) was not merely the product of having the high ability

student provide the less talented children with the correct answer" [18, p. 256].

Webb [24] could, for example, observe that less active pupils, pupils who hardly touched the key- board or interacted with others did not attain a signifanctly different learning level. Trying to ex- plain this, she writes: "Students can learn from what other group members do, as well as from what they say" [24, p. 1086]. Also, Azmitia [1] comes to this kind of conclusion: 'Onlooker be- havior' seemed to be as effective in attaining the learning objectives as 'Joint behavior' during the interaction process [1, p. 4].

Research of Dembo and McAuliffe [9] and Azmitia [1,2] could detect that pupils are aware of differences in ability between themselves in a cer- tain subject area. This awareness does influence the interaction process; but this influence is not negative.

Social class Sharan [18] summarized the results of some

studies in which social class was an independent variable. She could conclude that group work "will yield high-level learning and cognition among lower class and middle class students" [18, p. 256].

Group size In the literature, the ideal size of groups is

estimated to be three. Research data confirming/ questioning this figure are sparse. But research in this area is necessary, for the still problematical computer/pupil ratio has the side-effect that, in some situations, pupils have to cooperate with 3 to 5 other pupils. The question is whether this setting inhibits social interaction?

Guntermann and Tovar [14] compared pupils working individually, in pairs and in small groups of 3 pupils. They could not detect significant differences between these three experimental con- ditions in terms of group dynamics. The authors state that their findings are consistent with the research data of others: working in groups seems to be more effective than working individually.

An already mentioned study of Webb [24, p. 1086] revealed that pupils who hardly touched the keyboard in a group context, did not differ in terms of achievement on post-tests. This suggests that direct keyboard contact is not indispensable and that group size does not have to be adapted to this criterion.

M. Valcke / Group Work in Computer Learning Environments 213

Research of the Internal Dynamics of Group Work

This research helps to reveal the mechanisms which are responsible for success or failure of group work. Again, the existing research body is extensive; therefore, we restrict our analysis to research focusing on group work in computer learning environments.

Webb [23,24,25] set up several research projects to make explicit the impact of specific group dynamic processes on achievement. She could de- tect five interaction variables that could affect achievement: receiving explanations in response to errors (positively related); receiving explanations in response to questions (negatively related); re- ceiving no explanation after an error (negatively related); receiving no response after a question (negatively related); and time at the keyboard (positively related) [24, p. 1076]. Later research helped here to clarify, in more detail, the impor- tance of asking questions and getting specific feedback.

Fletcher [11] compared children working indi- vidually with children working in groups on a problem solving task. Children in a group setting performed better than the individuals. As a covari- able, he took into account the degree into which pupils verbalised their ideas, questions, solutions, etc.: "having to verbalise reasons for decisions, improved decisions making by an average of eight decisions per trial" [11, p. 259]. But Fletcher makes the remark tha t ' verbalising' cannot alone account for the differences between the two learning situa- tions.

Hawkins, Homolsky and Heide [15, p. 5] re- searched the fact that children working cooper- atively in a Logo-setting, reached a higher degree of cooperation than in other classroom settings. For the context of this article, their research is important because the impact of the computer as a tool was taken into account. Three clusters of factors were made explicit, accounting for the difference between the cooperative learning situa- tions (computer versus other): (a) the technology: because the work of the pupils appeared on the screen, their work was very 'public'; (b) expertise: because the teacher was not in control of the new subject area, the usual and familiar classroom organisation consisting of one adult expert to many novices, was reversed, and (c) the status of corn-

puter work: nobody was quite sure that computers were legitimate work.

Clements and Nastasi [6] could draw the con- clusion that a lot of aspects in cooperative behav- ior had "cognitive underpinnings: conflict resolu- tion, rule determination and self-directed work" [6, p. 87]. These aspects could guarantee more successful problem solving behavior. Moreover, the authors could observe a large degree of 'metacognitive functioning' (see below). In their study, they compared groups of pupils working in CAI- and Logo-environments. Working with Logo seemed to reflect the above-mentioned character- istics to a higher and significant extent.

Group Work and Achievement

Group work and the acquisition of subject-matter In a long-term study of Damon and Phelps [8],

pupils better attained the objectives in relation to mathematics, physics and space orientation. Of importance is the fact that the learning gains were restricted to certain types of objectives, to wit those objectives that: "require new insights, con- ceptual shifts and the development of deep knowl- edge structures" [8, p. 14] and this contrasts with objectives in the domain of reproduction skills. These conclusions follow the findings of Sharan [18, p. 265].

Webb [25] discusses the results of 17 studies about group work and mathematics learning. All studies revealed significant learning gains in the group situations. But she also mentions research flaws which could be responsible for the fact that one can be brought to "overestimate or under- estimate the true relationships between behavior and achievement" [25, p. 24]. A study of Forman [12, p. 55] revealed that pupils working with peers can construct geometry concepts cooperatively.

Pea [17, p. 15] refers to the work of Schoenfeld, Pettito and Noddings to illustrate the relevance of group work for the acquisition of mathematical objectives.

Group work and the acquisition of programming skills

In Mindstorms, Papert strongly defends 'par- ticipatory learning'. It would sustain the program- ming activity, thus helping to attain certain meta- cognitive skills (for example, self-referential dis- cussion) or concepts. Recently, research reports

214 M. Valcke / Group Work in Computer Learning Environments

confirm the positive impact of group work on the acquisition of programming skills (see, e.g., [4,13,15]). But, in most of these research reports, the explicit link between group work and better achievement is not put forward. Webb [25, pp. 23-24], in two studies, brings more empirical evi- dence to sustain the link between group work and programming. She could even detect differences in the social interaction in this setting and other cooperative learning contexts: "The relationships between group process variables and computer programming outcomes in this study were differ- ent from those in previous studies of classroom learning ( . . . ) " [24, p. 1084]. It is also remarkable that--in the same studies--she could indicate that the effects on programming ability differed according to the 'level of knowledge of computer programming', since programming is not a unitary phenomenon. Group work seemed to be relevant for attaining 'knowledge of basic commands, syn- tax and generating logical relations programs'.

Group work and metacognition Already in Mindstorms, Papert explicitly puts

forward the link between group work and meta- cognitive skills: "Thinking about thinking turns the child into an epistomologist ( . . . )" .

Research in relation to metacognition and group work is still very sparse; even more sparse are studies which research this link in computer learn- ing environments. Clements and Nastasi [6, p. 87] summarize the findings of the three available stud- ies in this domain [4,5,10]. In this research, they state that pupils working in a cooperative setting: " ( . . . ) exhibit a significantly higher frequency of behaviors indicative of metacognitive functioning" [6, p. 871.

Group work and social-affective objectives Sharan [18] summarizes her own research and

concludes: " ( . . . ) pupils from small-group clas- srooms were more cooperative and altruistic, and much less competitive and selfish ( . . . ) " [18, p. 251]. Also important is the fact that she could observe transfer of the acquired attitudes towards other social learning contexts. She cites other stud- ies that confirm the latter observation (for exam- ple, the Johnson studies).

Clements [4] gives an overview of ten studies reporting that pupils in a Logo-environment, based

on group work: "were more likely to interact with peers" [4, p. 22]. This confirms the earlier research of Hawkins, Homolsky and Heide [15] who revealed that learning in a cooperative setting leads to more interaction and also to more cooper- ative behavior. But they also observed a change in attitude of the pupils towards group work when a certain level of expertise was reached: "But as the year progressed, we found a greater occurrence of individuals working alone at the computers in a very focused way" [15, p. 4].

Research of Krasnor en Mitterer [16] enlight- ens, from a special point of view, the interrelation between group work and social interaction. Three different experimental conditions were set up: groups learning Logo, groups learning BASIC and groups following a special 'Problem Solving pro- gramme'. The interactions in the three settings seemed to differ significantly. The highest degree of interaction was observed in the BAsic-groups, immediately followed by the Logo-groups. It is interesting to note that the research also took into account the interaction with the teacher. This in- teraction seems to be highest in the Logo-groups. The three conditions did not produce significant differences in learning gains [16, p. 186].

References

[1] M. Azmitia, "Expertise as a moderator of social influence on children's cognition", Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of th¢ Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore, MA, 1987.

[2] M. Azmitia, "Factors that mediate contributions of peer interaction to problem solving", Paper presented at the APA Convention, Washington, D.C., 1986.

[3] H. Bramel and M. Azmitia, "The influence of age, exper- tise, and task difficulty on children's patterns of col- laboration during problem solving", Paper presented at the Conference on Human Development, Charleston, 1988.

[4] D. Clements, 'Testitudinal testimony--Research on Logo and social development", Logo Exchange 5 (3) (1986) 22-24.

[5] D. Clements and D. Gullo, "Effects of computer pro- gramming on young children's cognition", Journal of Edu- cational Psychology 78 (4) (1986) 309-318.

[6] D. Clements and B. Nastasi, "Social and cognitive inter- actions in educational computer environments", American Educational Research Journal 25 (1) (1988) 87-106.

[7] L. Culley, "Girls, boys and computers", Educational Stud- ies 14 (1) (1988) 3-8.

[8] W. Damon and E. Phelps, "Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education", International Journal of Educational Research 13 (1) (1989) 9-19.

M. Valcke / Group Work in Computer Learning Environments 215

[9] M. Dembo and T. McAuliffe, "Effects of perceived ability and grade status on social interaction and influence in cooperative groups", Journal of Educational Psychology 79 (94) (1987) 415-423.

[10] C. Emihovich and G. Miller, "Learning Logo: The social context of cognition", Journal for Curriculum Studies 20 (1) (1988) 57-70.

[11] B. Fletcher, "Group and individual learning of junior school children on a microcomputer-based task: Social or cognitive facilitation", Educational Review 37 (3) (1985) 251-261.

[12] E. Forman, "The role of peer interaction in the social construction of mathematical knowledge", International Journal of Educational Research 13 (1) (1989) 55-70.

[13] J.K. Gallini, "A comparison of the effects of Logo and a CAI learning environment on skills acquisition", Journal of Educational Computing Research 3 (4) (1987) 461-477.

[14] E. Gunterman and M. Tovar, "Collaborative problem- soling with Logo: Effects of group size and group com- position", Journal for Educational Computing Research 3 (3) (1987) 313-333.

[15] J. Hawkins, M. Homolsky and P. Heide, "Paired problem solving in a computer context", Technical Report No. 33, Bank Street College of Education, New York, 1984.

[16] LR. Krasnor and J.D. Mitterer, "Logo and the develop- ment of general problem-solving skills", The Alberta Jour- nal of Educational Research 30 (2) (1984) 133-144.

[17] R.D. Pea, "Cognitive technologies for mathematics educa-

tion", Technical Report No. 37, Bank Street College of Education, New York, 1986.

[18] S. Sharan, "Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes and ethnic relations", Review of Educational Research 50 (2) (1980) 241-271.

[19] R.E. Slavin, "Cooperative learning: Where behavioral and humanistic approaches to classroom motivation meet", The Elementary School Journal 88 (1987) 29-37.

[20] R.E. Slavin, "Developmental and motivational per- spectives on cooperative learning: A reconciliation", ChiM Development 58 (1987) 1161-1167.

[21] S. Stodolsky, "Frameworks for studying instructional processes in peer work-groups", in: L. Peterson, M. Wilkinson and M. Hallihan, eds., The Social Context of Instruction (Academic Press, New York, 1984) 107-124.

[22] M. Valcke, "Learning to solve problems with Logo--The necessity of developmental models for the learning pro- cess--An empiric test", Scientia Paedagogica Experi- mentalis 26 (1) (1989) to appear.

[23] N. Webb, "Student interaction and learning in small groups", Review of Educational Research 52 (3) (1982) 421-445.

[24] N. Webb, "Microcomputer learning in small groups: Cog- nitive requirements and group processes", Journal of Edu- cational Psychology 76 (6) (1984) 1076-1088.

[25] N. Webb, "Peer interaction and learning in small groups", International Research 13 (1) (1989) 21-40.