Cooperative learning and computer-based instruction

Hooper, Simon

doi:10.1007/bf02296840

Cited by 110 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Learning is clearly about a lot more than collaboration, but on the other hand it is evident upon a moments reflection that peer interaction is involved in a very large number of learning experiences throughout one's life, and the Computer Supported Cooperative Learning (CSCL) community has built strongly upon this concept for many years (Hiltz, 1994;Hooper, 1992). Our challenge is to harness the 'best of breed' collaboration capabilities that we have created within the CoAKTinG project, and understand the way these can be leveraged for greatest e-learning effectiveness.…”

Section: Applicability To E-learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

COLLABORATION IN THE SEMANTIC GRID: A BASIS FOR e-LEARNING

Page

Michaelides

Shum

et al. 2005

Applied Artificial Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The CoAKTinG project aims to advance the state of the art in collaborative mediated spaces for the Semantic Grid. This paper presents an overview of the hypertext and knowledge based tools which have been deployed to augment existing collaborative environments, and the ontology which is used to exchange structure, promote enhanced process tracking, and aid navigation of resources before, after, and while a collaboration occurs. While the primary focus of the project has been supporting e-Science, this paper also explores the similarities and application of CoAKTinG technologies as part of a human-centred design approach to e-Learning.

show abstract

Section: Applicability To E-learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

COLLABORATION IN THE SEMANTIC GRID: A BASIS FOR e-LEARNING

Page

Michaelides

Shum

et al. 2005

Applied Artificial Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The concentration on the individual learner within the cognitive flexibility theory literature may reflect the initial empirical evaluation of cognitive flexibility theory, or the assumption that advanced learners (the stage of learning hypothesized to benefit from CFT-based instruction) learn best individually, or perhaps it is based on the belief that computers represent the ideal medium to individualize instruction. Whatever the reason, the reality is that students often work in small groups at computers (Hooper, 1992).…”

Section: Individual Student Focusmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Embedded Generative Learning Strategies and Collaboration on Knowledge Acquisition in a Cognitive Flexibility-Based Computer Learning Environment

Higgs¹,

.²

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching oiisting data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, John Robert Higgs, Jr. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)University of Colorado at Denver This study used a 2 X 2 experimental design. The two independent variables were program version and method of instruction. Two qualitatively different computer programs were used: a base program developed according to cognitive flexibility theory (CFT) and a generative program containing embedded generative learning strategies (explanation and summary cues). Students completed these programs either individually or collaboratively.One hundred and thirty-two second-year medical students participated in the study. The two treatment variables were randomly assigned to the students. Students This research suggests that advanced learners did not benefit equally from the two computer programs. Learners using the base computer program performed significantly better than students using the generative version on the posttest. Also, although the students felt there was an advantage to working with a peer, no significant advantage materialized. Recommendations for future research based on these findings are presented.This abstract accurately reflects the content of the candidate's thesis. I recommend its publication. R. Scott Grabing^r

show abstract

“…It is also suggested that higher-ability students acquire increased motivation and improved self-confidence. However, other studies have shown a negative or no impact on higher-ability students when paired in heterogeneous dyads (Hooper, 1992;Hooper & Hannafin, 1991;Sherman & Klein, 1995). Other studies suggest that homogeneous grouping may be the best when working collaboratively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research also provides support for the use of collaborative learning strategies when students use computer-based instruction (CBI) (Cavilier & Klein, 1998;Dalton, Hannafin, & Hooper, 1989;Klein & Doran, 1999;Hooper, 1992;Hooper & Hannafin, 1991;Sherman & Klein, 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Swing and Peterson (1982) found that students of average ability perform better in homogeneous groups than in heterogeneous groups. Hooper andHannafin (1988, 1991) found that heterogeneous groupings have a negative impact on the achievement of higher-ability students. This is consistent with the findings of Sherman and Klein (1995) in which the confidence of higher-ability students was negatively affected by heterogeneous grouping.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tool use in open learning environments: In search of learner-related determinants

Clarebout

Elen

2008

Learning Environ Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionBeliefs about teaching and learning play an important role in transforming classrooms through the use of technology (Ertmer, 1999(Ertmer, , 2005. Additionally, attitudes toward technology can influence teachers' technology uses (Myers & Halpin, 2002;Yildirim, 2000). In order to prepare preservice teachers to use technology effectively, it is necessary to examine their beliefs about learning and teaching and their attitudes toward technology. Teacher educators must act as role models for preservice teachers and prepare them to use technology in their future professional practices. In this paper we report the results of a study that examined teacher educators' beliefs and technology uses in relation to preservice teachers' beliefs and technology attitudes. Ertmer (1999) described two types of barriers to technology integration: first-order barriers and secondorder barriers. First-order barriers are extrinsic to teachers and include lack of access to hardware and software, time, and necessary support. Second-order barriers are intrinsic to teachers and include teachers' belief systems about teaching and learning, as well as their familiar teaching practices, which can affect meaningful technology integration. Since second-order barriers are more ingrained and personal than first-order barriers, they may be harder to overcome. Current literature Niederhauser & Stoddart, 2001; Norm, Grabinger & Duffield, 1999) indicated that teachers who had more constructivist or student-centered beliefs tended to use technology and engage the students in more technology-supported student-centered learning activities, while those who had more traditional or teacher-centered beliefs tended to use less technology and had students use technology to reinforce skills.Some researchers (Cifuentes, 1997;Daniel, 1996; Friel & Carboni, 2000; Hart, 2002) suggested that participation in teacher education programs could influence preservice teachers' beliefs. In teacher education courses, teacher educators create learning environments through specific teaching strategies that allow preservice teachers to experience models of teaching and learning that they might use in their future teaching. Supporting the strategies that teacher educators employ are their underlying beliefs about teaching and learning (Pajares, 1992). Since we may be able to predict teacher educators' teaching practices from their beliefs, and their practices are likely to influence preservice teachers' beliefs, it may be possible to predict preservice teachers' beliefs from teacher educators' beliefs. Thus, one of the research interests in this study was the relationship between teacher educators' beliefs and preservice teachers' beliefs.Besides beliefs, attitudes are thought to serve as predictors of behaviors (Richardson, 2003). Applied to technology use, attitudes toward technology are expected to predict one's uses of technology. According to Aiken (1980), attitudes can be "learned directly by observing the activities of people who are perceived as signific...

show abstract

Cooperative learning and computer-based instruction

Cited by 110 publications

References 54 publications

COLLABORATION IN THE SEMANTIC GRID: A BASIS FOR e-LEARNING

COLLABORATION IN THE SEMANTIC GRID: A BASIS FOR e-LEARNING

The Effects of Embedded Generative Learning Strategies and Collaboration on Knowledge Acquisition in a Cognitive Flexibility-Based Computer Learning Environment

Tool use in open learning environments: In search of learner-related determinants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About